Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:51:19.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LEXICAL COMPETENCE UNDERLYING SECOND LANGUAGE WORD ASSOCIATION TASKS

EXAMINING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF RESPONSE TYPE AND RESPONSE TIME MEASURES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2021

Masaki Eguchi Open the ORCID record for Masaki Eguchi [Opens in a new window] ,
Shungo Suzuki Open the ORCID record for Shungo Suzuki [Opens in a new window]  and
Yuichi Suzuki Open the ORCID record for Yuichi Suzuki [Opens in a new window]
Masaki Eguchi*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Shungo Suzuki
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Yuichi Suzuki
Affiliation:
Kanagawa University
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the constructs underlying second language (L2) word association (WA) with regard to three dimensions of lexical competence—size, organization, and accessibility—and the lexical performance of speech. One-hundred and thirteen Japanese learners of English completed a computer-delivered oral WA task along with three vocabulary tasks: a form-recall gap-filling task (size), a primed lexical decision task (organization and accessibility), and an oral cartoon narrative (lexical richness). Regression analyses explored how well these lexical competence and performance scores predicted two WA outcome variables: response profiles and response times. Form-recall vocabulary knowledge, (collocational) priming, and lexical richness explained a large amount of variance in WA response type profiles (Nagelkerke’s pseudo R2 = .901). Form-recall vocabulary knowledge and lexical decision time explained 28.5% of the variance of WA response times. A three-stage model of L2 WA task performance is proposed to account for the constructs underlying WA performance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 112 - 142
Check for updates
Open Practices
Open materials Open data
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

We are grateful to Studies in Second Language Acquisition reviewers as well as the journal editors Luke Plonsky and Susan Gass for their constructive feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript, and to SSLA editorial assistant, Lizz Huntley, for the assistance during the review process. Our thanks go to Takumi Uchihara and Kaori Sugita for their help on data collection and coding. We would also like to thank Kazuya Saito, George Smith, and J-SLARF members for their insightful comments. This study was funded by the EIKEN Research Assistance Program awarded to the first and second authors from the EIKEN Foundation of Japan.

References

Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartoń, K. (2019). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference (1.43.6) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1997). The BBI dictionary of English word combinations. John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (6.0.37) [Computer software]. http://www.praat.org/Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 904–911.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity; accuracy and fluency in SLA. (Vol. 32, pp. 21–46). John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Cedrus Corporation. (2011). Superlab (4.5) [Computer software]. Cedrus Corporation.Google Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cremer, M., Dingshoff, D., de Beer, M., & Schoonen, R. (2010). Do word associations assess word knowledge? A comparison of L1 and L2, child and adult word associations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & Salsbury, T. (2016). A usage-based investigation of L2 lexical acquisition: The role of input and output. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 702–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2007). Editors’ introduction: Conventions, terminology and an overview of the book. In Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14, 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, N. H., Steinel, M. P., Florijn, A. F., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dóczi, B., & Kormos, J. (2016). Longitudinal developments in vocabulary knowledge and lexical organization. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L. P. C. C., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: A tool for word selection and nonword generation in Dutch, English, German, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 488–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eguchi, M., & Kyle, K. (2020). Continuing to explore the multidimensional nature of lexical sophistication: The case of oral proficiency interviews. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elff, M. (2020). Mclogit: Mixed Conditional Logit Models (0.8.5.1) [Computer software]. http://github.com/melff/mclogit/Google Scholar
Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in an L2. Language Learning, 61, 367–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. MIT press.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2006). Habits and rabbits: Word associations and the L2 lexicon. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2007). Word association patterns: Unpacking the assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2009). Word association profiles in a first and second language: Puzzles and problems. In T. Fitzpatrick & A. Barfield (Eds.), Lexical processing in second language learners (pp. 38–52). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T. (2012). Word associations. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Izura, C. (2011). Word association in L1 and L2: An exploratory study of response types, response times, and interlingual mediation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., Playfoot, D., Wray, A., & Wright, M. J. (2015). Establishing the reliability of word association data for investigating individual and group differences. Applied Linguistics, 36, 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Thwaites, P. (2020). Word association research and the L2 lexicon. Language Teaching, 53, 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2019). Word knowledge: Exploring the relationships and order of acquisition of vocabulary knowledge components. Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henriksen, B. (2008). Declarative lexical knowledge. In Albrechtsen, D., Haastrup, K., & Henriksen, B. (Eds.), Vocabulary and writing in a first and second language: Processes and development (pp. 22–26). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J., & Morgan, L. (1997). LTP dictionary of selected collocations. LTP.Google Scholar
Hoffman, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Rogers, T. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 718–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
JACET (2016). The new JACET list of 8000 basic words. Kirihara Shoten.Google Scholar
Jiang, N., & Zhang, J. (2019). Form prominence in the L2 lexicon: Further evidence from word association. Second Language Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319827053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 978–990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Berger, C. (2017). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1030–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Jarvis, S. (2020). Assessing the validity of lexical diversity indices using direct judgements. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18, 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1844205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lucas, M. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 618–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayor, M. (Ed.) (2013). Longman collocations dictionary and thesaurus. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meara, P. (1982). Word associations in a foreign language: A report on the Birkbeck Vocabulary Project. Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 11, 28–38.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). Designing vocabulary tests for English, Spanish and other languages. In Butler, S. C., Gómez-González, M. de los Á., & Doval-Suárez, S. M. (Eds.), The dynamics of language use, (pp. 271–286): John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P., & Wolter, B. (2004). V_Links: Beyond vocabulary depth. Angles on the English Speaking World, 4, 85–96.Google Scholar
Mollin, S. (2009). Combining corpus linguistic and psychological data on word co-occurrences: Corpus collocates versus word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namei, S. (2004). Bilingual lexical development: A Persian–Swedish word association study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (United Kingdom), 14(3), 363–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 402–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nissen, H. B., & Henriksen, B. (2006). Word class influence on word association test results. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R. J., Bridgeman, B., & Cho, Y. (2015). The association between TOEFL iBT test scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels (Research Memorandum No. RM-15–06). Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Playfoot, D., Balint, T., Pandya, V., Parkes, A., Peters, M., & Richards, S. (2016). Are word association responses really the first words that come to mind? Applied Linguistics, 418, 1–19.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/Google Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64, 913–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18, 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Söderman, T. (1993). Word associations of foreign language learners and native speakers—The phenomenon of a shift in response type and its relevance for lexical development. (Ph.D. thesis). University College of Swansea.Google Scholar
Suzuki, S. (2018). Second language learner corpus: Task-based spontaneous speech by Japanese learners of English. (Unpublished corpus of second language speech).Google Scholar
Wickham, H. (2016). Ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.orgGoogle Scholar
Wilks, C., & Meara, P. (2002). Untangling word webs: Graph theory and the notion of density in second language word association networks. Second Language Research, 18, 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon: A depth of individual word knowledge model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B. (2002). Assessing proficiency through word associations: Is there still hope? System, 30, 315–329.Google Scholar
Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H. (2011). Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of l1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32, 430–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zareva, A. (2007). Structure of the second language mental lexicon: How does it compare to native speakers’ lexical organization? Second Language Research, 23, 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zareva, A., & Wolter, B. (2012). The “promise” of three methods of word association analysis to L2 lexical research. Second Language Research, 28, 41–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zenker, F., & Kyle, K. (2021). Investigating minimum text lengths for lexical diversity indices. Assessing Writing, 47, 100505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Eguchi et al. supplementary material

Eguchi et al. supplementary material 1

Download Eguchi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 5.5 MB
Supplementary material: File

Eguchi et al. supplementary material

Eguchi et al. supplementary material 2

Download Eguchi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.9 MB