Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

SEMANTIC AND STRUCTURAL TASKS FOR THE MAPPING COMPONENT OF L2 VOCABULARY LEARNING: TESTING THE TOPRA MODEL FROM A NEW ANGLE

  • Shusaku Kida (a1) and Joe Barcroft (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

The type of processing–resource allocation (TOPRA) model predicts that increasing one type of processing (semantic, structural, or mapping oriented) can decrease other types of processing and their learning counterparts. This study examined how semantic and structural tasks affect the mapping component of second language (L2) vocabulary learning. Japanese-speaking L2 English learners attempted to map secondary meanings of 24 English homographs. Each participant studied them (a) while making pleasantness ratings about word meaning (mapping plus semantic processing); (b) while counting letters in each word (mapping plus structural processing); and (c) without any additional task (mapping only). Results of L1 (first language) and L2 free recalls and L2-to-L1 and L1-to-L2 cued recalls indicated higher free recall in the semantic condition over the structural condition and higher cued recall in the mapping condition over the semantic and structural conditions, providing qualitatively new evidence for TOPRA model predictions.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shusaku Kida, Institute for Foreign Language Research and Education, 1-7-1, Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, Japan, 739-8521. E-mail: skida@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
References
Hide All
BarcroftJ. (2002). Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning, 52, 323363. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00186
BarcroftJ. (2003). Effects of questions about word meaning during L2 lexical learning. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 546561. doi: 10.1111/1540-4781.00207
BarcroftJ. (2004). Effects of sentence writing in L2 lexical acquisition. Second Language Research, 20, 303334. doi: 10.1191/0267658304sr233oa
BarcroftJ. (2007). Effects of opportunities for word retrieval during second language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 57, 3556. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00398.x
BarcroftJ. (2009). Effects of synonym generation on incidental and intentional L2 vocabulary learning during reading. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 79103. doi: 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00228.x
BarcroftJ. (2015). Lexical input processing and vocabulary learning. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
BartoñK. (2015). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.13.4. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
BatesD., MaechlerM., BolkerB. M., & WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 148. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
BogaardsP. (2001). Lexical units and the learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 321343. doi: 10.1017/S0272263101003011
BurfootS. (2010). Effects of synonym generation on incidental and intentional L2 vocabulary learning during reading: A replication of Barcroft (2009). Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/669738/The_Effects_of_Synonym_Generation_on_L2_Vocabulary_Recall
ComesañaM., PereaM., PiñeiroA., & FragaI. (2009). Vocabulary teaching strategies and conceptual representations of words in L2 in children: Evidence with novice learners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 2223. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.10.004
CoomberJ. E., RamstadD. A., & SheetsD. R. (1986). Elaboration in vocabulary learning: A comparison of three rehearsal methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 281293.
CraikF. I. M., & LockhartR. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 11, 671684. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
CraikF. I. M., & TulvingE. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268294. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
CrossleyS., SalsburyT., & McNamaraD. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573605. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00568.x
DavisC. J. (2005). N-watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 6570. doi: 10.3758/BF03206399
De GrootA. M. B., & KeijzerR. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 50, 156. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00110
DurkinK., & ManningJ. (1989). Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 577612. doi: 10.1007/BF01067161
EllisN. C., & BeatonA. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 559617. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1993.tb00627.x
FinkbeinerM., ForsterK., NicolJ., & NakamuraK. (2004). The role of polysemy in masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 122. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.004
HarringtonM., & JiangW. (2013). Focus on the forms: From recognition practice in Chinese vocabulary learning. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 132145.
HothornT., BretzF., & WestfallP. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346363. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810425
HulstijnJ. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In ArnaudP. J., & BéjointH. (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113125). London, UK: Macmillan.
HydeT. S., & JenkinsJ. J. (1969). The differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 472481. doi: 10.1037/h0028372
JiangN. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 4777. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.1.47
KidaS. (2010). The role of processing-resource allocation in incidental L2 vocabulary learning through reading. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 21, 171180.
KrashenS. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.
LauferB. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. In SchmittN. & McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 140155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LinckJ. A., & CunningsI. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65, 185207. doi: 10.1111/lang.12117
LottoL., & de GrootA. M. B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 3169. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00032
McNamaraD. S., & HealyA. F. (1995). A generation advantage for multiplication skill training and nonword vocabulary acquisition. In HealyA. F. & BourneL. E.Jr. (Eds.), Learning and memory of knowledge and skills: Durability and specificity (pp. 132169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MorimotoS., & LoewenS. (2007). A comparison of the effects of image-schema-based instruction and translation-based instruction on the acquisition of L2 polysemous words. Language Teaching Research, 11, 347372. doi: 10.1177/1362168807081181
MorrisC. D., BransfordJ. D., & FranksJ. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 16, 519533. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
NakagawaS., & SchielzethH. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133142. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
NationI. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NationP. (2007). Fundamental issues in modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. DallerH., MiltonJ., & DallerJ. T. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 3543). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PressleyM., LevinJ. R., & MillerG. E. (1982a). The keyword method compared to alternative vocabulary-learning strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7, 5060. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(82)90007-8
PressleyM., LevinJ. R., KuiperN. A., BryantS. L., & MichenerS. (1982b). Mnemonic versus non-mnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies: Additional comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 693707. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.5.693
PrinceP. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translation as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 478493. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05468.x
R Development Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
RoedigerH. L., & GuynnM. J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In BjorkE. L. & BjorkR. A. (Eds.), Memory (pp. 197236). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
RoyerJ. M. (1973). Memory effects for test-like events during acquisition of foreign language vocabulary. Psychological Reports, 32, 195198. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1973.32.1.195
RyanA. (1997). Learning the orthographical form of L2 vocabulary: A receptive and a productive process. In SchmittN. & McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 181198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
San Mateo Valdehíta, A. (2013). El efecto de tres actividades centradas en las formas (Focus on forms, fonfs): la selección de definiciones, la selección de ejemplos y la escritura de oraciones, en el aprendizaje de vocabulario de segundas lenguas [The effect of three form-focused activities (Focus on forms, fonfs): selecting definitions, selecting examples, and sentence writing, on second language vocabulary learning]. Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 12, 1736.
SchmittN. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48, 281317. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00042
SchwartzB. D. (1993). On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147163. doi: 10.1017/S0272263100011931
SteinB. S. (1978). Depth of processing reexamined: The effects of the precision of encoding and test appropriateness. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 165174. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90128-7
StorkelH. L., & MaekawaJ. (2005). A comparison of homonym and novel word learning: The role of phonotactic probability and word frequency. Journal of Child Language, 32, 827853. doi: 10.1017/S0305000905007099
TinkhamT. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21, 371380. doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(93)90027-E
VerspoorM., & LowieW. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53, 547586. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00234
WangA., ThomasM. H., & QuelletteJ. A. (1992). They keyword mnemonic and retention of second language vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 520528. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.520
WaringR. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: A replication. System, 25, 261274. doi: 10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00013-4
WaringR., & TakakiM. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130163.
WestM. (1953). A general service list of English words. London, UK: Longman.
WongW., & PyunD. O. (2012). The effects of sentence writing on second language French and Korean lexical retention. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 68, 164189. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.68.2.164
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition
  • ISSN: 0272-2631
  • EISSN: 1470-1545
  • URL: /core/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 15
Total number of PDF views: 117 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 695 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 13th July 2017 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.