Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T14:18:36.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orthographic knowledge and lexical form influence vocabulary learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

JAMES BARTOLOTTI  and
VIORICA MARIAN
JAMES BARTOLOTTI*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
VIORICA MARIAN
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE James Bartolotti, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many adults struggle with second language acquisition but learn new native-language words relatively easily. We investigated the role of sublexical native-language patterns on novel word acquisition. Twenty English monolinguals learned 48 novel written words in five repeated testing blocks. Half were orthographically wordlike (e.g., nish, high neighborhood density and high segment/bigram frequency), while half were not (e.g., gofp, low neighborhood density and low segment/bigram frequency). Participants were faster and more accurate at recognizing and producing wordlike items, indicating a native-language similarity benefit. Individual differences in memory and vocabulary size influenced learning, and error analyses indicated that participants extracted probabilistic information from the novel vocabulary. Results suggest that language learners benefit from both native-language overlap and regularities within the novel language.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 427 - 456
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62, 49–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.x Google Scholar
Baker, W., & Trofimovich, P. (2005). Interaction of native- and second-language vowel system(s) in early and late bilinguals. Language and Speech, 48, 1–27. doi:10.1177/00238309050480010101 Google Scholar
Bates, E., D'Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Székely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., et al. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 344–380. doi:10.3758/BF03196494 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E. (2008). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11. doi:10.1017/S1366728908003477 Google Scholar
Bigham, D. S. (2010). Mechanisms of accommodation among emerging adults in a university setting. Journal of English Linguistics, 38, 193–210. doi:10.1177/0075424210373542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2009). Age and the end state of second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (Eds.), New handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 401–423). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (2014). The critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: Tailoring the coat of many colors. In Pawlak, M. & Aronin, L. (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism, second language learning and teaching (pp. 43–50). Geneva: Springer International.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Kempe, V., & Donachie, A. (2011). Second language learning benefits from similarity in word endings: Evidence from Russian. Language Learning, 61, 1142–1172. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00665.x Google Scholar
Davis, M. H., & Gaskell, M. G. (2009). A complementary systems account of word learning: Neural and behavioural evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 364, 3773–3800. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0111 Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B., & Keijzer, R. (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, 1–56. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00110 Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55 (Suppl. 1), 1–25. doi:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., Reed, K. D., Adams, D. R., & Meyer, A. S. (2000). Speech errors, phonotactic constraints, and implicit learning: A study of the role of experience in language production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 26, 1355–1367. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1355 Google Scholar
Dumay, N., & Gaskell, M. G. (2007). Sleep-associated changes in the mental representation of spoken words. Psychological Science, 18, 35–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01845.x Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M. (1997). Examiner's manual for the PPVT-III: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Evans, B. G., & Iverson, P. (2007). Plasticity in vowel perception and production: A study of accent change in young adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121, 3814–3826. doi:10.1121/1.2722209 Google Scholar
Franceschina, F. (2005). Fossilized second language grammars: The acquisition of grammatical gender. Amesterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Steinhauer, K., & Pfeifer, E. (2002). Brain signatures of artificial language processing: Evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 529–534. doi:10.1073/pnas.012611199 Google Scholar
Frisch, S. A., Large, N. R., & Pisoni, D. B. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: Effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 481–496. doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2692 Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., Behney, J. N., & Uzum, B. (2013). Inhibitory control, working memory and L2 interaction. In Drozdzial-Szelest, K. & Pawlak, M. (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching (pp. 91–114). Berlin: Springer International.Google Scholar
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2012). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 70–105. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315 Google Scholar
Gupta, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases. Brain and Language, 59, 267–333. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1819 Google Scholar
Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60–99. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, M., McKague, M., & Pratt, C. (2004). Evidence for an automatic orthographic code in the processing of visually novel word forms. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19, 273–317. doi:10.1080/01690960344000189 Google Scholar
Kempe, V., & Brooks, P. J. (2011). Individual differences in adult second language learning: A cognitive perspective. Scottish Languages Review, 23, 15–22. Retrieved from https://repository.abertay.ac.uk/jspui/handle/10373/1045 Google Scholar
Kempe, V., Brooks, P. J., & Kharkhurin, A. (2010). Cognitive predictors of generalization of Russian grammatical gender categories. Language Learning, 60, 127–153. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00553.x Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., Stevens, M., Mandera, P., & Brysbaert, M. (2015). Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1665–1692. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1022560 Google Scholar
Liu, M., Evans, M. K., Horwitz, E., Lee, S., McCrory, M., Park, J.-B., et al. (2013). A study of the use of social network sites for language learning by university ESL students. In Lamy, M.-N. & Zourou, K. (Eds.), Social networking for language education (pp. 137–157). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotto, L., & De Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 31–69. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00032 Google Scholar
Luce, P. A., & Large, N. R. (2001). Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 565–581. doi:10.1080/01690960143000137 Google Scholar
Majerus, S., Poncelet, M., van der Linden, M., & Weekes, B. S. (2008). Lexical learning in bilingual adults: The relative importance of short-term memory for serial order and phonological knowledge. Cognition. 107, 395–419. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.10.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marian, V., Bartolotti, J., Chabal, S., & Shook, A. (2012). CLEARPOND: Cross-linguistic easy-access resource for phonological and orthographic neighborhood densities. PLOS ONE, 7, e43230. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043230 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological short-term memory and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 379–413. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000125 Google Scholar
Merkle, E. C., You, D., & Preacher, K. J. (2015). Testing nonnested structural equation models. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/met0000038 Google Scholar
Mirman, D., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Statistical and computational models of the visual world paradigm: Growth curves and individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 475–494. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.006 Google Scholar
Mirman, D., Magnuson, J. S., Graf Estes, K., & Dixon, J. A. (2008). The link between statistical segmentation and word learning in adults. Cognition, 108, 271–280. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.003 Google Scholar
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M., & Flege, J. E. (1999). Canadians in Alabama: A perceptual study of dialect acquisition in adults. Journal of Phonetics, 27, 385–403. doi:10.1006/jpho.1999.0101 Google Scholar
Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (2004). Learning at a distance: Statistical learning of non-adjacent dependencies. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 127–162. doi:10.1016/s0010-0285(03)00128-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PsychCorp. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., Shaoul, C., Milin, P., & Baayen, H. (2014). The myth of cognitive decline: Non-linear dynamics of lifelong learning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 5–42. doi:10.1111/tops.12078 Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x Google Scholar
Rogers, J., Webb, S., & Nakata, T. (2014). Do the cognacy characteristics of loanwords make them more easily learned than noncognates? Language Teaching Research, 19, 9–27. doi:10.1177/1362168814541752 Google Scholar
Roodenrys, S., & Hinton, M. (2002). Sublexical or lexical effects on serial recall of nonwords? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 29–33. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.28.1.29 Google Scholar
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236. doi:10.1068/p5117 Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1999). Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70, 27–52. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00075-4 Google Scholar
Schepens, J., Dijkstra, T., Grootjen, F., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2013). Cross-language distributions of high frequency and phonetically similar cognates. PLOS ONE, 8, e63006. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0063006 Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. G., & Leonard, L. B. (1982). Do children pick and choose? An examination of phonological selection and avoidance in early lexical acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 9, 319–336. doi:10.1017/S0305000900004748 Google Scholar
Sebastián-Gallés, N., Rodríguez-Fornells, A., de Diego-Balaguer, R., & Díaz, B. (2006). First- and second-language phonological representations in the mental lexicon. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1277–1291. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.8.1277 Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. M., & Waters, D. L. (2005). An investigation of the cognitive processes underlying the keyword method of foreign vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 9, 129–146. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr151oa Google Scholar
Singleton, D. (2005). The critical period hypothesis: A coat of many colours. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 269–285.Google Scholar
Snellings, P., & van Gelderen, A. (2002). Lexical retrieval: An aspect of fluent second language production that can be enhanced. Language Learning, 52, 723–754. doi:10.1111/1467-9922.00202 Google Scholar
Stamer, M. K., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2012). Phonological similarity influences word learning in adults learning Spanish as a foreign language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 490–502. doi:10.1017/S1366728911000216 Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., Armbrüster, J., & Hogan, T. P. (2006). Differentiating phonotactic probability and neighborhood density in adult word learning. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1175–1192. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/085) Google Scholar
Thorn, A. S. C., & Frankish, C. R. (2005). Long-term knowledge effects on serial recall of nonwords are not exclusively lexical. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 729–735. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.729 Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). Implicit and explicit measures of sensitivity to violations in second language grammar: An event-related potential investigation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 173–204. doi:10.1017/S0272263105050102 Google Scholar
van Gelderen, A., Oostdam, R., & van Schooten, E. (2011). Does foreign language writing benefit from increased lexical fluency? Evidence from a classroom experiment. Language Learning, 61, 281–321. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00612.x Google Scholar
Verhaeghen, P. (2003). Aging and vocabulary score: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18, 332–339. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.332 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 374–408. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2618 Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004). A Web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481–487. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2008.05.010 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vuong, Q. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57, 307–333. doi:10.2307/1912557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). The comprehensive test of phonological processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Yoshida, H., Tran, D. N., Benitez, V., & Kuwabara, M. (2011). Inhibition and adjective learning in bilingual and monolingual children. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 210. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00210 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J. C., Muneaux, M., & Grainger, J. (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition: Phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 779–793. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00006-8 Google Scholar