Richard S Pinner                                                                 RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Lo...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Richard S Pinner                                               RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Psycholinguistics involvement load hypothesis

3,738 views

Published on

An essay examining the pedagogic implications of the Involvement Load hypothesis.

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,738
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
89
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
174
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Psycholinguistics involvement load hypothesis

  1. 1. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009 The Involvement-Load Hypothesis: review and pedagogic implicationsContentsIntroduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2Vocabulary Acquisition in L2 ................................................................................................................ 3The Involvement-Load Hypothesis ....................................................................................................... 4 Need ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Search ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 7Evidence for the Involvement-Load Hypothesis – a summary of research findings ........................ 8Weighting .............................................................................................................................................. 11Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 14Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 15Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 16Richard Page 1Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  2. 2. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009IntroductionThe challenges faced when learning a second language can be very imposing. One ofthe largest obstacles to overcome when attempting to master an L2 is the learning ofvocabulary. Even to have a reasonable command of an L2, the learner may have tomemorise thousands of new words, and learning a word involves much more than justknowing the semantic reference; such as phonological, syntagmatic and connotationalinformation (Richards 1974, Nation 2001). Learning vocabulary and building an L2lexicon takes a long time, a great deal of effort and, presumably a lot of mentalstorage space. A tried and tested method of really learning vocabulary and being ableto retain and use it productively would have huge implications across SecondLanguage Acquisition and ELT. Laufer and Hulstijn proposed the Involvement-LoadHypothesis (ILH), a “construct of involvement with motivational and cognitivedimensions” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001:1) which was intended to overcome some ofthe issues involved in empirically testing involvement. The theory attempts tooperationalize task based involvement by assessing it using three factors; Need,Search and Evaluation.In this essay I will briefly examine first the literature that led up-to the proposal of theInvolvement-Load Hypothesis, and in more detail the subsequent empirical research.The roots of the Involvement-Load Hypothesis have been in existence aroundvocabulary teaching for a number of decades, but Laufer and Hulstijn have provided atheory which can be operationalized and evaluated with a great deal of clarity. I willdiscuss the findings of the research around involvement and cognitive processingaround vocabulary acquisition. This is a very new hypothesis within the field and assuch further studies are still needed in order to arrive at solid conclusions, particularlyRichard Page 2Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  3. 3. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009in terms of pedagogy and task-design. I will asses the weighting of the three factors(Need, Search and Evaluation) that make up the Involvement-Load Hypothesis andthe potential problems with the current proposal. Finally I will look briefly atpedagogical implications for foreign language learners and teachers.Vocabulary Acquisition in L2Within learning and teaching foreign languages the need for learning vocabulary hasalways been of great importance. It is somewhat easier to explain or understand whengrammar rules are not adhered to, but vocabulary issues prevent understanding as it ismuch harder to understand if the wrong word is used (Lightbown & Spada 2006:96 )In a poll of ESL students at UCLA, “68 percent […] indicated that they considered aninadequate vocabulary to be the main single contributor to [comprehension]problems” (Crow and Quigley, 1985:499). It is strange then, that research intovocabulary acquisition has been marked by a “recurring theme [of] neglect” (Hedge2000:110). However, recently there is a much greater amount of studies into the waywe learn and acquire words, which has been described as an “explosion of vocabularysudies” (Schmitt 1998:282). I think that perhaps now interest and research in L2vocabulary is at an all time high. There is a host of theories surrounding theacquisition and retention of L2 vocabulary, for instance the Input Hypothesis(Krashen 1989) which proposed that exposure to great amounts of vocabulary willlead to implicit acquisition. Ellis & He (1999) put forward claims about how wordsare learned implicitly and explicitly, separating the type of vocabulary knowledge (i.e.phonetic, orthographic, semantic and syntagmatic). Of particular relevance to theInvolvement-Load Hypothesis is the depth of processing hypothesis, which outlines“a series or hierarchy of processing stages … referred to as “depth of processing”Richard Page 3Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  4. 4. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009where greater “depth” implies a greater degree of semantic or cognitive analysis”(Craik & Lockhart, 1972:675). It was argued that the depth at which new informationis processed has more effect on retention and learning than the length of time it isstored in short-term memory. They pointed out the flaws of approaching vocabularyacquisition from the perspective of long and short term memory The depth ofprocessing theory, however, failed to provide enough detail to make itoperationalizable. Laufer and Hulstijn point out that the two problems with the theorywhere insufficient detail about “what exactly constitutes a „level‟ of processing”(Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001:5) and how to measure the supposed depth of any givenlevel. The theory was expanded on further by Craik and Tulving (1975) but again thepersistent problem in making the factors operationalizable continued to mark thedevelopment of an empirically testable hypothesis.The Involvement-Load HypothesisThe Involvement-Load Hypothesis (ILH) was proposed “to stimulate theoreticalthinking and empirical research in the domain of L2 vocabulary learning” (Laufer &Hulstijn, 2001:1) which I think it has succeeded in doing as there are numerousstudies which were set up specifically to test it (Kim, 2008; Keating 2009; Eckerth &Tavakoli, forthcoming). In addition, the hypothesis complements other theories aboutcognitive processing and retention of vocabulary that have been in existence forseveral decades (for example Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Ellis & He, 1999; Robinson2001). The hypothesis is a way of analysing the cognitive and motivationalinvolvement of any given L2 vocabulary acquisition task.Richard Page 4Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  5. 5. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009Laufer and Hulstijn defined the hypothesis as “the combination of the presence orabsence of the involvement factors Need, Search and Evaluation.” (ibid: 2001:15)Each of the involvement factors can be represented as either minus (-) which showsthe factor as not present in a given task, plus (+) indicates a moderate presence of thefactor and a strong presence is represented by a double plus (++). The grades ofstrength are explained within the context of each factor, so I shall explain themindividually.Table 1(Taken from Laufer & Hulstijn 2001:18)Richard Page 5Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  6. 6. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009NeedThis factor is the “motivational, non-cognitive component” (Keating, 2008:366) andsimply refers to the requirement of knowing or understanding the target vocabulary inorder to successfully complete a given task. Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) claimed that atask-induced Need was moderate (+) and a learner-imposed Need, perhaps due to alearner wanting to learn or use the word for their own purposes, constitutes a strongNeed (++). In my view, one of the strengths of ILH is that it accounts for thedistinction between Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation, which is important in theoriesconceptualising motivation (Richards & Schmitt 2002:343). Another strength is thateach factor can take into account internal and external factors which are either task-induced or learner-induced. In the next section I will discuss the weighting of thefactors in more detail, but at this point I wish to draw attention to the fact that theInvolvement-Load Hypothesis places equal weight on each factor as contributing toinvolvement load. I believe that Need may be the strongest factor in involvementload, and my own L2 learning experiences have contributed to this view as I willoutline in the Weighting section.SearchThis is one of the two cognitive components (the other being Evaluation) thatcomprise involvement load. As the name suggests, Search outlines the need to look-up unfamiliar vocabulary. This could be done using a dictionary, but the provision ofa gloss provided within the task itself is considered to be a Search factor absence (-).Richard Page 6Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  7. 7. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009A large number of the studies around ILH have focussed on Search and attempted toquantify the amount and the effect of looking up the meaning of words in glosses ordictionaries. Rott (2007) found that glossing and repeating target words “resulted inmore productive word gain” (Ibid, 2007:165) than simply bolding target words orencountering a target word only once.Laufer and Hulstijn (2001:21) point out that the weight of “search might be lowerthan that of Need and Evaluation.” Again, I will discuss this possibility further in thenext section. In Table 1 Task Induced Involvement load there is no representation ofSearch with a strong presence (++) implying it is simply either present in a task ornot, but can not be graded further.EvaluationThis is the second cognitive factor and also perhaps another heavily weighted aspect.Evaluation requires the user/learner to engage with the word in terms of decidingcontextual suitability, choice over other synonyms and “entails a comparison of agiven word with other words” (Ibid, 2001:14).Since the proposal of the Involvement-Load Hypothesis, there have been manyattempts to prove and expand upon the theory, because it is operationalizable based onthe three factors it presents as defining involvement. Evaluation is defined asmoderate in tasks where vocabulary items are matched to homonyms or definitions.Strong Evaluation is found in a task such as using the word in an original sentence,Richard Page 7Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  8. 8. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009where the word would have to be processed on semantic and syntagmatic levelsinvolving collocation and contextual appropriacy (Ibid, 2001:15)In the Evaluation factor, it may prove necessary to have more than threerepresentations (-, + and ++) of the depth of involvement, as Evaluation is certainly acomplex factor. However, it seems that within the Involvement-Load Hypothesis inits initial conception each factor was presented to be of equal weight, and the depth ofeach level was kept within the realm of absent, moderate or strong foroperationalizable simplicity. However, this may be at the expense of accuracy. Forinstance, consider two tasks with strong Evaluation factors (++). In one task thestudents are required to write original sentences with target words (See Table 1 task 5,++). In another task the students are required to write an original essay or compositionof some sort using all the target words, but not necessarily in each sentence (Table 1tasks 6 and 7, ++). The Evaluation in this second task, I would argue, is muchstronger than the first because the learner must not only select collocational andcontextual appropriacy but also link these sentences into one composition which itselfis applicable overall in those terms. In my view, the composition task seems toinvolve an additional level of Evaluation than sentence writing alone, hence futurestudies into this factor could prove valuable.Evidence for the Involvement-Load Hypothesis – a summaryof research findingsMuch of the evidence for the hypothesis has seemed to confirm the theory that themore actively the learner engages with target words, the more likely they are toacquire and retain those words. For example, Hulstijn et al (1996) investigated theRichard Page 8Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  9. 9. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009effect of Search and also the frequency of occurrence and found that there was apositive effect on the learners‟ recall of the words.Peters et al (2009) looked at the effect of vocabulary tasks on word retention. In thestudy glosses were provided in the form of a clickable L1 definition and L2 contextualexample which appeared on a computer screen during the reading task when clicked.The number of look-ups was recorded by the researchers, and there was a definitecorrelation between number and frequency of look-ups in intentional learning groups(given forewarning of a target vocabulary test) and incidental learning groups (notinformed about the upcoming test). I tried this myself in a classroom setting with anadvanced group of learners on a group of intensive EFL students1. I informed themduring a reading task that I would test them on vocabulary and I noticed a muchgreater amount2 of look-up activity than on the previous reading activity I had donewith no forewarning. Peters et al reported “robust evidence” (2009:114) thatacquisition is improved by strengthening Search factors (in addition to Evaluation)and were able to conclude that the effect of enhancement techniques 3 “corroboratedthe findings of previous studies” (2009:146) related to task-induced relevance.More research done specifically in order to test ILH confirmed its validity, whilesupplying additional dimensions or pointing out small limitations. Hulstijn & Laufer(2001) have conducted their own test of ILH. Subjects were assigned into groups,1 These students are studying English in London so they are immersed in the target culture whichmakes them different from the more common EFL context where the students are not immersed in theculture of the target language.2 There are some students who regularly use dictionaries and have their own electronic device forlooking up words, however in the class we also keep a number of dictionaries for student use and uponannouncing the test I was instantly asked by the students for these dictionaries, but in the previousreading task the dictionaries were not requested.3 These were comprised of Looking up meaning, Elaborately processing and multiplying instances(repetition) of target wordsRichard Page 9Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  10. 10. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009each of which completed one of three tasks, each with different involvement loads.Task 1 was a reading with comprehension questions. It had moderate Need but anabsence of Search and Evaluation, thus giving it an involvement index of 1. Task 2was the same as Task 1 except the ten target words were deleted from the readingwith an additional gap fill activity which required productive (orthographic recallonly) knowledge of the target words. The involvement index was 2 because there wasmoderate Need and Evaluation but no Search. Task 3 was a writing compositionrequiring the use of the target words. There was no reading, just the composition andthe index was 3 because it has moderate Need, strong Evaluation and no Search. Thestudy was carried out in two institutions, one in Israel and one in the Netherlands. TheHebrew-English group‟s findings were fully in line with ILH, but the data from theDutch-English group showed there was not a significant difference between groupswho completed the gap fill (Task 2) and the composition (Task 3) activities. Ofparticular relevance to this finding is the study by Keating (2008). He partiallyreconstructed4 the test conducted by Hulstijn & Laufer (2001) with the additionalconsideration of time on task. Keating again found that Task 3 was not more effectivethan Task 2, and with the time on task consideration Task 3 could actually be taken tobe less effective than Task 2. Both studies also featured a post-test to measure theretention of the words. ILH again proved to have a positive effect on both acquisitionand retention.Kim (2008) designed a study to test the effect of tasks with the same involvementload index but differing in the factors that comprised that index. The study revealedthat tasks with the same involvement index produced similar gains in acquisition and4 This was not a direct reconstruction as there were additional factors taken into account, one being thelevel of proficiency. In Hulstijn & Laufer 2001, the learners were advanced, but Keating chose to focuson lower level proficiency to see if the effects were the same, which they were.Richard Page 10Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  11. 11. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009retention. Kim concluded that further study into the operationalizable factors withinILH need to be empirically tested.One key research finding is that the groups who completed gapping or matchingactivities were not always significantly outperformed by the original compositiongroups. Pedagogically, this is a key finding due to the fact that within the classroomthere are often time constraints, which Keating (2008) evaluated. This is an importantfinding and again throws up the limitation that Laufer and Hulstijn (2001) pointed outwith their initial proposal of the theory, that “all three factors may not be equallyimportant for vocabulary learning” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001:21). Although Kim‟s testof the operationalizable reliability of ILH added support to the hypothesis, there isstill a need for further testing and research. As mentioned in the discussion of theNeed factor, I will look at weighting in more detail in the next section.WeightingIn terms of research and thus pedagogical applications the Involvement-LoadHypothesis is highly stable and reliable. This has been proven in the numerous studiesthat have been done around vocabulary acquisition, both prior to the hypothesis (Ellis& He, 1999; Hulstijn et al, 1996; Laufer & Nation, 1999) and subsequent (Rott, 2007;Webb, 2005; Laufer, 2003, 2006). In addition, direct tests of the hypothesis haveyielded positive results, although the main deviation is in the effectiveness of certaintasks. For example the gapping task (Table 1, task 4) seems to be similar to thecomposition task (Table 1, tasks 6 and 7). However, there have been tests of ILH thatdid not corroborate the findings. Martínez-Fernández (2004) reports no differencebetween higher depths of processing on vocabulary development. Her study usedRichard Page 11Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  12. 12. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009rather different types of task, focussing on incidental and implicit learning and usingthink-aloud protocols. She also reported a discrepancy between the factors thatoperationalize involvement, particularly Search and Evaluation. However, inMartínez-Fernández‟s test the participants were told they would have to re-tell theinformation from the reading, and thus the focus was on overall comprehension andnot individual vocabulary items. This may account for the data she collected. Rott(2007) pointed out, and I agree, that pedagogically, tasks like those used in testingILH may have a negative effect on global comprehension of the text, which needs tobe considered if combining vocabulary acquisition with reading comprehension inclass.Another test by Browne (2002) attempted to pitch various hypotheses of vocabularyacquisition against each other. The study was designed to test the Input Hypothesis(Krashen 1989) the Involvement-Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn 2001) and thePushed Output Theory (Swain 1985). Browne claims that “more words were learned”(2002:1) via the Pushed Output Theory. The flaw in Browne‟s claim is that this theorywas tested by writing words in original sentences which of course does notdifferentiate it from ILH.In my view, ILH is a powerfully persuasive theory because, as Keating (2009) pointsout, it fits in well with other studies and theories in the field, for example wordglossing, look-up and frequency (Peters et al 2009) task-induced involvement (Laufer2003, 2006) and theories around negotiation and interaction (Nation & He, 1999). TheInvolvement-Load Hypothesis‟ greatest strength lies in the way it is reliablyoperationalized, however, therein also lies a need for further testing and re-evaluation.Richard Page 12Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  13. 13. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009As I mentioned before when outlining the hypothesis, there is perhaps a problem withthe simplified model for calculating involvement index (-, + and ++). The threefactors Need, Search and Evaluation, it could be argued, exist on levels more subtlethan moderate and strong. Because not-present (-) is not a measure but rather anabsence, there are effectively only two strengths at which a factor is indexed (+ and++). This could be what has led to disparity between tasks such as gapping andcomposition, so perhaps a more accurate scale would be absent (0) weak (1),moderate (2), strong (3) and intense (4).Another possible limitation that Laufer and Hulstijn present is in the giving of equalinvolvement index across all factors. Need in my own L2 studies has always provedto be the most prevalent factor in acquisition. For example I learned the Japaneseword „tasukete‟ (助けて) which means „help me‟ before learning „tetsudau‟ (手伝う)meaning „can I help (you?).‟ I needed to request help when using Japanese muchmore often than I found myself able to offer it, and it took a lot longer to rememberand be able to recall the latter item. When I learned „tasukete‟ I heard it only once in afilm and deduced the meaning (moderate Evaluation but intense Need). However,with „tetsudau‟ I had to constantly write, read and be drilled before I could claimproductive knowledge. Another example is how quickly after only one or twohearings I learned „ouyougengogaku‟ (応用言語学) or „applied linguistics‟ but I haveheard the words for science and history many times and still have troubleremembering them. From these personal observations I believe (+) Need may bemuch stronger than (+) Search and possibly even Evaluation for learners.Richard Page 13Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  14. 14. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009ConclusionThe Involvement-Load Hypothesis has stood up well to empirical testing, proving thatit is reliably operationalizable despite the factors discussed in the previous section. Italso complements other theories and approaches such as Task-Involvement, frequencyof occurrence and Depth of Processing. More ideas and research are being added allthe time, which means that the reliability of the hypothesis will improve. Already, thepedagogical significance is very clear, and particularly for task-based approaches(Rodgers, 2001; VanPatten & Williams, 2006). The better we understand what isinvolved in learning and retaining words the better we can create materials and taskswhich utilise this knowledge. Already, there are materials which present vocabularyin a way which is inline with ILH (See Appendix). For this reason every effort shouldbe put into strengthening the hypothesis, which is still relatively new and yet hasalready had a deep and possibly lasting effect on second language vocabularyinstruction. (3,315 Words)Richard Page 14Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  15. 15. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009BibliographyBrowne, C. (2002). To push or not to push: A Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T.vocabulary research question. Aoyama (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning byRonshu, Aoyama Gakuin University Press. advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use,Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). and reoccurrence of unknown words. TheLevels of processing: A framework for Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339.memory research. Journal of Verbal Learningand Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. Keating, G.D. (2008) Task effectiveness and word learning in a second language: TheCraik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of Involvement-Load Hypothesis on trialprocessing and the retention of words in Language Teaching Research 2008; 12; 365episodic memory. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: General, 104, 268–294. Kim, YouJin (2008) The Role of Task-Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2Crow, J.T. and Quigley, J.R.(1985) A semantic Vocabulary Acquisition Language Learningfield approach to passive vocabulary 58:2, June 2008, pp. 285–325 ISSN 0023-8333acquisition for reading comprehension TESOLQuarterly 19/3 Krashen, S. (1989) We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence forEckerth, J. & Tavakoli, P. (Forthcoming) the input hypothesis The Modern LanguageEffects of Task Induced Involvement and Journal 73: 440-64Frequency of Exposure on L2 VocabularyAcquisition and Text Comprehension. Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1999) A vocabulary- size test of controlled productive abilityEllis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of Language Testing 1999 16; 33modified input and output in the incidentalacquisition of word meanings. Studies in Laufer, B. (1997) What‟s in a word that makeSecond Language Acquisition, 21, 285–301. it hard or easy: some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words in Schmitt, N. &Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in McCarthy, M. (eds) 1997 Vocabulary:the Language Classroom Oxford: Oxford Description, Acquisition and PedagogyUniversity Press Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in aHorst, M., Cobb T., & Meara, P. (1998). second language: Do learners really acquireBeyond A Clockwork Orange: Acquiring most vocabulary by reading? Some empiricalsecond language vocabulary through reading. evidence. The Canadian Modern LanguageReading in a Foreign Language,11(2), 207– Review, 59, 567–587.223. Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on formHulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some and focus on form in second-languageempirical evidence for the Involvement-Load vocabulary learning. The Canadian ModernHypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Review, 63, 149–166.Language Learning, 51, 539–558. Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26. Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365–391. Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2006) How Languages are Learned 3rd Ed Oxford: Oxford University PressRichard Page 15Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  16. 16. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009 Rott, S. (2007) The Effect of Frequency ofMartínez-Fernández, A. (2004) Revisiting the Input- Enhancements on Word Learning andInvolvement-Load Hypothesis: Awareness, Text Comprehension Language Learning 57:2,Type of Task and Type of Item Language June 2007, pp. 165–199 ISSN 0023-8333Testing 2004; 21; 202 Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incidentalNation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in acquisition of second language vocabulary: Aanother language. Cambridge: Cambridge longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2),University Press. 281–317.Nation, P. & Coady, J. (1988) Vocabulary and Schmitt, N. (2008) Instructed second languageReading in Vocabulary and Language vocabulary learning Language TeachingTeaching Carter, R. & McCarthy, M 1999 Research 2008; 12; 329Pearson Education Swain, M. (1985). CommunicativePeters, E. Hulstijn, J. Sercum, L. Lutjeharms, competence: some roles for comprehensibleM. (2009) Learning L2 German Vocabulary input and comprehensible output in itsThrough Reading: The Effect of Three development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.)Enhancement Techniques Compared Input and Second Language Acquisition.Language Learning 59:1, March 2009, pp. Rowley, MA: Newbury House113–151 ISSN 0023-8333 VanPatten, B. & Williams, J. (eds) Theories inRichards, J.C. & Schmidt, R. (2002) Second Language Acquisition: AnDictionary of Language Teaching and Applied introduction, RouteledgeLinguistics (3rd Edition) Longman; Harlow Webb, S. (1997) Receptive and productiveRichards, J.C. (1976) The Role of Vocabulary Vocabulary sizes of L2 Learners Studies inTeaching TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 Second Language Acquisition, 30, 79–95(Mar., 1976), pp. 77-89 Cambridge University PressRobinson, P. (ed) (2001) Cognition and Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productiveSecond Language Instruction Cambridge: vocabulary learning: The effects of readingCambridge University Press. and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.AppendixThe following lessons are taken from www.onestopenglish.com. They are adaptations of articles fromthe British newspaper The Guardian and each week there is a new one created.Richard Page 16Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  17. 17. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009After this task there is a reading and comprehension questions. Following that there is a matchingactivity. In many of these lessons the vocabulary is not the same as the initial key words, but if it werethe same there would be a higher chance of acquisition.However, the teacher can easily adapt these materials and have the students produce original sentencesusing the target words. To account for time on task in class, this could be set as a homework exercise.Richard Page 17Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT
  18. 18. Richard S Pinner RPinner Psycholinguistics- Involvement Load Hypothesis.docx 12/05/2009Richard Page 18Originally submitted to King‟s College London as part of an MA in Applied Linguistics and ELT

×