Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Semantic Transfer & L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
Semantic Transfer & L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
- 2. Semantics Semantic transfer andits implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language
- 3. Author Nan Jiang 2004 Departmentof Applied Linguistics Georgia State University Atlanta/GA
- 4. Former Study -2002 ■ The first study was done on Chinese students. ■ It was done on a particular set of materials on a particular group. ■ Materials and design were not neat and clear sufficiently.
- 5. Literature Review ■ Consensus:Vocabulary acquisiton is at least as important as syntax acquisiton in studying L2. ■ Word Retention ■ The studies are descriptive and model-free
- 6. Questions to FindAnswers ■ How lexical knowledge is represented in the learners’ mind? ■ What stages does a word go through before it becomes an integrated part of the learner’s lexicon? ■ What is involved in the form-meaning mapping process?
- 7. Grounded Hypotheses Psycholinguistic Model ofAdult L2 Vocabulary Acquisiton Semantic Transfer Hypothesis
- 8. Pscyholinguistic Model ofAdult L2 Vocabulary Acquisition ■ Adults can learn vocabulary way better than children do. ■ They already have a well-established conceptual and lexical system. ■ Most L2 words have a correspondent concept and translation in adult’s L1. ■ Semantic fossilization plays a great role on errors.
- 9. Three Stage Modelof Adult Vocabulary Lexical Association Stage (Word Association Stage) L1 Lemma Mediation Stage (Hybrid – Entry Stage) Full Integration Stage
- 10. What is aLemma? •Meaning •Syntax •Morphology •Phonology / Orthography 4 types of lexical knowledge
- 11. What is aLemma?
- 12.
- 13. L1 Lemma MediationStage
- 14.
- 15. The Semantic TransferHypothesis ■ Same Translation Effect ■ Different Translation Effect
- 16.
- 17. Present Study 2004 Ithas 3 main purposes. 1. Replication of the first same-translation effect study. 2. To provide confirmation for the same-translation effect study by using a cleaner desing. 3. To explore pedagogical implications of findings. (To have a new path for vocabulary teaching in L2)
- 18. Methodology ■ Korean ESLstudents were presented with a list of random English word pairs. ■ The English word pairs were related or unrelated in meaning. ■ The learners were asked to judge if the pairs were related in meaning.
- 19. Participants ■ 15 Korean-Englishbilinguals (5 Females, 10 Males) ■ 15 English Native Speakers ■ All but 1 are under graduate students at Auburn University. ■ English speakers were also students and staff from the same instutition. ■ None of the English speakers reported knowing Korean.
- 20. Language Background ofParticipants
- 21. Materials and Design ■An initial list of 130 English word pairs was generated by English- Korean bilingual speaker. ■ The Word pairs were all related in meaning. ■ Some shared the same Korean translation and the others did not. ■ A randomized 260 English words were given to 3 Korean-English bilinguals and asked to provide the first Korean translation. ■ The two sets of words given to 3 native speakers of English and asked to rate degrees of semantic relatedness on a scale of 1 to 5. ■ 32 pairs of words were chosen from each set.
- 22. Materials and Desing ■These pairs were matched for frequency, word length, and degree of semantic relatedness. ■ In addition to these 64 related Word pairs, 64 related English words were also constructed with similar length and frequency. ■ These pairs were needed in order for the test to elicit both positive and negative responses. ■ Both related and unrelated words randomized.
- 23.
- 24. Procedure ■ The participantswere tested individually. ■ They were instructed to judge as quickly and accurately as they could whether two words are related in meaning. ■ All participants received the same 128 related and unrelated items but the presentation order of these words was randomized.
- 25. Reaction Times andError Rates
- 26.
- 27. Results ■ In theanalysis of results, only correct responses were included. ■ The Korean ESL participants were 540 ms slower than native English speakers in responding to the related items. ■ The participants responded to the same-translation pairs 64 ms faster than to the different-translation pairs. ■ There was a significant interactions of the two variables in both participants and item analysis. ■ No main effect was found in the error data. ■ The results suggest that these two sets of materials were highly comparible in terms of semantic relatedness, frequency and length.
- 28. Reaction Times withQuantitative Data
- 29. Discussion ■ Same-translation effectrepresents a common phoenomenon. ■ The lexical processing was still mediated by the semantic structures transferred from their L1. ■ Advanced language learners can make meaning-driven lexical errors on common words. ■ The findings in both studies provide direct experimental evidence for the continued presence of transferred semantic structures, and thus there is very limited semantic development in the L2.
- 30. Semantic Autonomy ■ Theultimate goal of L2 learning is to develop a linguistic and semantic means that can function as an autonomous system. ■ Autonomy is important in terms of developing an idiomatic, accurate and fluent expressions of one’s ideas. ■ Semantic transfer is illustrated in L2 learning but the development and integration of L2 specific semantic meanings should not be taken for granted.
- 31. Semantization Strategies Intralingual Strategies(synonymy, Definitions, linguistic context) Interlingual Strategies (cognates, L1 translations equivalents) Extralingual Strategies (pictures, objects, physical contexts and multimedia aids)
- 32. Overcoming Semantic Fossilization ■Variety of vocabulary instruction techniques ■ Instructional materials that specifically highlight the semantic differences of problem words. ■ Meaning-focused pedagogical activities. ■ Sufficient contextualized input and interactions.
- 33.
- 34. Thank you. Curriculum andInstruction ASLI TUĞÇE GÜLER December 2015