Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Qualifiers in children’s stories
An investigation of the development of the use of qualifiers in written texts of
elementary school children in grade s 3 to 6.
Joey Ceglarek
ANR: 552381
Master’s thesis
Communication and Information Sciences
Specialization business communication and digital media
Tilburg school of humanities
Tilburg University, Tilburg
Supervisor: Dr. A. Vermeer
Second Reader: Dr. M. Postma
December 2014
1
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Abstract
In primary school, children are taught how to write. Next to technical aspects of writing,
children learn how to write a story. When written texts are produced by children, a choice is
made in the description of the elements in the text. When a written text contains a lot of
details, it is perceived to be a more attractive text in comparison to a text with few details (for
example een bal [a ball] versus een mooie bal met gouden stippen [a beautiful ball with
golden dots]).This thesis considers how primary-school children from grades 3, 4, 5 and 6
describe persons, objects and actions. How these elements are described, with the help of
qualifiers is investigated by analyzing the writing tasks of 320 children. Different kinds of
qualifiers are considered: the use of names, intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs, details, sizes,
onomatopoeia and prices. The following research question was used to investigate this case:
What is the development of the use of qualifiers in written texts of elementary school
children, and what are the differences between boys and girls and L1- and L2-students in
grades 3 to 6? The outcomes of the analyzes showed that there is a development in the use
of names, intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs, details and sizes in the description of persons,
objects and actions in the written texts of elementary school children. This development is
due to the fact that the written texts of elementary school children become longer and exhibit
more lexical variance as the students progress to a higher grade. L1-students use more
names, adjectives/adverbs and prices in the description of persons, objects and actions than
L2-students. This is due to the fact that L1-students have a better-developed vocabulary in
comparison to L2-students. Previous research suggests that there is no clear outcome on the
differences between boys and girls. However, this study shows that there is a clear
difference between boys and girls: girls use more adjectives/adverbs and names in the
description of persons, objects and actions than boys.
2
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Acknowledgements
This is it. I have been a student for 20 years and I can see the finish-line from here. It has not
always been easy, but dedication, 20 years of hard work and ambition brought me to where I
am standing today. This thesis stands symbol for the end of my career as a student, but also
for the start of my future career.
While I am writing this (final) part of my thesis, I am realizing that in 15 minutes, I will
put the final dot at the end of a sentence, which means that it is over. It is time to start my
career as a professional. With limited time left, it is time to thank all the persons who
supported me throughout my career as a student.
First and foremost I would like to thank Dr. Anne Vermeer. I could not have wished for
a better mentor. While drinking a cup of coffee, Mister Vermeer gave me fair and good
feedback which was extremely helpful and really helped me during the process of writing this
thesis.
Secondly, I would like to thank the persons who have been there during my time as a
student; my parents and my brothers. You saw me working hard day and night, brought me
cups of coffee in time of need and endured me in my moments of unbearable behavior. I
could not have done this without your support and love. Lastly, I would like to thank my
partner, my fiancé. I know, at times, you thought I was married to my laptop. Do not worry; I
will ignore him from this moment on.
3
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table of contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 3
Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 8
2.1 The development of writing skills of primary-school children .......................................... 8
2.2 Writing skills versus oral proficiency ................................................................................ 9
2.3 Factors related to the development of writing skills........................................................... 10
2.3.1 Gender......................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.2 L1- and L2- students ................................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 Grade........................................................................................................................... 12
3.
Method .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Material ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Respondents .................................................................................................................. 13
3.3 Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.4 Coding of qualifiers ........................................................................................................ 15
4.
Results .............................................................................................................................. 20
4.1 Types and Tokens.......................................................................................................... 20
4.2Names attached to persons ............................................................................................ 22
4.3 Intensifiers attached to persons, objects and actions ................................................... 24
4.4 Adjectives/adverbs attached to persons, objects and actions. ..................................... 28
4.5 Details attached to persons, objects and actions .......................................................... 29
4.6 Prices attached to objects .............................................................................................. 31
4.7 Sizes attached to objects ............................................................................................... 32
4.8 Onomatopoeia attached to actions ................................................................................ 34
4.9 correlations ..................................................................................................................... 35
5.
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 36
5.1 Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 38
4
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
5.2 suggestions for further research .................................................................................... 40
References ............................................................................................................................... 42
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 45
Appendix 1: writing task 1 .................................................................................................... 45
Appendix 2: writing task 2 .................................................................................................... 46
Appendix 3: table intensifiers attached to object ................................................................. 47
Appendix 4: table intensifiers attached to actions ............................................................... 48
5
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
1. Introduction
When a story is written, there are numerous ways to describe a certain object: a big castle, a
huge castle, a green castle, a scary castle and an impressive castle. In this case, the author
attaches an additional value to the substantive: a qualifier (Martin & White, 2003). Whereas
some people like to detail their utterances, others keep it simpler: the slimy frog versus the
frog. When we are considering this phenomenon, we are talking about language
intensification (Martin & White, 2003). This intensification starts at a young age as can be
seen in the following story, written by a student from grade 4. The story is based on a
textless cartoon which is part of a language test by Verhoeven and Vermeer (1993). (See
appendix 1).
1. Dutch: Piet is jarig vandaag hij krijgt van zijn moeder een rond cadeautje. Piet
denkt wat kan daar nou in zitten. Hij maakt het open er zit een bal in roept Piet. Het is een
mooie ronde bal met witte stippen. Als Piet zijn taart op heeft dan rend hij naar buiten met de
bal. Zijn zusje vraad of zij ook met de bal. Ze koppen de bal over en gooien de bal over. Dat
was leuk. Opeen rolt de bal de straal op. Piet’s zusje wou de bal nog tegen houden maar het
was te laat. De bal schoot de straat op en lag onder de auto. Pim pakte de ballon die kapot
was. Hij begon te huilen. Ze liepen naar Pim’s moeder. Pim’s moeder zei huil maar niet.
Morgen krijg je een ander bal. De volgende dag kreeg Piet precies dezelfde bal.
English:
[It is Piet’s birthday today. He gets a round gift from his mother. Piet is wondering what
the present can be. He opens the present. “There is a ball inside”, shouts Piet. It is a
beautiful round ball with white dots. When Piet finishes his cake he runs outside with the ball.
His little sister asks whether she may also play with the ball. They head the ball and pass the
ball to each other. That was fun. Suddenly the ball ends up on the street and under a car.
Pim grabs the balloon which was broken. He started crying. They walked to Pim’s mother.
Pim’s mother said, “don’t you cry, you will get another ball tomorrow”. Piet got the same ball
the next day.] (4.1.37452)
Considering the story above, several interesting questions can be raised: how is the
exact same cartoon interpreted by students from the same grade? Is there a difference
between higher and lower grades? What are the differences per grade? Is there a difference
between boys and girls? Does bilingualism have an effect on language intensification? These
questions underpin the societal and scientific relevance of this investigation. It is unknown
what primary-school children are capable of when their writing-skills and their use of
qualifiers are considered; there is a knowledge-gap. It is useful to investigate this matter
since it provides new insights in how stylistic elements are taught in primary schools.
The interpretation of the cartoon is different per student: some students describe the
cartoon literally, whereas other students describe everything in detail. As can be seen from
6
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
the story above, this author first chose to describe the male child in the cartoon as Piet and
later as Pim. The ball was not just described as a ball, but as a beautiful round ball with white
dots. The decisions made by the author determine how the story takes shape.
This extra value that is attached to the substantive is called a qualifier; it intensifies the
substantive. In the case of this research, a qualifier enables a writer to describe a substantive
in various ways; the ball is not just a ball, it is a beautiful red ball with white dots.
From the material of the two writing tasks that are part of the TAK-B (which is a language
test that will be explained more in depth later in this thesis), a total of 640 stories written by
320 primary-school students from the grades 3, 4, 5 and 6 are analyzed to investigate the
development of the use of qualifiers. The qualifiers analyzed in this research are the
qualifiers assigned to persons, actions and objects. Furthermore, it is determined whether
this development differs between girls and boys and whether this development differs
between native speakers and second-language speakers (these are referred to as L1 and L2
speakers). Grade, gender and L1- and L2-students are included in this investigation. The
development of the use of qualifiers is measured by analyzing the use of qualifiers among
the grades: the development of the use of qualifiers can be measured by comparing the use
of qualifiers per grade. Gender is included in this investigation due to the fact that several
differences in writing skills are reported between boys and girls. L1- and L2-students are
included since L2-students have a smaller vocabulary than L1-students. Investigating this
difference enables us to see whether the use of qualifiers is even more dependent on
vocabulary than thought beforehand. As a part of the analysis, the length of the texts
(tokens) and the variance in vocabulary are analyzed: since texts get longer and more
lexically varied as the children progress to a higher grade, it can be expected that as the
texts get longer and have more lexical variance, more qualifiers are used.
To investigate the development of the use qualifiers the following research question is
formulated: What is the development of the use of qualifiers in written texts of elementary
school children, and what are the differences between boys and girls and L1- and L2students in grades 3 to 6?
In order to answer the research question, this thesis first provides a theoretical framework
which gives an overview of how writing skills are acquired, and how these writing skills
develop among primary-school children. Secondly, previous research on writing skills among
boys and girls, and L1 and L2 students is discussed. Thirdly, there is the method section
which describes the procedure of this research. This section is followed by the most
important results of this research. Finally, there is a section that includes the conclusion,
discussion and suggestions for further research.
7
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
2. Theoretical Framework
This theoretical framework first introduces the concept of writing skills and how writing skills
develop among primary-school children. Since the use of qualifiers is an expression of good
and precise writing, it is interesting to investigate what primary-school children are capable of
in their writing skills. Later, in paragraph 2.2, the factors related to the development of writing
skills (gender, L1 and L2 students and grade) are discussed.
2.1 The development of writing skills of primary-school children
Writing skills consist of five components: coding of language, grammar skills, text skills,
strategic skills and functional skills (Verhoeven, 1992). Upon considering those components
more closely, it can be seen that the first component, coding of language, is a skill that
concerns the way in which a person codes language. The second component, grammar
skills, has to do with vocabulary and syntax: i.e. which words are used and how they are
conjugated. The third component, text skills, refers to the construction of texts. The fourth
component, strategic skills, denotes the ability to successfully achieve a communicative aim.
An example of a communicative aim is to inform people. The fifth component, functional
skills, is about the ability to adapt language to certain situations: for example, formal versus
informal situations. These five components fit in at different phases in the development of
writing skills. These phases will be outlined in the next paragraph.
Learning how to write is a process that can be divided into three phases: the
preparation-phase, the consolidation-phase, and the differentiation-phase (Krol, 1992). The
development of writing skills starts with the preparation-phase. This phase is focused on the
shape of letters and words (Krol, 1992). Thus, this phase is the development of the coding
skills. Evidently, this phase can be linked to the acquisition of writing skills. However,
Verhoeven (1994) states that children produce their own written texts prior to this phase by
writing their own names at the top of the page of their drawings, for example.
We speak of the second phase, the consolidation-phase, when the process of
shaping letters becomes automatic (Krol, 1992). Children reach this phase at the age of 7 or
8. Since the shaping of sounds and letters no longer requires all the attention, a higher focus
is put on spelling and grammar. According to Gillis and Schaerlaekens (2000), it is at this
point in the development that children start to identify with their readers and start to develop
a sense of what is known about a story and what is not. This can be seen in the description
of a character in a story. Since the character in the story is not known by its readers, the
readers do not know who is referred to with de man [the man] or de meneer [the gentleman].
The fact that children become aware of what is known about a story and what is not indicates
that the strategic language skills also develop in the consolidation-phase.
8
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
The last phase mentioned by Krol (1992) is the differentiation-phase: written texts will
take on a different shape in comparison to spoken language. In this phase, the biggest
development will be in the area of text skills and functional skills. Moreover, strategic skills
will develop even further. The development of writing skills will not just stop, however; it will
continue during secondary school, and into the adult lives of the children (Crystal, 2005).
Preparation-phase
Coding skills
Consolidation-phase
Differentiation-phase
Functional skills
Strategical
skills
Grammar skills
Text skills
Figure 1: the development of writing skills together with the components.
2.2 Writing skills versus oral proficiency
When we consider both the writing skills and the oral proficiency of children, it can be stated
that the oral proficiency is better developed in comparison to the writing skills. This difference
will exist until the age of 12 (Gillis & Schaerlaekens, 2000). Looking closer at this difference,
it reveals that 8-year olds do not possess the skills required to write good summaries or to
give a written description of an image. Sijtstra (1992) found that 8-year olds base their written
stories on spoken language. De Haan (1994) found that many elements of spoken
summaries get lost in the written texts of 10- and 11-year old students. Relating this back to
this thesis, it can be expected that students from grade 3 use fewer written descriptions than
students from grade 6.
The focus of this thesis is on how elementary school children reproduce a series of
images in the shape of a written text. The written reproductions will be analyzed in order to
determine the development of a specific element in the writing skills of primary-school
children: namely, qualifiers. To write a coherent story based on a series of images, a reader
must understand the coherence of the images. Haliday and Hasan (1976) distinguish two
aspects of coherence: cohesion (the cohesion in shape, for example conjunctions) and
coherence (the coherence of elements of meaning in a text). Van den Assem (2010) found
that once children grow older, they will use more connectives to structure their stories. The
focus of this research will be on cohesion in meaning: the way in which names, intensifiers,
adjectives/adverbs and details are attached to objects, persons and actions to convey a
certain message. What kind of intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs and details are used will be
9
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
analyzed in this thesis. The operationalization of the persons, objects and verbs can be
found in chapter 3.4 of this thesis.
2.3 Factors related to the development of writing skills
2.3.1 Gender
Gender as an indicator for the development of the vocabulary of children has been studied
thoroughly. This section will outline the different findings on the writing skills of boys and
girls.
It is suggested by Coates (2004) that stories produced by girls have more cohesion
in comparison to stories produced by boys. Bornstein, Hahn and Haynes (2005) assert that
the vocabulary of two-year-old girls develops faster than the vocabulary of two-year- old
boys. Vermeer (2011) adds that both the verbal and the syntactic skills of young girls are
more developed than the verbal and syntactic skills of the boys. Bouchard, Trudeau, Sutton,
Boudreault and Deneault (2009) found this difference as well. However, Bouchard et al.
(2009) contend that boys catch up at the age of 30 months, whereas the girls have a faster
development of the vocabulary until the age of 27 months.
Vermeer and Van den Assem (2012) found that girls write significantly more lexically
diverse texts. This view is supported by how often children read; Mol and Bus (2011) argue
that children who read more often have a higher development of vocabulary in comparison to
children who do not read that often. Boekenvak (2012) adds that girls are more likely to read
books in their spare time. Jointly, these arguments suggest that girls are more likely to have
a better-developed vocabulary due to the fact that they read more books.
Looking further at the writing skills, Verhoeven and Vermeer (1996) argue that girls
write longer stories which are formulated more precisely. Additionally, the stories of the girls
are more extensive and more detailed in comparison to the stories of the boys. Verhoeven
and Vermeer (1996) found that the use of size in the description of the cartoons is more
common among boys: het allergrootste ijsje [the biggest ice cream]. Girls, on the other hand,
use more flavors in the description of the images of the cartoon, for example: een ijsje met
aardbeiensmaak [a strawberry flavored ice cream] (Van Oostendorp, 1994, p. 23).
Additionally, Verhoeven and Vermeer (1996) mention that girls use a higher variety of
adjectives/adverbs (for example mooi, blij, dom [beautiful, happy, dumb]). As for the use of
intensifiers, no studies are known that mention the difference between girls and boys in the
use of intensifiers (for example heel, erg, super [really, very, super]. As for the use of
onomatopoeia (for example BOEM [BOOM]); there appears to be no difference between
boys and girls (Van den Assem, 2010; Van Bochove, 2014).
Even though the difference in language skills between boys and girls has been
studied thoroughly, there is no clear answer to the question whether boys or girls have better
10
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
skills. Whereas several studies concluded that girls have better language skills, other studies
concluded that there are almost or no differences between boys and girls (Morisset, Barnard
& Booth, 1995; Vermeer, 2002). Verhoeven and Vermeer (1996) found that there were some
minor differences between girls and boys; girls obtained higher scores on the writing task. In
this writing task, a series of images was presented to the children. The children were asked
to interpret these images by writing a story according to the images. The results showed that
girls described the images more accurately. Boys, on the other hand, described the images
more as a comic strip with text balloons. The finding that girls describe the images more
accurately is supported by Clarke-Stewart (1973) who states that girls have a betterdeveloped vocabulary compared to the vocabulary of boys; a better-developed vocabulary
results in a more accurately described story.
From these findings, it can be seen that there is no clear outcome for the differences
between boys and girls in their writing skills. The investigations on differences in writing skills
between boys and girls considered different phenomena. Additionally, these investigations
consider different age-categories and some investigations had a rather small sample. This
thesis provides a precise overview of how qualifiers are used in grades 3 to 6 and among
boys and girls, and L1- and L2-students.
2.3.2 L1- and L2- students
As can be seen from the previous section, there appear to be different findings for the
differences between boys and girls. The differences between L1- and L2-students are more
explicit. Since L2-students have a smaller vocabulary than L1-students, it is interesting to see
how the use of qualifiers is even more connected to the vocabulary of children than thought
beforehand. Verhoeven and Vermeer (2006) claim that children who start the acquisition of
the Dutch language at a later age have worse language skills compared to L1- students.
Taking this into account, it is likely that this difference can also be seen in the writing skills of
L1- and L2-students.
Research by Heesters (2000) focused on the differences between L1- and L2students (students with Dutch and Turkish as mother tongue, respectively) in the structure of
their stories. In this study, a group of children in the age category of 9 to 13 years old was
asked to tell a story based on a number of images. Subsequently, the same children were
asked to tell a personal story. The main conclusions of this study were L1-students obtain
higher scores than L2-students once they were tested on the use of references. Linking this
finding to this thesis, it suggests that L1-students write more structured stories and that they
use more references in written texts.
11
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Looking further at the difference between L1- and L2-students, Verhallen (1994) and
Verhoeven and Vermeer (2006) suggest that the Dutch vocabulary of L2-students is less
developed in comparison to the vocabulary of L1-students. Additionally, Kuiken and Vermeer
(2013) mention that the Dutch vocabulary of L1-students develops much faster in
comparison to the Dutch vocabulary of L2-students. This difference in the Dutch vocabulary
will still exist by the time the students enter secondary school; L2-students will have a Dutch
vocabulary of approximately 10.000 words, whereas L1-students have a Dutch vocabulary of
approximately 15.000 words (Verhoeven, 1993). Considering these findings, it is likely that
the differences can be seen in the types (the variance of words in the texts) and tokens (the
length of the texts); L1-students will have a higher variance of words in the texts and the
texts will be longer.
Let us now take a closer look at the Dutch vocabulary of L1- and L2-students. Kuiken
and Vermeer (2013) state that the number of words learned by L1-students is higher than the
number of words learned by L2-students. During the first years of the primary school, L1students learn approximately 700 (750 according to Van de Guchte and Vermeer (2004))
Dutch words in a year, whereas L2-students learn approximately 500 Dutch words
(Schrooten & Vermeer, 1994). Thus, the use of intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs and details
attached to persons, objects or verbs while describing a cartoon is likely to differ between L1and L2-students.
2.3.3 Grade
The previous section mentioned the differences between L1- and L2-students. This section
will consider the differences among the grades. By looking at the differences per grade, the
development of the use of qualifiers can be measured. Most of the empirical studies focused
on the connection between the development of vocabulary and the age of toddlers, preschoolers and students (Gillis & Schaerlaekens, 2000). The studies of Verhoeven and
Vermeer (1993) and Poppe (2011), on the other hand, focus on the older students in primary
school: grades 3 to 6. It was concluded that students from primary school have a significantly
higher variety of words every year. In light of these conclusions it can be assumed that the
use of names, intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs and details will be more varied and will be
used more frequently in higher grades.
It is stated by Van de Guchte and Vermeer (2004) that there is a difference in
vocabulary between boys and girls as they grow older: young children in the age category of
2 to 5 years learn approximately 1000 words a year. From the age of 8 to 9 years on, 3000
words are learned each year. Additionally, it was found by Van den Assem (2010) that the
written stories of primary-school children get longer as the students grow older. This growth
can be found in the use of tokens: the length of texts. Furthermore, it was found that older
12
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
students have a higher variety in their usage of words in comparison to younger students.
This was also found by CITO (2004): texts written by students from grade 6 are longer
compared to texts written by students from grade 3.
Koolen (2013) found that 9-year olds and 10-year olds prefer to describe specified
objects when describing their observations (for example de rode bal [the red ball] instead of
de bal [the ball]). CITO (2004) studied the writing skills of students in grade 3, 4, 5 and 6, and
concluded that the students from higher grades used longer sentence constructions in
comparison to the lower grades. The sentences produced by the students from grade 6
appeared to be more complex.
3. Method
3.1 Material
The material used for this research is comprised of two writing tasks that are part of the TAKB. TAK-B is a Dutch language test for primary-school children in grades 3 to 6, developed for
both L1 and L2 students. Pupils from grades 3 to 6 were provided with several language
tests. One of those tests is a writing test. Every pupil was provided with two writing tasks,
each task consisting of a cartoon. The children were asked to write a story according to the
cartoons in the writing tasks (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1993).
The first writing task (appendix 1) portrays a story of a male buying a banana at the
greengrocer. The male eats the banana and throws the peel on the ground. A girl, eating an
ice cream, walks on the same road and slips on the peel. Her ice cream falls on the ground
and the girl cries while she is sitting on the ground. The male who initially had thrown the
peel on the floor returns to the place where the girl is still sitting on the floor, crying. The male
buys the girl a new ice cream. The girl continues her way hopping, while licking her ice
cream.
The second writing task (appendix 2) portrays a story of a boy with a party-hat. The
boy with the party-hat receives a present from a female person. The boy with the party-hat
unpacks the present; it is a ball. The boy decides to play with the ball. The girl decides to join
the boy. While they were playing with the ball, the ball lands in front of a car. The ball ends
up leak and the boy starts crying. Both children return to the female person who initially had
given the present. The boy was still crying. Eventually, the boy receives a new ball from the
female.
3.2 Respondents
This research aims for an even division of boys and girls and L1 and L2 speakers per grade
(3, 4, 5 and 6). 40 boys and 40 girls are randomly selected per grade, of which 20 L1 and 20
L2 students per gender. Both writing task one and writing task two are collected and
13
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
transcribed for each student. Table 1 shows the final distribution of the students. As stated
before, an even distribution was aimed for. As can be seen from the table, the final
distribution is slightly different:
Table 1: distribution of respondents.
Grade
Boys
Girls
Total
L1
L2
L1
L2
3
20
20
20
20
80
4
20
20
20
20
80
5
20
20
20
20
80
6
19
21
20
20
80
Total:
79
81
80
80
320
320 writing tasks are analyzed from 20 L1 and 20 L2 boys and 20 L1 and 20 L2 girls per
grade. Since this research is focused on the development of the use of qualifiers, this
development might manifest itself by looking at the use of qualifiers per grade. First, the
difference between boys and girls is analyzed. Secondly, the difference between L1- and L2students is analyzed. Finally, the development per grade is analyzed. This will be explained
more in depth in the procedure section.
3.3 Procedure
The data collection took place in 1991/1992 as a part of the development and
standardization of the TAK-B. The data was collected without the knowledge that it would be
used for further research in the texts. The tasks were handed out to the student’s by their
own teacher. When the students finished their tasks, the tasks were collected. As stated
before, 20 L1 and 20 L2 boys are selected per grade for the analysis. Both writing tasks of
these randomly selected students are analyzed. This is also the case for the girls.
The writing tasks are digitized, meaning that they are transcribed. This research
makes use of the transcripts of Poppe (2011), Van Bochove (2014), Van den Assem (2010),
Visser (2014), Wassink (2014) and the transcript of the author of this thesis. In the transcript,
the grammar and/or spelling mistakes are maintained. For this thesis, the digitized versions
are normalized, meaning that spelling mistakes are corrected. The normalized versions are
analyzed for the use of qualifiers in the description of persons, actions and objects.
Per story, different persons, actions and objects are selected for analysis. As stated in
the introduction, the first writing story is about a male person who buys a banana and throws
the peel of the banana on the ground, thereby causing a girl to fall on the floor. As a result of
this happening, the male person buys the girl a new ice cream. From this story the male
14
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
person, the girl, the way the girl falls, the way the girl continues her way and the ice cream
are selected for analysis.
The second story was about a boy who received a ball as a present. The ball became
broken, which resulted in the female person giving the boy a new ball. From this story the
boy and the ball are selected for analysis.
As stated in the theoretical framework, the written texts of primary-school children get
longer and more lexically varied as the children progress to a higher grade. It is likely that
longer and more lexically varied texts contain more qualifiers. Therefore, the length of the
written texts (tokens) and the variance in words (types) are analyzed. The development of
the types and tokens is analyzed. Also, the differences between boys and girls and L1- and
L2-students are analyzed.
3.4 Coding of qualifiers
As stated before, different persons, actions and objects are selected for analysis: the male
person, the girl, the ice cream, the way the girl falls and the way the girl continues her way
from the banana-story, and the boy, the girl and the ball from the ball-story. The way in which
these persons, actions and objects are detailed, is coded according to the extra value that
cannot be observed in the cartoon that is given to these subjects. This means that the literal
description of the subject in the cartoon is not taken into account. (For example when the ice
cream is described as an ice cream).
In order to analyze the use of qualifiers, scores are assigned to the use of qualifiers:
- No qualifiers attached to a person, object or action: 0 points
- One qualifier attached to a person, object or action: 1 point
- Two qualifiers attached to a person, object or action: 2 points
- Three or more qualifiers attached to a person, object or action: 3 points
When the person, object or action has the same qualifier throughout the whole story, only 1
point is assigned. When during the story, different qualifiers are attached to the person,
object or action; points are assigned per qualifier. Additionally, when a person, object or
action is first described with the use of four qualifiers, and later with one (the same as used
during the first description), only the first use of qualifiers is considered. How these scores
are assigned can be seen in the sections of the coding of person, objects and actions.
Coding of persons
In order to code the persons, the following scheme is created:
15
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 2: coding scheme persons.
Persons
Male
Girl
Boy
Name
X
X
X
Relation
X
X
X
Intensifier
X
X
X
Adjective/Adverb
X
X
X
Detail
X
X
X
This scheme makes it possible to compare the qualifiers that are used to describe the
persons from the cartoon. As can be seen from table 2, the following categories are used in
order to code the descriptions used to describe the man, boy and the girl; name, relation,
intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs and details. How the points are assigned to the descriptions
of the persons is outlined in the following section. The descriptions of the male person is
used to clarify the coding procedure of the persons.
name:
-9. Er was eens een meneer die heette Joop. [Once upon a time, there was a
gentleman whose name was Joop]. (6.0.36389).
In the case of example 9, one point is assigned for the name Joop; this is the only section
from the sentence which is not observable in the cartoon.
Relation: -10. Ome Piet. [Uncle Piet]. (5.1.37477).
In the case of example 10, two words are used to describe the male person: Uncle and Piet.
Uncle describes the relationship of the character and Piet describes the name of the
character. Therefore a score of one point is assigned to both the name-category and the
relation- category.
Intensifier: - 11. De heel aardige man. [the really nice man]. (6.0.37411).
In example 11, the male person is described as a really nice man. It can be seen from the
cartoon that the male person is a man; therefore no points are assigned for the use of this
description. The male person is described as really nice as well. This is a quality which
cannot be observed from the cartoon. The male person is not just nice, he is really nice.
Really intensifies the word nice; therefore one point is assigned to the intensifier-category
(really) and one point is assigned to the adjective/adverb-category (nice). Since intensifiers
are used differently for persons, objects and actions, these are tested individually. Whereas
intensifiers are used in the description of persons, these are rarely used in the description of
objects and actions. The result-section of this thesis therefore considers three intensifier16
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
categories: intensifiers attached to persons, intensifiers attached to objects and intensifiers
attached to actions.
Adjective/adverb: -12. De domme Piet Pyton. [The dumb Piet Pyton]. (6.1.36963).
Example 12 shows that the male person can also be described as the dumb Piet Pyton. In
this case, two points are assigned to the name-category, since the male person is described
with not only a first name but also a surname. Additionally, an adjective/adverb was attached
to the male person: dumb. It cannot be observed from the cartoon that the male person is
dumb; therefore, one point is assigned to the adjective/adverb-category.
Detail:
-13. Meneer Klaasen de fruit-eter. [Mister Klaasen the fruit-eater]. (5.1.35322).
From example 13, it can be seen that the male person is not only described as mister
Klaasen, but also as fruit-eater. It can be seen from the cartoon that the male person is a
mister; therefore, only the surname was scored. The label fruit-eater is an extra label that is
given to the male person. Therefore one point is assigned to the detail-category.
Coding of actions
In order to code the actions, the following scheme is created:
Table 3: coding scheme actions.
Actions
Falling
Continues
Onomatopoeia
X
Intensifier
X
X
Adjective/adverb
X
X
Modality
X
X
Place
X
Direction
X
Table 3 shows how the coding scheme for the actions makes it possible to compare the
qualifiers that are used to describe the actions from the cartoon. As can be seen from this
table, the following categories are used in order to code the descriptions used to describe the
way the girl falls and the way the girl continues her way: onomatopoeia, intensifier,
adjective/adverb, modality, place and direction. The descriptions of the way the girl falls is
used to clarify the coding-procedure of the actions.
Onomatopoeia: -14. Boem, bam. [Boom, bam]. (4.0.38107).
17
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Example 14 shows that the way the girl falls is described with the use of words which
imitates the sound of falling. This is called onomatopoeia. The words used in example 14 to
imitate the sound of falling, are boom and bam. Since two different words are used to
describe the falling, two points are assigned to the onomatopoeia-category.
Intensifier: -15. Ze viel heel hard. [She fell really hard]. (4.0.42061).
As can be seen from example 15, the image of the girl that falls is described. In this example,
the girl does not merely fall; she falls really hard. Therefore, one point is assigned to the
adjective/adverb-category, and one point is assigned to the intensifier-category: really
intensifies the adjective/adverb.
Adjective/adverb: -16. Zij valt hard. [She falls hard]. (5.0.36196).
In the case of example 16, the girl is said to fall hard. Hard in this case adds extra value to
the way the girl falls. Therefore, one point is assigned to the adjective/adverb-category.
Modality: -17. Ze kwam met een harde knal op haar bips. [she fell with a loud bang on
her buttocks]. (4.1.37217).
Example 17 shows how the image of the girl falling is described: in this case, with a loud
bang on her buttocks. This sentence can be divided in two parts: with a loud bang and on her
buttocks. With a loud bang describes the way the girl falls; therefore, one point is assigned to
the modality-category. On her buttocks, on the other hand, describes how the girl lands.
Consequently, one point is assigned to the place-category.
Place:
-18. Ze viel op de grond. [she fell on the floor]. (6.0.37418).
From example 18 it can be seen that the way the girl falls is supplemented with the landing
place. Whereas example 17 describes a body part on which the girl lands, example 18
describes an actual place where the girl lands: the floor. Therefore, in both cases, one point
is assigned to the place-category.
Coding of objects
In order to code the objects, the following scheme is created:
18
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 4: coding scheme objects
Objects
Ice cream
Ball
Intensifier
X
X
Adjective/Adverb
X
X
Detail
X
X
Size
X
X
Price
X
X
Color
X
X
Table 4 presents the coding scheme of the objects; this scheme makes it possible to
compare the qualifiers that are used to describe the objects from the cartoon. As can be
seen from the scheme, the following categories are used in order to code the descriptions
used to describe the ball and the ice cream: intensifier, adjective/adverb, detail, size, price
and color. The descriptions of the ice cream is used to clarify the coding-procedure of the
objects.
Intensifier: -19. Een heel lekker ijsje. [A really nice ice cream]. (5.0.38154).
Example 19 shows the description of the ice cream: a really nice ice cream. It is not just an
ice cream; it is a really nice ice cream. Nice adds an extra value to the ice cream. Therefore,
one point is assigned to the adjective/adverb-category. Really intensifies the word nice.
Therefore, one point is assigned to the intensifier-category.
Adjective/adverb: -20. Het vieze en kapotte ijsje. [The dirty and broken ice cream].
(5.0.36214).
When we take a look at example 20, we can see that there are two adjectives/adverbs
attached to the ice cream: dirty and broken. Since two different adjectives/adverbs are
attached to the noun, two points are assigned to the adjective/adverb-category. If the same
adjective/adverb is used twice (e.g. nice is used two times), only one point will be assigned.
Detail:
-21. Met chocola en pistache en citroen. [ With chocolate and pistachio and
lemon]. (5.0.37394).
In example 21, several details are added to the ice cream; it is not just an ice cream, it is an
ice cream with chocolate, pistachio and lemon. Since three different details are added to the
ice cream, three points are assigned to the detail-category.
Size:
-22. Één ijsje met twee bolletjes. [One ice cream with two scoops].
(5.1.38197).
19
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
When we take a look at example 22, we can see that a size is attached to the ice cream: the
ice cream has two scoops. Since this size is attached to the ice cream, one point is assigned
to the size-category. The number of scoops will always result in one point. When the size is
measured differently, the points are assigned differently. (i.e. the big, bigger or biggest ice
cream will result in 1, 2 or 3 points)
Price:
-23. Van 2 gulden. [Of 2 guilder]. (5.0.38075).
Example 23 describes the ice cream and attaches a certain value to the ice cream: 2 guilder.
Therefore one point is assigned to the price-category.
Color:
-24. Een bruin ijsje. [A brown ice cream]. (5.1.35149).
In the case of example 24, the ice cream is not just an ice cream; the ice cream is brown.
Due to the fact that a color is attached to the ice cream, one point is assigned to the colorcategory. This chapter gave an outline of the research. The next chapter will discuss the
results.
4. Results
As mentioned in the method section of this thesis, the writing tasks of 320 primary school
students are analyzed for the use of qualifiers. This section discusses the results of the
analysis. The results are discussed in the following order: types and tokens, names attached
to persons, intensifiers attached to persons, objects and verbs, adjectives/adverbs attached
to persons, objects and verbs, details attached to persons, objects and verbs, prices
attached to objects, sizes attached to objects, onomatopoeia attached to verbs and finally in
a correlational analysis, the relation between the types (the variance of words in the texts)
and tokens (the length of the texts) and the development of the use of qualifiers is
investigated. In a univariate analysis (GLM) per subject, it is discussed whether the
independent variables (gender, L1 and L2students and grade) differs with respect to the
dependent variables as mentioned earlier this section.
4.1 Types and Tokens
Types
Table 5 presents the average use of types per gender, L1- and L2-student and per grade. In
this case the number of types is the dependent variable. Grade, L1- and L2-student and
gender are the independent variables.
20
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 5: types per grade, gender and L1- and L2-student.
Total
L1
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
3
102.19
27.67
102.00
27.88
Boys
92.12
21.64
90.25
21.16
Girls
112.25
29.57
113.75
29.28
L2
M
92.12
94.00
110.75
SD
21.64
22.51
30.54
4
Boys
Girls
127.30
123.05
131.55
30.02
28.90
30.87
132.05
134.00
130.10
25.59
28.46
31.30
122.55
112.10
133.00
30.05
25.52
31.18
5
Boys
Girls
137.05
126.98
147.12
34.46
27.70
37.81
148.90
138.40
159.40
40.00
31.69
45.25
125.20
115.55
134.85
22.74
17.19
23.88
6
Boys
Girls
155.68
151.32
160.02
36.11
31.35
40.26
158.62
151.90
165.35
37.41
35.22
39.20
152.73
150.75
154.70
35.00
27.85
41.59
Total
Boys
Girls
130.55
123.37
137.74
37.46
34.56
38.94
135.39
128.64
142.15
40.08
37.20
41.91
125.71
118.10
133.33
34.08
31.05
35.45
A univariate analysis of variance (GLM) showed that there is a significant difference between
the grades (F (3,304) = 41.355, p = .000), between L1- and L2-students (F (1,304) = 7.812, P
= .006), and also between boys and girls (F (1, 304) = 17.208, p = .000). Tukey’s Post Hoc
test revealed that only the difference between grades 4 and 5 is not significant. Grades 3 (M=
102.19 (SD = 27.67)), 4 (M= 127.30 (SD = 30.02)) and 5 (M= 137.05 (SD = 34.46)) use fewer
types in comparison to grade 6 (M= 155.68 (SD = 36.11)). From table 5 it can be seen that
the average number of types increases over the years. Additionally, L1-students use more
types than L2-students, and girls use more types than boys.
Tokens
The average use of tokens per gender, L1- and L2-student and grade is displayed in table 6.
The average use of tokens is the dependent variable. The independent variables are grade,
L1- and L2-student and gender.
21
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 6: tokens per grade, gender and L1- and L2-student.
Total
L1
Grade
3
227.35
77.93
219.70
79.64
Boys
205.32
61.35
196.45
62.94
Girls
249.38
86.85
242.95
89.00
L2
235.00
214.20
255.80
76.41
59.97
86.47
4
Boys
Girls
298.89
286.53
311.25
90.98
79.91
100.33
302.90
299.95
305.85
91.07
81.70
101.64
294.877
273.10
316.65
91.86
77.81
101.33
5
Boys
Girls
312.08
278.35
345.80
98.00
75.67
106.74
338.05
301.85
374.25
115.55
93.06
126.43
286.10
254.85
317.35
68.70
43.95
75.49
6
Boys
Girls
346.59
331.50
361.68
86.93
72.42
96.45
342.02
322.90
361.15
93.46
92.27
92.98
351.15
340.10
362.20
80.82
51.95
102.22
Total
Boys
Girls
296.23
275.42
317.02
98.46
85.52
106.14
300.67
280.29
321.05
106.96
95.62
114.19
291.78
270.56
313.00
89.27
74.35
97.98
Through a univariate analysis of variance (GLM), it was found that there is a significant
difference between the grades: F (3,304) = 27.059, p = .000. No significant result was found
for the difference between L1- and L2-students: F (1,304) = .851, p = .357. The boys and
girls appear to differ significantly: F (1,304) = 18.635, p = .000.Tukey’s Post Hoc test
revealed that students from grades 4, 5 and 6 use significantly more tokens in comparison to
students from grade 3. Also, students from grade 6 use significantly more tokens than
students from grade 4. From table 6 it can be seen that the use of tokens increases over the
years. From these results it can be seen that L1- students use more tokens (M= 300.67 (SD
= 106.96)) than L2-students (M= 291.78 (SD = 89.27)). Girls use more tokens (M= 317.02
(SD = 106.14)) than boys (M= 275.42 (SD = 85.52)). See also table 2.
4.2Names attached to persons
A univariate analysis of variance (GLM) was used to determine whether the independent
variables grade, L1- and L2-students and gender differ from each other with respect to the
dependent variable, names attached to persons (for example meneer Jansen [mister
Jansen]). The means and standard deviations are displayed in table 7. A significant
difference was found between the grades (F (3,304) = 5.220, p = .023), between L1- and L2students (F (1,304) = 5.741, p = .017) and between boys and girls: (F (1,304) = 15.106, p =
.000). Tukey’s Post Hoc test revealed that the significant difference is due to the differences
between grade 6 and the other grades. This means that students from grade 6 use more
22
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
names in their description in comparison to students from grades 3, 4 and 5. L1-students use
an average of .71 (SD = .37) names, whereas L2-students use an average of .63 (SD = .34)
names. See figure 2 for a graphical display. Girls use more names (M= .72 (SD = .36)) in
comparison to boys (M= .63 (SD = .35)). None of the interactions were significant: grade x
language: F (3, 304) = .293, p = .831; grade x gender: F (3, 304) = .384, p = .765; language x
gender: F (1, 304) = .003, p = .956.
Table 7: the use of names per grade, gender and language-status, displayed in
averages (M) and standard deviations (SD).
Total
L1
L2
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3
.59
.37
.64
.36
.54
.39
Boys
.58
.40
.65
.37
.50
.43
Girls
.61
.35
.63
.36
.58
.36
4
Boys
Girls
.55
.55
.61
.34
.31
.37
.57
.52
.62
.37
.35
.39
.54
.48
.60
.32
.28
.35
5
Boys
Girls
.66
.63
.70
.32
.34
.30
.72
.70
.73
.33
.32
.34
.61
.55
.67
.31
.35
.26
6
Boys
Girls
.88
.81
.95
.30
.28
.31
.93
.82
1.05
.32
.31
.29
.88
.81
.95
.30
.28
.31
Total
Boys
Girls
.67
.63
.72
.36
.35
.36
.71
.67
.76
.37
.35
.38
.63
.58
.68
.34
.35
.33
23
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Figure 2: the average use of names per grade and L1- and L2-students.
4.3 Intensifiers attached to persons, objects and actions
Since intensifiers (for example, the most common intensifier in this study is heel [very]) are
used differently for persons, objects or actions, these are tested individually. First it will be
tested whether there is a difference between the grades, between L1- and L2-students and
between boys and girls (the independent variables) with respect to the use of intensifiers in
the description of persons (the dependent variable). Later, this will also be done for the
intensifiers of objects and actions.
Persons
In table 8 the means and standard deviations of the use of intensifiers in the description of
persons are displayed. Through a univariate analysis of variance (GLM), the following results
were obtained:
24
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 8: the use of intensifiers in the description of persons, per grade, gender and L1and L2-students.
Total
L1
L2
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3
.25
.20
.28
.19
.22
.20
Boys
.20
.16
.26
.16
.14
.13
Girls
.30
.22
.30
.22
.29
.23
4
Boys
Girls
.27
.28
.25
.18
.21
.15
.30
.33
.26
.19
.22
.16
.24
.23
.24
.17
.19
.15
5
Boys
Girls
.36
.33
.38
.21
.22
.21
.42
.42
.42
.22
.20
.25
.29
.24
.34
.19
.21
.15
6
Boys
Girls
.32
.26
.38
.20
.18
.21
.33
.26
.41
.24
.14
.23
.31
.26
.36
.20
.22
.18
Total
Boys
Girls
.30
.27
.33
.20
.20
.20
.33
.32
.35
.21
.19
.22
.26
.22
.31
.19
.19
.18
The difference between the grades appears to be significant: F (3,304) = 4.632, p = .003. L1students do not differ from L2-students (M=.12, SD=.23 versus M=.14, SD .24, F (1,304) =
.542, p = .462). See figure 3 for a graphical display. Also, there appears to be no significant
difference between boys and girls (M=.15, SD= .24 versus M=.11, SD= .23, F (1,304) =
1.935, p = .165). Tukey’s Post Hoc tests reveals that the grades differ significantly due to
differences between grades 3 and 5 (p= .021) and grade 4 and 5 (p= .021). Only the
interaction between language and gender was significant: grade x language: F (3, 304) =
.650, p = .584; grade x gender: F (3, 304) = 1.043, p = .374; language x gender: F (1, 304) =
13.562, p = .000. The interaction between language and gender indicates that the values of
the L1- and L2-students showed an interaction with the values of boys and girls with respect
to the use of intensifiers attached to persons. This means that the difference between boys
and girls is dependent on the language-status of the students. From table 6 it can be seen
that girls use more intensifiers in comparison to boys. It can also be seen that L1-students
use more intensifiers in comparison to L2-students.
25
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Figure 3: the average use of intensifiers of persons per grade and L1- and L2-students.
Objects
Through a univariate analysis of variance (GLM) of the intensifiers attached to objects in a
cartoon, no differences were found between the grades (F (3,304) = 1.711, p = .165), nor
between L1- and L2- students (F (1,304) = .805, p = .370). See also figure 4. Also, no
significant differences were found between boys and girls (F (1,304) = 1.258, p = .263). See
appendix 3: table intensifiers attached to objects for the means and standard deviations.
From this table it can be seen that all the groups have high standard deviations. This
indicates that there is a high variance within the groups. None of the interactions were
significant: grade x language: F (3, 304) = 1.242, p= .295; grade x gender: F (3, 304) = .091,
p = .353; language x gender: F (1, 304) = .453, p = .501.
26
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Figure 4: Intensifiers attached to objects per grade and L1/L2-student.
Actions
In a univariate analysis of variance (GLM) of the intensifiers attached to actions, there were
no significant differences between the grades (F (3,304) = .704, p = .550), nor between the
L1- and L2-students (F (1,304) = 1.508, p = .220), or between the boys and girls (F (1,304) =
2.956, p = .087). See also figure 5. In all groups the standard deviations are high, indicating
that the variation within groups is high. See appendix 4: table intensifiers attached to actions
for the means and the standard deviations. None of the interactions were significant: grade x
language: F (3, 304) = .382, p = .766; grade x gender: F (3, 304) = 1.508, p = .212; language
x gender: F (1, 304) = .543, p = .462.
Figure 5: intensifiers attached to actions per grade and L1/L2 students.
27
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
4.4 Adjectives/adverbs attached to persons, objects and actions.
Table 9 presents the mean number of adjectives/adverbs attached to person, objects and
actions (in most cases adjectives & adverbs, for example de domme man [the dumb mister],
het lekkere ijsje [the delicious ice cream] and liep snel weg [walked away fast]) per grade,
L1- and L2-status and gender. Grade, language-status and gender are the independent
variables, the adjectives/adverbs attached to person, objects and actions is the dependent
variable.
Table 9: the use of adjectives/adverbs in the description of persons, objects and actions per grade,
gender and L1- and L2- students.
Total
L1
L2
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3
.25
.20
.28
.19
.22
.20
Boys
.20
.16
.26
.16
.14
.13
Girls
.30
.22
.30
.22
.29
.23
4
Boys
Girls
.27
.28
.25
.18
.21
.15
.30
.33
.26
.19
.22
.16
.24
.23
.24
.17
.19
.15
5
Boys
Girls
.36
.33
.38
.21
.22
.21
.42
.42
.42
.22
.20
.25
.29
.24
.34
.19
.21
.15
6
Boys
Girls
.32
.26
.38
.20
.18
.21
.31
.26
.41
.21
.14
.23
.31
.26
.38
.20
.22
.18
Total
Boys
Girls
.30
.27
.33
.20
.20
.20
.35
.32
.33
.22
.19
.21
.26
.22
.31
.19
.19
.18
A univariate analysis of variance (GLM) showed that the grades differ significantly in the use
of adjectives/adverbs in the description of persons, objects and actions: F (3,304) = 5.190, p
= .002. Also, L1- and L2-students differ significantly in the use of adjectives/adverbs in the
description of persons, objects and actions: F (1,304) = 10.360, p = .001. It can be seen from
the table that L1-students have a higher mean score (.33 (SD = .21)) than L2-students (.26
(SD = .19)). See figure 6. Boys and girls differ significantly in the use of adjectives/adverbs (F
(1,304) = 7.874, p = .005). Table 7 shows that boys have a lower mean score (.27 (SD= .20))
than girls (.33 (SD=.20)). This means that girls use significantly more adjectives/adverbs in
comparison to boys. Tukey’s Post Hoc tests revealed that the differences between grade 3
and 4 (p = .003), and the difference between grade 4 and 5 (p = .017) are significant. None
28
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
of the interactions were significant: grade x language: F (3, 304) = .992, p = .397; grade x
gender: F (3, 304) = 2.248, p = .083; language x gender: F (1, 304) = 1.968, p = .162.
.
Figure 6: the average use of adjectives/adverbs per grade and L1/L2 students.
4.5 Details attached to persons, objects and actions
As there were no differences between L1- and L2-students in the use of details attached to
persons, objects and actions, a univariate analysis of variance (GLM) was used to analyze
the differences between the grades and between the boys and girls. The use of details is the
dependent variable; the grade and gender are the independent variables. Table 10 presents
the mean number of details attached to persons, objects and actions per grade and gender
(for example de hongerige man[the hungry man], de rode bal [the red ball] & ze ging
huppelend verder [she continued her way skipping]).
29
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 10: the use of details in the description of persons, objects and actions per
grade and gender.
Grade
Mean SD
3
Boys
.03
.08
Girls
.06
.12
Total
.04
.10
4
Boys
.14
.20
Girls
.17
.27
Total
.15
.23
5
Boys
.25
.30
Girls
.11
.19
Total
.18
.26
6
Boys
.25
.32
Girls
.29
.33
Total
.27
.32
Total
Boys
.17
.26
Girls
.16
.25
Total
.16
.26
The grades differ significantly in the use of details in the description of persons, objects and
actions: F (3,312) = 11.978, p = .000. No significant differences were found between boys
and girls in the use of details: F (1,312) = .083, p = .773. Table 8 shows that boys (.17
(SD=.26)) have a higher mean score than girls (.16 (SD = .25)). See also figure 7. Tukey’s
Post Hoc tests revealed that the differences between grades 3 and 4 (p = .024), grades 3
and 5 (p = .003), and the difference between grades 3 and 6 (p = .000) are significant, so
grade 4, 5 and 6 use significantly more details than grade 3. There is a significant interaction:
grade x gender: F (3, 312) = 2.804, p = .040. This means that there is an interaction between
the values of the grades and the values of the genders with respect to the use of details in
the description of persons, objects and actions. This is probably due to the difference
between boys and girls in grade 5; in other grades, there is a small difference between boys
and girls.
30
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Figure 7: the average use of details per grade and gender.
4.6 Prices attached to objects
A univariate analysis of variance (GLM) was used to analyze the difference between boys
and girls, L1- and L2-students and between the grades in the use of prices in the description
of objects. The use of prices in the description of objects is the dependent variable. Gender,
L1- and L2-students and the grades are the independent variables. Table 11 presents the
mean number of prices attached to objects (for example: 2 gulden [2 guilder] for an ice
cream).
31
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 11: The use of prices in the description of objects per gender and L1- and L2-students.
Total
L1
L2
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3
.11
.21
.14
.23
.08
.18
Boys
.11
.21
.15
.24
.08
.18
Girls
.10
.20
.13
.22
.08
.18
4
Boys
Girls
.14
.16
.13
.30
.33
.27
.19
.23
.15
.33
.38
.29
.10
.10
.10
.26
.26
.26
5
Boys
Girls
.09
.11
.08
.26
.27
.27
.13
.10
.13
.32
.26
.36
.06
.13
.03
.20
.28
.11
6
Boys
Girls
.12
.15
.11
.24
.24
.27
.14
.10
.13
.28
.21
.32
.10
.13
.10
.20
.22
.21
Total
Boys
Girls
.12
.13
.10
.25
.26
.25
.15
.16
.13
.29
.28
.29
.08
.09
.08
.21
.23
.20
There appears to be no significant difference between the grades (F (3,304) = .102, p =
.648). L1- and L-2 students appear to differ significantly: F (1,304) = 4.715, p = .031. This
means that L1-students use significantly more prices in the description of objects (.15
(SD=.29) than L2-students (.08 (SD=.21)). The boys and girls do not differ significantly: (F
(1,304) = .754, p = .386). It can be seen from table 11 that since there are high standard
deviations, there is a high variety in the use of prices in the description of objects. None of
the interactions were significant: grade x language: F (3, 304) = .126, p = .945; grade x
gender: F (3, 304) = .063, p = .979; language x gender: F (1, 304) = .047, p = .828.
4.7 Sizes attached to objects
As there were no differences between L1- and L2-students in the use of sizes in the
description of objects, a univariate analysis of variance (GLM) was used to analyze the
difference between the boys and girls and between the grades. In this case, the use of sizes
in the description of objects is the dependent variable, and gender and grade are the
independent variables. Table 12 presents the mean numbers of the sizes attached to objects
(for example: het grootste ijsje [the biggest ice cream]).
32
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
Table 12: the use of sizes in the description of objects per grade and per gender.
Grade
Mean
SD
3
Male
.01
.08
Female
.00
.00
Total
.01
.06
4
Male
.04
.13
Female
.03
.11
Total
.03
.12
5
Male
.04
.13
Female
.08
.21
Total
.06
.18
6
Male
.14
.25
Female
.10
.26
Total
.12
.25
Total
Male
.06
.17
Female
.05
.18
Total
.05
.17
The grades do differ significantly in the use of sizes in the description of objects:
F (3,312) = 6.482, p = .000. There appeared to be no significant differences between boys
and girls: F (1,312) = .109, p = .742. As can be seen from table 12, boys have a higher mean
score (.06 (SD=.17)) than girls (.05 (SD=.18)). See figure 8. Tukey’s Post Hoc tests revealed
that the differences between grades 3 and 6 (p = .000) and the differences between grades 4
and 6 (p = .007) are significant. There was no significant interaction between group and
gender: F (3, 312) = .688, p = .560.
Figure 8: the average use of sizes in the description of objects per grade and gender.
33
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
ANR: 552381
4.8 Onomatopoeia attached to actions
Table 13 presents the mean number of onomatopoeia (for example BAM and BAF) attached
to actions. Whereas the onomatopoeia attached to actions is the dependent variable, gender,
L1- and L2-students and the grade are the independent variables.
Table 13: the use of onomatopoeia per grade, L1- and L2- students and per gender.
TotaL
L1
L2
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
M
3
.30
.68
.42
.87
.18
Boys
.15
.36
.25
.44
.05
Girls
.45
.88
.60
1.14
.30
SD
.39
.22
.47
4
Boys
Girls
.20
.22
.18
.43
.48
.39
.23
.25
.20
.48
.55
.41
.18
.20
.15
.39
.41
.37
5
Boys
Girls
.30
.30
.30
.56
.61
.52
.28
.25
.30
.51
.44
.57
.33
.35
.30
.62
.75
.47
6
Boys
Girls
.40
.37
.43
.74
.59
.89
.40
.40
.40
.55
.59
.50
.40
.35
.45
.55
.59
.89
Total
Boys
Girls
.30
.26
.34
.59
.52
.65
.33
.29
.37
.62
.51
.72
.27
.24
.30
.56
.53
.58
A univariate analysis of variance (GLM) showed that there were no significant differences
between the grades: F (3,304) = 1.527, p = .208, nor between L1- and L2-students: F (1,304)
= .895, p = .345. See also figure 9. Also, no significant differences were found between boys
and girls: F (1,304) = 1.288, p = .257. As can be seen from table 13, boys have a lower mean
score (.26 (SD=.52)) than girls (.34 (SD=.65)), and L1-students have a higher mean score
(.33 (SD=.62)) than L2-students (.27 (SD=.65)). Additionally, the table shows that there are
high standard deviations, meaning that there is a high variance within the grades. None of
the interactions were significant: grade x language: F (3, 304) = .990, p = .398; grade x
gender: F (3, 304) = 1.384, p = .248; language x gender: F (1, 304) = .036, p = .850.
34
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
Figure 9: the average use of onomatopoeia per grade and L1/L2 student.
4.9 correlations
Table 14 displays the correlation between the types and tokens as indicators of the lexical
variety and length of a text on the one hand, and various qualifiers on the other hand.
Table 14: correlations between types, tokens and the use of qualifiers.
Tokens
Names
Price
Details
Intens.
Intens.
Intens.
Persons
Objects
Actions
size
Onoma
Adjectives
/adverbs
Types
.91**
.23**
.10
.11*
.09
.20**
.10
.28**
.12*
.33**
N
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
Tokens
X
.16**
.07
.08
.14**
.18**
.10
.23**
.11
.27**
N
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
320
**:correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
*: correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
There is a significant correlation between types and tokens, meaning that when a text gets
longer it will have more lexical variation. This is also the case for the names attached to
persons: when a text gets longer, or more lexically varied , then more names will be used on
the description of persons. When we then consider the details attached to persons, objects
and actions, it can be seen that as the lexical variation grows, more details will be used in the
35
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
description of persons, objects and actions. Also, there is a significant correlation between
tokens and the intensifiers attached to person: as the texts get longer, more intensifiers will
be used in the description of persons. The correlation is also significant between the types
and tokens on one hand, and the intensifiers attached to objects on the other hand: when a
text is longer and more lexically varied, more intensifiers are used in the description of
objects. There are more sizes attached to objects, as the texts get more varied and longer.
As for the adjectives/adverbs, it can be seen that when the texts get longer and more varied,
more adjectives/adverbs are used in the description of persons, objects and actions.
5. Conclusion
The research question was: What is the development of the use of qualifiers in written texts
of elementary school children, and what are the differences between boys and girls and L1
and L2 students in grades 3 to 6? In order to answer this question, 640 stories, written by
320 primary-school children were analyzed for the use of qualifiers. The stories were based
on two cartoons. The analysis focused on how the children described three persons, two
objects and two actions portrayed in the cartoons. The results will be outlined in the next
paragraph. In paragraph 5.1, the results will be discussed in the light of previous studies.
When we first consider the types and tokens, we can see that there is a development
of types per grade. This is also the case with the tokens. This means that as primary-school
children progress to a higher grade, their written texts get longer and become more lexically
varied. The written texts of L1-students show more lexical variation and are longer than
written texts of L2-students. Additionally, the written texts of girls are longer and more
lexically varied in comparison to the written texts of the boys.
The use of names (Pim, Els) in the description of persons is more frequent amongst
students in higher grades in comparison to students in lower grades. L1-students use more
names in the description of persons than L2-students and girls use more names in the
description of persons in comparison to boys. As the written texts of the primary-school
children get longer and become more lexically varied, more names are used by the students
in the description of persons.
When we consider the intensifiers (heel [very]) in the description of persons, it can be
seen that there is a difference between the grades; students in higher grades use more
intensifiers in the description of persons in comparison to students in lower grades.
Additionally, as the written texts of the primary-school children get longer, more intensifiers in
the description of persons are used. L1- and L2-students do not differ in the use of
intensifiers, nor do the boys and girls. There appears to be an interaction effect between
language and gender, meaning that there is an interaction between language-status and
36
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
gender: L1- and L2-girls use more intensifiers in their description of persons in comparison to
L1- and L-2 boys. The use of intensifiers in the description of objects does not differ between
the grades, nor does it differ between L1- and L2-students and between boys and girls.
However, as the written texts get longer and become more lexically varied, more intensifiers
are used in the description of the objects. When we then consider intensifiers attached to
actions, there appears to be no differences between the grades, nor between L1- and L2students, or between boys and girls. Additionally, there appeared to be no correlation
between the types and tokens and the use of intensifiers attached to actions.
When the adjectives/adverbs (de mooie bal [the beautiful ball]) attached to persons,
objects and actions are considered, there is a development among the grades: higher grades
use more adjectives/adverbs in the description of persons, objects and actions. Also, L1students use more adjectives/adverbs than L2-students. Furthermore, it can be seen that
girls use more adjectives/adverbs than boys. Furthermore, it can also be seen that as the
written texts of the students get longer and become more lexically varied, the use of
adjectives/adverbs increases.
The grades differ in their use of details (de rode bal met witte stippen [the red ball with
white dots]) in the description of persons, objects and actions: higher grades use more
details than lower grades. Boys and girls do not differ in their use of details in the description
of persons, objects and actions. As the written texts of primary-school children get more
lexically varied, more details are used in the description of persons, objects and actions.
There appears to be an interaction effect between grade and gender, that is due to the
difference between boys and girls in grade 5.
In the use of prices in the description of objects (een ijsje van een gulden [an ice
cream of 1 guilder]), it can be seen that there is no development amongst the grades, neither
when the written texts become more lexically varied, nor when they become longer.
There is a difference between L1-students and L2-students; L1-students use prices more
often in the description of objects in comparison to L2-students.
The use of sizes in the description of objects appears to differ between the grades:
lower grades use fewer sizes than higher grades. There appears to be no differences
between boys and girls. However, primary-school children use sizes in the description of
objects more frequently as their written texts become more lexically varied and longer.
Finally, there appears to be differences between the grades, nor between L1- and
L2-students in the use of onomatopoeia (Bam, Boem [bam, boom]) in the description of
actions. Boys and girls do not differ in the use of onomatopoeia. However, it seems that as
the written texts become more lexically varied, onomatopoeia is used more frequently
37
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
5.1 Discussion
Grade
Cito (2004) and Van den Assem (2010) found that texts, written by students from grade 6 are
longer than the texts from students from grade 3. Poppe (2011) found that the variety of
words used by primary school students increases as the students progress to higher grades.
This indicates that the use of names, intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs and details will be used
more frequently and are more varied in the higher grades, since the written texts in the
higher grades are longer. This is in line with the results of this study: there is a development
in the use of names, intensifiers, sizes and adjectives/adverbs as the texts get longer. The
use of names, details, intensifiers, sizes, onomatopoeia and adjectives/adverbs appeared to
increase as the texts become more lexically varied. Van Bochove (2014) found that higher
grades do not use more details than lower grades. This does not correspond with the results
of this study which has found that higher grades use more details in comparison to lower
grades. In both cases the details that were considered were not observable in the cartoon.
Whereas Van Bochove (2014) looked at additives, details attached to objects, verbs and
details attached to adverbials, this study looked at details attached to persons, object and
actions. The difference in results might be due to the fact that Van Bochove (2014) used a
smaller sample than this study; whereas Van Bochove (2014) used 400 writing tasks written
by 200 primary-school children, this study used 640 writing tasks written by 320 primaryschool children.
L1- and L2-students
Verhoeven and Vermeer (2006) found that children who start the acquisition of the Dutch
language at a later age have worse language skills than L1- students. Additionally,
Verhallen (1994) and Verhoeven and Vermeer (2006) found that L1-students have a better
developed vocabulary in comparison to L2-students. Kuiken and Vermeer (2013) add that
the Dutch vocabulary of L1-students develops faster than the Dutch vocabulary of L2students. This difference is still present when these students enter secondary school.
Drawing this back to the result of this study, it can be seen that there is a difference between
L1- and L2-students. The development of types and tokens of L2- students appears to lag
behind in comparison to the development of types and tokens of L1-students. From grade 3
on, the written texts of L1-students are more lexically varied and longer than the written texts
of L2-students. Consequently, it is likely that L2-students have worse language skills in
comparison to L1-students. Van de Guchte and Vermeer (2004) found that L1-students learn
approximately 750 Dutch words a year. Schrooten and Vermeer (1994) found that L2students on the other hand learn an amount of approximately 500 Dutch words per year. This
difference is in line with the results of this study that the written texts of L1-students are more
38
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
lexical varied than the written texts of L2-students. These findings indicate that the use of
intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs and details in the description of person, objects and actions is
higher amongst L1-students in comparison to L2-students. The results of this study showed
that L1- students use more names, adjectives/adverbs and prices in the description of
persons, objects and names. L1- and L2-students do not differ in their use of intensifiers and
onomatopoeia. This is probably due to the fact that the use of intensifiers is not that common
amongst primary school children and there is no big variety in the use of intensifiers; the
most common intensifiers are heel [very] and erg [really]. As for the use of onomatopoeia,
L1- and L2-students probably do not differ due to the fact that onomatopoeia is used when
few words are known to describe a situation. Bam or Boom is therefore easier for the
primary-school children to use to describe a situation.
Gender
Vermeer and Van den Assem (2012) state that the written texts of girls from grades 3 to 6
are more lexically diverse than the written texts of boys. Moreover, Verhoeven and Vermeer
(1996) found that the written stories of girls are longer than the written stories of boys. This is
in line with the results of this study: girls write longer stories and the written texts of girls are
more lexically varied than the written texts of boys. Therefore, it can be expected that girls
use more adjectives/adverbs in their written texts. Verhoeven and Vermeer (1996) state that
girls use more details in their written stories. When we look at the results of this study, it can
be seen that there appear to be no differences between boys and girls in the use of details in
the description of persons, objects and actions. This is a notable finding, since Van Alphen
(1981) found that boys add details more frequently in comparison to girls. This difference
might be due to the differences in the research. Whereas Van Alphen (1981) used items
(several cups) to analyze the difference in oral descriptions, this study used the writing tasks
of the students. When we look at the variable “names attached to persons”, it can be seen
that girls use more names in the description of person. As for the use of prices, sizes and
onomatopoeia, it can be stated that there are no differences between boys and girls. This is
in line with Morisset, Barnard and Booth (1995) and Vermeer (2002) who concluded that
there are almost no differences between boys and girls. This is also in line with Van den
Assem (2010) and Van Bochove (2014), who found that there are no differences between
boys and girls in the use of onomatopoeia. The findings, as mentioned before, are not in line
with Verhoeven and Vermeer (1996); who found that boys use more sizes in the description
of the cartoons, and that girls use more details in their stories. This study found no
differences in the use of sizes between boys and girls, and no differences between boys and
girls in the use of details. This difference is probably due to the fact that the investigation of
TAK-B (1993) was a pilot-study with a small number of study-objects. As for the use of
39
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
adjectives/adverbs, Van Oostendorp (1994) found no differences between boys and girls in
the use of adjectives/adverbs. This does not correspond with the results of this study: girls
use more adjectives/adverbs in the description of persons, objects and actions. This
difference is probably due to the fact that Van Oostendorp (1994) used a smaller sample (90
students). Moreover, only students from grades 4 and 6 were selected for the analysis.
Additionally, there was an uneven distribution of the students: there were 21 L2-students and
69 L1-students. This study was evenly distributed: 159 L1-students and 161 L2-students.
Additionally, this study included students from all grades.
There was no previous research on the use of intensifiers among boys and girls. However,
Verhoeven and Vermeer (1996) found that girls obtained higher scores on the writing tasks
and that girls use more details. This could indicate that girls use intensifiers more frequently
than boys. However, this study found no differences between boys and girls in the use of
intensifiers in the description of persons, objects and actions.
Taking everything in account, we are able to answer the research question: What is
the development of the use of qualifiers in written texts of elementary school children, and
what are the differences between boys and girls and L1- and L2- students in grades 3 to 6?
There is a development in the use of names, intensifiers, adjectives/adverbs, details and
sizes in the description of persons, objects and actions in the written texts of elementary
school children. This difference is due to the fact that the written texts of elementary school
children become longer and have more lexical variance. L1-students use more names,
adjectives/adverbs and prices in the description of person, objects and actions than L2students. This is due to the fact that L1-students have a better-developed vocabulary in
comparison to L2-students. Overall, girls do not use more qualifiers than boys. However, girls
use more adjectives/adverbs and names in the description of persons, objects and actions, in
comparison to boys.
5.2 suggestions for further research
This study focused on the development of qualifiers and the differences between L1- and L2students. Seven most prominent elements from both the writing tasks were analyzed. The
cartoon contains more elements which can be analyzed (other persons, objects and actions).
This will provide a result which will be more complete. Whereas this research displays the
use of the different variables among primary-school children, it might be interesting to
investigate the variance in a variable in an instance in which a specific variable is taught by
the teacher.
The sample of this research was randomly selected, and only the grade, languagestatus and gender were considered. Further research might focus on primary schools that
40
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
use different teaching methods for teaching writing skills. The different methods might
provide new insights in how writing skills develop among different primary schools that use
different teaching methods. As stated in the previous paragraph, when a teaching method
focuses on the use of qualifiers in written texts, and how qualifiers can be used to improve
the written text, we are able to investigate whether the teaching method has an effect on the
writing skills of primary school children.
Additionally, the background of the L2-students was not considered (which language
is used for communication with the parent for example). More background information on the
L2- students might provide interesting differences between the different L2-students.
Finally, as a part of the TAK-B test, the social language proficiency was determined
by the teacher: per pupil, the teacher filled in 25 pairs of opposite statements. Out of the two
statements per pair, the teacher had to decide which statement was applicable to the pupil
according to a five-point scale (Verhoeven and Vermeer, 1996). Some of these statements
asked for text writing skills of the children. These results can be used to analyze the
differences between the subjective judgment of the teachers on writing skills and the actual
results skills as measured in the writing tasks.
41
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
References
Assem, G. van den (2010). De ontwikkeling van schrijf- en formuleervaardigheid in groep 5,
6, 7 en 8. Masterscriptie. Tilburg University.
Berman, R. & Slobin, D. (1994). Relating events in narrative, a crosslinguistic development
study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bochove, A. van. (2014). Schrijvers in de dop: teksten van basisschoolleerlingen.
Masterscriptie. Tilburg University.
Bornstein, M., Hahn, C. & Haynes, O. (2005). Specific and general language performance
across early childhood: Stability and gender consideration. First Language, 24, 267-304.
Bouchard, C., Trudeau, N., Sutton, A., Boudreault, M. C. & Deneault, J. (2009). Gender
differences in language development in French Canadian children between 8 and 30 months
of age. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 685.
CITO. (2004). Balans van het schrijfonderwijs op de basisschool. Arnhem: Stichting Cito
Instituut voor Toetsontwikkeling.
Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young children:
Characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the society for research in child
development, 38.
Coates, J. (2004). Women, men and language: A sociolinguistic account of gender
differences in language (3rd ed.). London: Pearson.
Crystal, D. (2005). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Second Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gillis, S. & Schaerlaekens, A. (2000). Kindertaalverwerving. Een handboek voor het
Nederlands. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.
Guchte, C. van de & Vermeer A. (2004). Woorden vangen: woordenschatonderwijs met de
computer. In: R. Aarts, P. Broeder & A. Maljers (red.), Jong geleerd is oud gedaan. Talen
leren in het basisonderwijs, 165-174. Europees Platform, Den Haag.
Haan, D. de (1987). Sekseverschillen in kindertaal. In: D. Brouwer, M. Gerritsen, M. Haan,
A. de, Post, E. van der, Jong, (Eds). (1978). Vrouwentaal en mannenpraat. Amsterdam: Van
Gennep.
42
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in english. London: Longman.
Heesters, K. (2000). Een wereld vol verhalen. Ontwikkeling van verhaalstructuur bij 9- tot 13jarige eerste- en tweedetaalsprekers van het Nederlands. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit
Groningen.
Koolen, R.M.F. (2013). Need I say more? On overspecification in definite reference. Tilburg:
TICC Ph.D. series 30, 176.
Koninklijke Vereniging van het Boekenvak (2012). Alle Nederlandse kinderen kennen
Kinderboekenweek, persbericht kwartaalonderzoek consumentengedrag kopen-lenen-lezen.
Kroll, B. (1992). Developmental relationships between speaking and writing. In L. Verhoeven,
Handboek lees- en schrijfdidactiek. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kuiken, F. & Vermeer, A. (2013). Nederlands als tweede taal in het basisonderwijs.
Amesfoort: ThiemeMeulenhoff.
Kurvers, J. (2010). Alfabetisering. In: B. Bossers, F. Kuiken & A. Vermeer (red.), Handboek
Nederlands als tweede taal in het volwassenenonderwijs. Bussum: Coutinho, 240-277.
Martin, J.R. & White, P., R. (2003). The language of evaluation. Chippenham and
Eastbourne, Anthony Rowe Ltd,
Mol, S. E., & Bus, A. G. (2011). Lezen loont een leven lang: De rol van vrijetijdslezen in de
taal-en leesontwikkeling van kinderen en jongeren. Levende Talen Tijdschrift, 12(3), 3-15.
Morisset, C.E., Barnard, K.E. & Booth, C.L. (1995). Toddlers’ language development: Sex
differences within social risk. Developmental Psychology 31, 5, 851-865.
Oostendorp, H. van (1994). Sekseverschillen in taalproductie bij jongens en meisjes. Tilburg:
doctoraalscriptie letteren, Tilburg University.
Poppe, C. (2011). Connectieven in kinderverhalen. Een onderzoek naar de
verwervingsvolgorde van relationele coherentiemiddelen in schriftelijk taalgebruik bij NT1- en
NT2-leerlingen in midden- en bovenbouw. Masterscriptie, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Schrooten, W. & Vermeer, A. (1994). Woorden in het basisonderwijs. 15.000 woorden
aangeboden aan leerlingen, 1-362. TUP (Studies in meertaligheid), Tilburg.
43
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
Sijtstra, J. (1992). Balans van het Taalonderwijs Halverwege de Basisschool. Uitkomsten van
de Eerste Taalpeiling Medio Basisonderwijs. PPON-reeks nr.3, CITO Arnhem.
Verhallen, M. (1994). Lexicale vaardigheid van Turkse en Nederlandse kinderen. Een
vergelijkend onderzoek naar betekenistoekenning, Amsterdam, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Verhoeven, L. (1992). Handboek lees- en schrijfdidactiek. Functionele geletterdheid in basisen voortgezet onderwijs. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Verhoeven, L. (1994). Ontluikende geletterdheid. Een overzicht van de vroege ontwikkeling
van lezen en schrijven. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1993). Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw. Tilburg:
Zwijsen.
Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1996). Taalvaardigheid in de bovenbouw. Nederlands van
autochtone en allochtone leerlingen in het basis- en MLK onderwijs. Tilburg: TUP.
Verhoeven, L. & Vermeer, A. (2006). Verantwoording Taaltoets Alle Kinderen. Arnhem, Cito.
Vermeer, A. (2002). Leerkrachten vinden meisjes taalvaardiger. (Voor)oordelen over de
taalvaardigheid Nederlands van autochtone en allochtone jongens en meisjes in het Speciaal
Basisonderwijs. Toegepaste taalwetenschap in artikelen 68, 85-95.
Vermeer, A. (2015). Acquisition order of coherence relations in stories of Dutch L1 and L2
children from 4 to 8. In J. Evers-Vermeul, L. Rasier & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-Based
Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vermeer, A. & Assem, G. van den (2012). Ontwikkeling van schrijfvaardigheid in groep 5 tot
en met 8. Papers of the Anéla 2012 Applied Linguistics Conference. Dordrecht: Eburon
Uitgeverij BV.
44
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
Appendices
Appendix 1: writing task 1
45
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
Appendix 2: writing task 2
46
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
Appendix 3: table intensifiers attached to object
Total
L1
L2
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3
.06
.17
.01
.21
.01
.08
Boys
.05
.15
.10
.21
.00
.00
Girls
.08
.18
.13
.22
.03
.11
4
.08
.18
.05
.15
.10
.20
Boys
.09
.19
.08
.18
.10
.21
Girls
.06
.17
.03
.11
.10
.21
5
.13
.34
.15
.41
.11
.27
Boys
.08
.27
.10
.35
.05
.15
Girls
.19
.40
.20
.47
.18
.34
6
.13
.26
.14
.28
.13
.25
Boys
.13
.27
.15
.29
.10
.26
Girls
.14
.25
.13
.28
.15
.24
Total
.10
.25
.11
.28
.09
.21
Boys
.08
.23
.12
.26
.06
.18
Girls
.12
.27
.11
.30
.11
.24
47
Joey Ceglarek
Master Thesis
Appendix 4: table intensifiers attached to actions
Total
L1
L2
Grade
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
3
.01
.06
.01
.08
.00
.00
Boys
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Girls
.01
.08
.03
.11
.00
.00
4
.03
.11
.03
.11
.03
.11
Boys
.01
.08
.00
.00
.03
.11
Girls
.04
.13
.05
.15
.03
.11
5
.02
.12
.04
.17
.00
.00
Boys
.03
.16
.05
.22
.00
.00
Girls
.01
.08
.03
.11
.00
.00
6
.03
.15
.04
.17
.03
.11
Boys
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Girls
.06
.20
.08
.24
.05
.15
Total
.02
.11
.03
.14
.01
.08
Boys
.01
.09
.01
.11
.01
.06
Girls
.03
.13
.04
.16
.01
.10
48