Title
Author(s)
Citation
Issue Date
URL
Rights
Complex or Complicated? Implications for Word Meaning
Knowledge Development in Foreign Language
Goya, Hideki
琉球大学欧米文化論集 ＝ Ryudai Review of Euro-American
Studies(59): 1-24
2015-03-31
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12000/31614
Ryudai Review of Euro-American Studies No. 59, 2015
Complex or Complicated ?
Implications for Word Meaning Knowledge Development in
Foreign Language
Hideki Goya
Introduction
English is one of the significant languages used for global communication.
This has led many applied linguists to investigate various aspects involved in the
successful acquisition of English both in English as a second language (ESL) and
English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Among them, many studies have focused
on the mechanism for word learning due to the direct impact on the successful
acquisition in the last two decades. The present study aimed to seek an answer to the
following general question: What should foreign language instructors do in the
classroom to help learners develop word meaning knowledge? More specifically, the
study aimed to (l) thoroughly review previous findings in the field to seek plausible
theoretical accounts for ESL/EFL learners' lack of native-like lexical competence; (2)
suggest effective teaching practices that can be implemented in a foreign language
classroom; and (3) generate a new research methodology to complement what is missing
in the current research paradigm. In the following section, the study will closely look at
various research frameworks and relevant research findings existing in interdisciplinary
fields.
Vocabulary Knowledge in a Foreign Language
A Nation's framework well conceptualizes word knowledge; that is, the word
knowledge consists of many components (Nation, 2001). In this sense, it is necessary to
-I -
look into the components of knowledge to construct the whole picture of what is
involved in knowing a word. According to his simplified categorization (see Table 1
below), in particular, this knowledge is comprised of three major components: form,
meaning, and use. Each of the three further consists of three subcomponents, each of
which is further classified according to whether it is receptive (R) or productive (P). For
example, if a learner has learned the word child, they may know the sound of the word
(i.e., /tfaild/) or the sequence of letters that make up the word (i.e., the word consists of
the letters c, h, i, I, and d) with a clear idea of what concept the word refers to (i.e.,
'young person who is not yet adult'). Moreover, the learner knows its grammatical
function as a common noun; that it is countable; and that its irregular plural form is
children. They are capable of recognizing the word in listening and reading as well as
produce it in their own speech and writing, even in metaphors as well as useful
expressions in an appropriate fashion (Nation, 2001).
Based on the framework, a number of applied linguists have done a large
amount of studies related to language proficiency and concluded that expanded word
knowledge fosters language proficiency, which in tum directly correlates to academic
success. In this sense, ESL/EFL learners need to know a large number of words for the
development of general language skills. In addition to the importance of a large
vocabulary, how well L2 learners know words, or the "depth" of knowledge, has been a
longstanding issue in L2 word-learning studies (Qian & Schedl, 2004; Zareva et a!.,
2005).
The issue includes a pedagogical concern: the challenge of enabling ESLIEFL
learners to achieve native-like lexical competence (Qian, 2002) in relation to the depth of
knowledge, especially the appropriate use of L2 synonyms (e.g., Jiang, 2004a). For
instance, ESL learners may misunderstand that the English words complicated and
complex can be used interchangeably in some contexts. One may say, "The question was
too complicated," meaning "it was difficult." Yet, they might not know how the word
complicated differs from its synonym complex. In general, the word complex refers to the
level of components in a structure or system. In this sense, "The problem was too
-2-
complex" sounds inappropriate to native speakers when referring to the difficulty of a
problem, but this may not be salient enough to non-native speakers. Such problems with
subtle meaning differences frequently surface in the use of L2 words among ESLIEFL
learners and can cause serious communication breakdown. Table I indicates the
classified categories of word knowledge widely accepted in the field of word learning
studies.
Table I.
What is Involved in Knowing a Word
Form
Spoken
Written
Word parts
Meaning
Form and meaning
Concepts and referents
Associations
Use
Grammatical functions
Collocations
Constraints on use
R
What does the word sound like?
p
How is the word pronounced?
R What does the word look like?
p
How is the word written and spelled?
R
What parts are recognizable in this word?
p
What word parts are needed to express this meaning?
R
What meaning does this word form signal?
p
What word form can be used to express this meaning?
R
What is included in the concept?
p
What items can the concept refer to?
R
What other words does this make us think of?
p
What other words could we use instead of this one?
R
In what patterns does the word occur?
p
In what patterns must we use this word?
R
What words or types of words occur with this one?
p
What words or types of words must we use with this one?
R Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word?
p
Where, when, and how often can we use this word?
Nation (2001: p.20)
-3-
What Facilitates Vocabulary Learning
Contextual Clues and Frequent Exposures
A widely accepted connectionist view on word learning is, as Ellis (2002)
asserts, "Comprehension is determined by the listeners' vast amount of statistical
information about the behavior of lexical items in their language" (p. 144). He further
suggests that we acquire a language not because we are equipped with an innate device
in mind, but because we are cognitively capable of sorting out abstract regularities of
linguistic information we receive. In this view, we can conceive language acquisition as
instance learning, and consequently, what we learn is knowledge of association of form
and meaning resulting from an interconnected network of exemplars and patterns rather
than linguistic rules (Elman, Bates, Johnson, Karmiloff-Smith, Parisi, & Plunkett, 1996).
Such a view has been inspired from the biological neural network architecture
whose construction is based on nodes interconnected by pathways in the brain. In
essence, as a result of repeated encounters, the pathways are strengthened or weakened
by frequency of activation and processing, whose associational outcome is seen in
performance. In this light, language learning takes place as a result of a network built on
frequent exposures to repeated associational patterns. In other words, the more a
particular association becomes activated, the stronger and more fluent this association
becomes in order to retrieve necessary word-knowledge information from our memory
(Ellis, 2004).
Taking the above view into account, many word-learning studies in L 1 and L2
have documented the inevitable associational construction in word learning (Ellis, 2004).
Yet, what needs to be kept in mind is how such linkage becomes fluent and less
deliberate in the network. This is an important issue because learners need to figure out
the meaning conveyed by certain word forms for comprehension or to seek word forms
according to the intended meaning in the case of output production (Levelt, 1993). For
instance, the former case can be exemplified in a following situation: A Ieamer knows
the word-form "bank," but how it is comprehended differs depending on the embedded
context because "bank" has two meanings: 'a financial institute' and 'part of river.' On
-4-
the other hand, the latter can be seen in a situation where a learner has to choose 'boat' or
'ship' where the intended meaning is 'an object to sail on the water surface' in the
context. In this sense, a form-meaning association is strengthened by repeated exposure
to target words with contextual clues.
In addition to contextual clues, many SLA studies examined how much impact
frequent exposure to target words has on learning words by controlling word frequency
(Aizawa, 2006; Milton, 2006; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Rott, 2007; Tekmen & Daloglu,
2006; Webb, 2007a, 2007b). It was found that the most frequent words in a language
tend to be learned earlier than less frequent words as seen with not only ESL studies
(Aizawa, 2006) but also in other foreign language studies (Milton, 2006).
Similarly, Tekmen and Daloglu (2006) investigated incidental vocabulary
acquisition in relation to learners' proficiency levels and word frequency with the group
of Turkish university students. They found that the more frequently a word appeared in
the text, the greater the students were able to acquire it, which insured that frequency and
acquisition correlated well for each group individually as well as for all groups combined.
As Milton (2009) asserted, "frequent lemmas really are learned in greater number than
less frequent lemmas" (p. 242). Milton concluded that repetition of words was essential
for successful word learning that would enhance the memory.
Crosslinguistic Influence
As far as synonym learning is concerned, knowing a L2 word can facilitate
learning its synonymous counterparts (Jiang, 2004a). This is because knowledge of the
known L2 synonym does not necessary mean the Ieamer has actual L2 knowledge of the
word, but rather knows the word shares the same Ll translation. In other words,
considering the Ieamer's tendency of word learning, it is hard to deny that the learners
might have transferred a L I translation, which could be a source of successful acquisition
of L2 synonyms. For instance, Kellerman (1979) investigated positive transfer by
conducting experiments where the acceptability of transitive and intransitive meaning of
verbs was tested. Since both transitive and intransitive meanings are possible in the verb
-5-
breken in Dutch and break in English, the commonalities were believed to help
participants arrive at native-like performance. This result indicated that knowledge that
already existed in L 1 facilitated L2 learners to perform like native speakers of the target
language.
Meaning Closeness within a Language
Meaning closeness of two words in the same language also facilitates ESLIEFL
learners' English synonym learning. For example, Webb (2009) conducted a study which
aimed to determine whether learning synonyms for known L2 words was easier than
learning non-synonyms. The participants were 84 Japanese students learning English,
and the study was comprised of ten tests. Webb investigated five major types of
knowledge, including orthography, paradigmatic association, syntagmatic association,
meaning and form, and grammatical functions in receptive and productive measurements.
The items were categorized into two groups: ten low-frequency words with highfrequency synonyms and ten low-frequency words without high-frequency synonyms.
All target words were disguised as pseudowords. The study employed two learning
conditions: glossed sentences and word pairs. The overall results showed that the
learners had significantly higher scores for the words that had known synonyms on
productive knowledge as measured using syntagmatic association and paradigmatic
association tests and on receptive knowledge as measured using an orthography test.
Webb (2009) suggests, "learning synonyms for known words may be easier than learning
words that do not have known synonyms" (p.l20). Furthermore, Webb emphasizes that
learners benefit in transferring knowledge of a known L2 synonym to that of the new
synonym.
Difficulty in Learning Foreign Language Vocabulary
Contradictory to the beneficial commonality for successful word learning
within a language mentioned above, synonyms can be a source of learning difficulty in
some instances (Laufer, 1990; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2010a, 2010b; Webb, 2009). More
-6-
specifically, a number of studies have found that learners become confused if the
semantically similar words or synonyms are presented in the same set (Erten & Tekin,
2008; Finkbeiner & Nicol, 2003). For example, Erten and Tekin reported semantic
interference in a study which aimed to investigate the effect of word recall on introduced
words via two different methods: words in a semantically related set and words in a
semantically unrelated set. They tested 60 young Turkish learners in an EFL
environment using unknown real L2 words. The result revealed that learning words in
semantically unrelated sets yielded better results than learning word in semantically
related sets. In addition, the test completion time was much longer for the semantically
related word items, indicating a slower recall of words.
Likewise, another study done on paired associate research (Finkbeiner & Nicol,
2003) investigated the same interference effect. Forty-seven monolingual English
speakers participated in paired associate word learning and recall tests. The materials
used in this study were 32 pseudowords matched with pictures that were either
semantically related or not related on the basis of a semantic category. Individual
participants were asked to learn new words in learning sessions by being shown pictures
with their corresponding pseudowords on a computer screen. The recognition task and
two translation tasks were carried out immediately after the session. In the experiment,
participants were asked to judge whether the presented word and the picture matched or
not. After the recognition task, they were asked to translate stimuli from both L 1 to L2
and L2 to Ll respectively. The study found that translation times were significantly
slower for words learned in semantically related sets. Furthermore, translation
performance was adversely affected by presenting the words in semantic related sets.
From a pedagogical perspective in word learning, Nation (2001) acknowledged
the above difficulty as follows:
Learning words from cards involves making connections, particularly between
the word form and its meaning. However, when several words are learned at
the same time then other associations may be made between the different
words and some of these associations do not help learning. (p. 307)
-7-
Nation continued that learners would become easily confused with semantically similar
items because co-activated relevant representations compete with each other and affect
the speed with which a lexical form is retrieved and outputs produced. In this sense,
more interference was caused by meaning similarity (Hulstijn & Tangelder, 1993) if the
target word has a very similar synonymous counterpart.
Despite the plausible facilitation in L2 word learning due to cross-linguistic
commonality mentioned in the earlier section, an adverse effect also occurs between
languages. The commonality might cause learning difficulties because L2 learners may
erroneously think that some aspects of the two languages are identical. Yet, it is well
known that translation equivalents from two different languages may not always share
identical semantic properties and boundaries (Sonaiya, l 991 ); consequently, L2 learners
may become confused. In this sense, because of the commonality between words in the
native language and words in the target language, word-meaning learning and
development appear challenging to L2 learners to a larger extent (Swan, 1997). Of such
lexical challenge, Sonaiya ( 199 l) claims:
We already know that closely related words in the target language usually
prove difficult for the adult learner to acquire, particularly in cases where the
learner's native language does not make the same kinds of conceptual
distinctions that exist in the target language. (p. 283)
Sonaiya further contends that in relation to synonymous words in L2, the two distinct
word-forms not only need to be mapped to the same concepts, but also they need to be
mapped onto the concepts that distinguish them for more appropriate use. He concludes
that L2 learners would continuously refine their word-meaning knowledge by adjusting
boundaries between a word that they have already acquired and a semantically similar
word that is newly learned. Such a notion is well considered as semantic restructuring
(Jiang, 2002), reconstruction (Nation, 2001), fine-tuning (Ellis, 2004), conceptual
modification (Wolter, 2006), or reconstruction (Gullberg, 2009).
The necessity of such semantic restructuring (e.g., Jiang, 2004a) of L2 word
learning has been discussed in some studies. In particular, Sonaiya ( 1991) acknowledged
-8-
that the gap of meanings in L1 and L2 words would bear additional learning difficulty.
That is, the difficulty involved in L2 word-meaning learning may be directly influenced
by cross-linguistic differences that influence semantic development. Strick (1980) also
investigated whether Iranian ESL learners transferred the L1 semantic system to L2
usage. He examined the cognitive organization of address terms by native English
speakers (n
=
=
25) as well as the equivalent Farsi address terms by Iranian ESL learners (n
29). The participants were asked to rate the similarity on ten American address terms.
After the first task, the participants were asked to rate these same ten forms in regards to
status, formality, like-mindedness, solidarity, intimacy, and power. The Iranian ESL
learners were asked to do the same task with eleven Farsi address terms later.
In his experiment, Strick found that there were differences in the address terms
used between the native speakers of English and the Iranian participants. The results
from native speakers of English indicated more intimacy, whereas those of the Iranian
participants indicated more status, both in English and in Farsi. Strick concluded that the
Iranians both in their L1 and L2 seemed to understand the address terms as functions of
Iranian cultural orientation based on their hierarchical society. He also suggested that the
semantic development in L2 seemingly occurred as the process of transition from native
to L2 semantic structures.
Similarly, ljaz ( 1986) investigated whether non-native speakers (NNS) and
native speakers of English (NS) would share similar semantic knowledge. Five groups of
advanced ESL learners (n
= 50) and a group of native speakers of English (n = 17) were
asked to complete the semantic relatedness rating task and the sentence completion task
in which they examined the use of the words on, upon, onto, on top of, over, and above.
In the first task, the participants were asked to indicate their understanding of the
meaning of prepositions such as on and over by specifying the position of the word in a
diagrammatic semantic space. In the second task, they were asked to complete sentences
with the appropriate prepositions.
The results from both tasks showed significant differences between NNSs and
the NSs in their performance. Specifically, in the semantic relatedness task, about 50 %
-9-
of the ratings from NNSs were significantly different from those of NSs, while in the
sentence completion task, about 54 % of the answers on NNSs were significantly
different from those of NSs. Ijaz concluded that the Ll conceptual patterns seemed
"powerful determinants of the meaning ascribed to L2 words and they seemed to be very
rigid and difficult to permeate" (p. 447). What these studies indicate is that L2 learners
effectively made use of a fully developed semantic system to understand and learn the
new L2 meanings which might encompass the Ll semantic system. If the corresponding
L2 word-meaning partially overlaps, the influence facilitates quick learning of the new
L2 systems as a positive transfer.
Furthermore, Jiang (2000) hypothesized that when L2 learners learn L2 words,
they construct a form-meaning association whose connection relies on the L l translation
or the semantic transfer. In addition, due to the semantic transfer, L2 learners cannot
distinguish L2 words if they share the same Ll translation, and the subtle semantic
differences cannot be learned by L2 learners (e.g., Jiang, 2000). This Ll influence caused
by semantic transfer extensively impacts their language behavior, which in tum blocks
further development of word-meaning knowledge.
Jiang (2002) investigated whether L2 lexical forms were mapped to the
existing semantic content of their first language translations rather than to a new
semantic property. Chinese ESL learners at an advanced level (NNSs) and native
speakers of English (NSs) participated in both offline experiments in which they had to
decide the degree of meaning relatedness of English words in two different sets. The
stimuli pairs differed in that some shared the same Ll translation and others did not.
Jiang tested the same participants to investigate their semantic judgment in the test in
which they had to determine whether the presented word pairs were semantically related
or not. The study found that NNSs showed a higher degree of relatedness when the
stimuli shared the same L I translation. On the other hand, NSs showed identical ratings
on both sets of stimuli. Based on these findings, Jiang suggested that L2 learners might
have transferred their Ll semantic information (i.e., Ll translation) as word-meaning for
L2 word use.
-10-
Jiang (2004a) investigated the same line of inquiry with participants of a
different L1 background, namely Korean speakers. He investigated the semantic transfer
effect with 15 Korean English bilinguals and 15 English native speakers in a study where
they had to judge the relatedness of the meaning between two conditioned set of stimuli
as quickly as possible in the semantic judgment test. Jiang found the same translation
effect and discussed how semantic development could be very slow and often
unsuccessful in L2.
Collectively, as a result of the findings from Jiang's series of experiments
regarding semantic transfer and semantic development, it was reported that L2 learners
tended to associate Ll word-meanings with newly learned L2 word-forms (Jiang, 2002).
This cross-linguistic influence of word-meaning knowledge would facilitate a quick
increase of L2 words because L2 learners do not have to create new meanings. Yet, not
surprisingly, a number of lexical errors from the semantic transfer frequently surfaced in
use because L2 learners had not acquired the subtle meaning differences due to semantic
transfer as well (Jiang, 2004a). Jiang concluded that adult L2 learners might transfer Ll
semantic information when they learn new L2 words; however, these negative effects
would last for quite some time. Therefore, L2 learners would be most likely fossilized
with Ll translations as word-meanings associating with L2 word-forms for any use.
Other studies indicated even more pessimistic results. Schmitt (1998)
examined word-meaning learning and further development. In his longitudinal study,
different Ll background ESL learners (n
=
11) attending graduate level institutions in
England participated to investigate how word-meanings could be acquired. Data
elicitation was done by one-on-one interviews in which the participants gave answers to
questions regarding target stimuli over a year. Schmitt tested participants on how many
meanings of 11 English words with a total of 61 meanings they knew receptively and
productively. First, the participants were asked to provide a meaning for each word,
hence measuring their receptive knowledge of stimuli. After this, they were given
triggers for some other meanings of these words to elicit additional meanings. The
purpose was to measure their receptive and productive knowledge by assessing their
-11-
ability to recognize other meanings for the same word and then produce additional
meanings. Schmitt found that in 72 percent of the cases, if the participants did not know
a certain meaning at the beginning of the study, they did not know it at the end of the
study, either. He concluded that knowledge of word-meaning did not develop among
advanced L2 learners after a year in a natural learning context. Schmitt concluded:
Knowledge of meaning senses has a certain amount of inertia and does not
change easily. This is a probably to be expected, as acquiring a large number of
meaning senses quickly and easily might be too auspicious to hope for, at least
in L2 learning. (p. 300)
In short, given that L2 learners would transfer their L I semantic system for L2 wordmeaning learning, L2 learners must go beyond acquiring the initial association in order to
use L2 words appropriately (Schmitt, 2010a). In contrast, some studies found native-like
L2 word-meaning usage among L2 learners with some L2 words, which would suggest
that gradual semantic development occurs among L2 learners due to increased exposure
to L2 input. For instance, Jiang (2004b) investigated semantic development among
advanced ESL learners and performed an empirical analysis of the semantic restructuring
hypothesis (Jiang, 2004a) using a study in which ten Chinese learners of English and ten
native speakers of English participated. In the revised sentence completion task, the
participants were asked to complete a given sentence with target words that have
different meanings in L2 (English) but only one equivalent translation available in Ll
(Chinese). The result were that native speakers consistently scored higher (over 90%
accuracy), whereas the Chinese ESL learners scored much lower and more inconsistently,
collectively suggesting that although most of the L2 learners demonstrated the semantic
transfer effect for certain L2 words, the participants showed further developed wordmeaning knowledge of some words in the experiment. Jiang concluded that the
successful semantic development occurred, but it may be minimal under the influence of
semantic transfer.
In the same vein, Gullberg (2009) examined to what extent English speakers of
L2 Dutch developed the meanings of placement verbs when moving from a frequent
-12-
general Ll verb of "caused motion" put to two specific "caused posture" verbs
zetten/leggen in Dutch and set/lay in English. Six intermediate to upper intermediate L2
Dutch speakers participated in the experiment. Findings were mixed. In many cases,
when a caused posture verb like zetten/leggen set was used, the gesture data indicated
that the intended meaning conveyed was more like that of put as seen in English-like
gestures conveying only path and no information about objects. This suggested that the
L2 speakers' verb meaning representations had not been fully developed towards the
Dutch target. However, Gullberg suggested that speakers who did use the Dutch caused
posture verbs appropriately relative to scene content also gestured about placement in a
Dutch-like fashion meaning; semantic restructuring, therefore, did not seem entirely out
of reach.
As seen above, some L2 learners are able to perform like native speakers in
lexical performance; however, others did not. Such inconsistency is obvious in the
studies reviewed. This is because, as the researchers noted, investigation of further
development of L2 word-meaning knowledge requires more complex theoretical and
methodological accounts due to its myriad of subcomponents involved as cognitive
theory accounts (Gullberg, 2009, Jiang, 2004b). Based on their own findings, they
concluded that what had made the advanced learner's form-meaning association more
native-like in use was a sub-component of the semantic representation they had acquired
after their initial semantic learning of L2 words. However, despite the existent findings
on word-meaning knowledge learning and possible semantic restructuring, several
important theoretical questions still remain unanswered: What do ESLIEFL learners
actually acquire if they seemingly acquire L2 specific semantic components as a result of
semantic development? Given that some words are more easily freed from the Ll
translation influence, what lexical variables would facilitate further development of
already-learned L2 words?
In Goya's two experiments (2014a, 2014b), he examined whether advanced L2
learners might have acquired native-like lexical competence and what might have
facilitated the learners' L2 word knowledge development. More specifically, Goya
-13-
(2014a) investigated roles of two factors: L1 translation and word-sense. In his
experiment, twenty Japanese learners of English (NNS) and 20 native speakers (NS)
were asked to instantly judge whether the presented English word pairs (n = 79) were
related in meaning. Findings were mixed. Participants at an advanced level of
proficiency did not demonstrate fully developed L2 lexical knowledge; however, native
speakers and L2 learners performed similarly on synonymous pairs which had a single
word-sense in common. This finding adequately suggests that advanced L2 learners
might have acquired the word-senses if they share a single word-sense. However, what
has been left unanswered in Goya (2014a) is what learner-oriented factor would facilitate
such successful acquisition of word-sense? In fact, any factors that might facilitate
successful word knowledge development among L2 learners have been limitedly
discussed in the field.
Considering such issue, Goya's second study (2014b) aimed to uncover
learner-oriented factors that might have facilitated the successful development of wordknowledge among advanced L2 learners in an EFL environment. Goya recollected
qualitative data via the language learning background questionnaire from the same
participants involved in the earlier study. In particular, the demographic data collected
from the questionnaire was subjected to correlational analyses with accuracies of the
semantic judgment test from Goya (2014a). The study showed that the experiences of
living overseas or studying over a long period of time strongly correlated with the
accuracy demonstrated by participants' semantic judgment on the paired near-synonyms
only when the stimuli shared the same translation with a single word-sense in common.
Such correlations jointly suggest that the longer L2 learners have experiences abroad, the
more successfully they will be at achieving native-like lexical competence if the words
share less word-senses. This was novice data that can complement what might be helpful
for overcoming the heavy reliance of Ll translation and acquiring L2 specific knowledge
and word-sense.
-14-
What Research Says for Teaching Foreign Language Vocabulary
This extensive review of L2 word learning in the interdisciplinary fields
provides some suggestions for foreign language educators, curriculum designers, and
language learning program administrators. First, the existing research findings highlight
the importance of explicit teaching of L2 word-sense, particularly given the strong
translation effect among advanced L2 learners. One of the recent findings (Goya, 2014a)
shows both the semantic transfer effect (Jiang, 2002) and the word-sense effect
(Finkbeiner, Forster, Nicol, & Nakamura, 2004) under certain conditions among
advanced L2 learners. Furthermore, it is not surprising to see such heavy dependence of
L 1 translation for lexical processing in L2 when considering the fact that current foreign
language teaching programs generally place less value on word learning (Schmitt, 2008);
it is easy to assume that even less time is given for further development of learned words.
Taken the above findings together, it is easy to conclude that L2 learners can
hardly grasp subtle differences among near-synonyms in the foreign language. In this
sense, the present study strongly points to the need for foreign language educators to
provide explicit instruction in newly presented words as well as previously learned words
in classroom. This is in accordance with previous studies. That is, conceptual
modification requires explicit instruction in L2 word learning (Wolter, 2006).
The previous findings also give an implication that it may not be detrimental
for L2 learners to rely on L1 translation in learning L2 words. Rather, this is a default
learning strategy that widens the size of L2 words, a prerequisite for enriching one's
learned words as one is exposed to varying usage contexts in the target language. By
taking the above into consideration, educators need to promote teaching techniques and
skills that can effectively transform their instruction of word learning from the use of L1
translation for expanding the breadth of word knowledge to the use of L2 word-sense for
enriching the depth of word knowledge, as previous studies have repeatedly indicated
(Henriksen, 1999; Melka, 1997). In doing this, L2 learners are able to improve their
proficiency, which in tum enables them to communicate both meaningfully and
appropriately, which is undoubtedly beneficial in L2 pedagogy.
-15-
As suggested in Goya (2014b), another importance deserves pedagogical
attention. That is the importance of living experience in the community in which the
target language is spoken. Previous findings suggest that the more experience using the
target language a learner has, the more opportunity they have to become native-like in
their word usage (Goya, 2014b), which yields new insight into word teaching and
learning instruction in foreign language learning programs. That is, while some
successful semantic development was observed in previous studies to some extent (e.g.,
Jiang, 2004b), no clear deciding factor related to participants' foreign language learning
background was successfully identified or discussed.
In accordance with the findings of previous studies focusing on word frequency
(e.g., Milton, 2009), the present review also suggests the importance of repeated
exposure to L2 words for advancement to the semantic restructuring stage: iflearners are
exposed to the target language, they are more likely to encounter their more common
meanings or their more central meaning; this in turn facilitates further word-meaning
knowledge development. In other words, as other studies point out, the more L2 learners
are exposed to various contextual cues, the more likely they are to notice a gap between
how they use a word and how they are supposed to use it.
Suggestions for Foreign Language Instructors
The above summary of this thorough review can draw some pedagogical
implications. First, foreign language educators should provide various, implicit, and
deliberate word-learning instructions in class to help learners achieve native-like lexical
competence. For instance, many L2 word learning studies suggest that repeated exposure
to L2 words in reading develop L2 learner's word knowledge as a by-product of
cognitive engagement (Pigada & Schmitt, 2006). This is because contexts facilitate L2
word learning through reading because text comprehension can be a useful source for
successful word-guessing or inferencing (Wesche & Paribakht, 2010). Considering the
effectiveness of authentic L2 input, it is obviously beneficial for L2 learners to learn L2
words via implicit learning.
-16-
As for a specific example of foreign language vocabulary, the educators can
encourage students to read graded readers which are at their level. In other words,
foreign language learners need to read what can be comprehended without using a
bilingual dictionary, native language translation, and instructor's explanation. Once L2
learners feel confortable enough to read a level of the graded reader, they are encouraged
to read a slightly more challenging one. This extensive reading program allows L2
learners to develop general language competence, word knowledge, reading skills,
presentation skills, and writing and speaking skills.
The second implication that the present study can draw with regards to the
effect of context in L2 word learning is the use of L I translation and/or definition (or L 1
glossing). According to Hulstijn & Laufer's Involvement Load Hypothesis (2001), if a
task in which L2 learners engage is more cognitively demanding, L2 learners may be
able to strengthen the transient memory of form-meaning association of newly learned
words. Due to instructions given in a word-learning task, L2 learners may allocate
attention resources to L2 words so that they will have more opportunities to notice a gap
between what they know and the actual meaning embedded in contexts that they read.
This in turn will result in semantic restructuring of already known words.
Thirdly, when L2 learners are engaged with reading activities, an instructor or
learning materials such as a textbook can provide L1 translation (or definition in Ll) to
supposedly unknown L2 words appearing in a passage. Such marginally listed L1
glossing fosters L2 word learning (Rott, 2007; Watanabe, 1997). This is because L2
learners allocate cognitive attention to comprehension enhanced by L1 glossing so that
comprehension becomes a good source for word learning (Rott, 2007; Watanabe, 1997).
In doing this, contextual clues gained from reading a passage with L1 glossing may
facilitate semantic restructuring of already known words.
Although the above examples are seemingly plausible in actual foreign
language learning classroom, EFL contexts where most English learners in Japanese
public schools can be more challenging because of the common native language of the
instructor and the learners. In such cases, the use of an online corpus such as WordNet
-17-
(Fellbraum, 1998) could be beneficial to both educators and their students. This corpus
exhaustively documents the word-senses of each word. The use of such a specialized
corpus allows EFL instructors and their students to explicitly notice similarities as well
as differences between particular words by clicking the presented word-sense.
In addition to using the corpus, teaching materials need to be carefully
designed to enable the implementation of instruction that transforms learners' heavy
reliance on Ll translation into a more native-like processing. For instance, placing L2
words in different contexts can effectively raise learners' awareness of differences
between similar words and might benefit advanced L2 learners. Furthermore, learning
the central meanings of words before learning more peripheral meanings will help
advanced L2 learners and assist in overcoming the translation effect. Such careful
considerations in material design can successfully facilitate further development of wordmeaning knowledge. However, this requires extreme care; as previous studies (Webb,
2009) have noted, less considered presentations of the stimuli impede the restructuring
process and result in confusion in the use of near-synonyms.
Further Investigation in Development of Foreign Language Vocabulary
Overall, the present study aimed to follow up on the finding from previous
studies (e.g., Goya, 2014a) from a different research paradigm. The previous findings
suggested that it seems to be challenging for ESL learners to fully acquire all meaning
senses of English synonyms if they have the same translation in their native language. In
contrast, Goya (2014a) suggested Japanese ESL learners might acquire English
synonyms and use them appropriately if they are not similar in meaning regardless of the
translation availability. Despite its novice finding in the field, what lacked in Goya's
study (2014a) was context. In other words, Goya (2014a) drew the conclusion without
looking at how his participants would have used words in actual writing or speaking. In
this sense, future studies should focus on how appropriately Japanese learners of English
distinguish English synonyms in their actual writing by using the International Corpus
Network of Asian Leaners of English (ICNALE), an English Ieamer's corpus.
-18-
ICNALE is an online corpus of English learners in the Asian region.
Participants were college students in the region who were asked to write on one of the
two topics given for 20 to 40 minutes. The proficiency level of the participants was
controlled using the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). Test
scores were used to divide participants into four groups (i.e., advanced group, highintermediate group, intermediate group, and novice group). The number of words the
participants was ranging from 200 to 300 words. The participants were not allowed to
use dictionaries but were allowed to use the spell checker function. Since the corpus is
comprised of ESLIEFL learners' actual essays, data included in ICNALE will
complement what has been missing in the current research paradigm; that is, the
influence of contextual clues in actual use of L2 words. Examining a vast amount of
synonym usages with contextual clues will definitely give theoretical account for the
field of L2 word learning, especially meaning knowledge learning.
Conclusion
Word knowledge is essential in foreign language learning regardless of
learning contexts. As presented in this study, a number of research pointed out that it is
rather challenging for ESLIEFL learners to achieve native-like lexical competence,
especially in terms of depth of knowledge. Therefore, foreign language educators should
provide various, implicit, and deliberate word-learning instructions in class because use
of Ll translation for L2 word learning is default even among the ESLIEFL learners at the
advanced level of proficiency. Furthermore, L2 learners seem to acquire L2 specific
word-senses if they are involved in a community where English is the primary
communication tool. In this sense, the present study strongly suggests the importance of
explicit instruction that effectively help modify word learning methods from the use of
L 1 translation for expanding the breadth of word knowledge to the use of L2 wordsenses for enriching the depth of word knowledge.
-19-
Reference
Aizawa, K. (2006) Rethinking frequency markers for English-Japanese dictionaries. In
Murata, M., Minamide, K., Tono, Y., & Ishikawa S. (Eds.), English
Lexicography in Japan (pp. 108-119). Tokyo: Taishukan-shoten.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Reflections on frequency effects in language acquisition: A response
to commentaries. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297-339.
Ellis, N.C. (2004). The process of second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J.
Williams, S. Rott, & M. Overstreet (Eds.), Form-meaning connections in
second language acquisition (pp. 49-76). New York: Erlbaum.
Elman. J., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett K. (1996).
Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. MIT
Press.
Erten,
i. H., & Tekin, M. (2008). Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new
words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System, 36, 407-422.
Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: an electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Finkbeiner, M., & Nicol, J. (2003). Semantic category effects in second language word
learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 369-383.
Finkbeiner, M., Forster, K., Nicol, J., & Nakamura, K. (2004). The role of polysemy in
masked semantic and translation priming. Journal of Memory and Language,
51, 1-22.
Goya, H. (2014a). Relationship between Word-sense in L2 and Ll Translation in Wordknowledge Development. KASEL£ Journal, 42, 11-20.
Goya, H. (2014b). Factors influencing lexical development: what facilitates L2 learners
to overcome semantic fossilization? SELT-Okinawa Review, 12, 1-21.
Gull berg, M. (2009). Reconstructing verb meaning in a second language: How English
speakers of L2 Dutch talk and gesture about placement. Annual Review of
Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 221-244.
-20-
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions ofvocabulary development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21, 303-317.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load
hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Hulstijn, J., & Tangeldar, C. (1993). Semantic and phonological interference in the
mental lexicon of learners of English as a foreign language and native speakers
of English. In Actes: Proceedings 1'1 International Congress: Memory and
Memorization in Acquiring and Leaning Languages., J. Chapelle & M. T.
Claes (Eds.), Louvain-la-Neuve: CLL.
Ijaz, I. H. (1986). Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second
language. Language Learning, 36,401-451.
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied
Linguistics, 21, 47-77.
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 148-169.
Jiang, N. (2004a). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a
second language. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 416-432.
Jiang, N. (2004b). Semantic transfer and development in adult L2 Vocabulary acquisition.
In P. Bogaards, & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language:
Selection, acquisition and testing (pp. 101-126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kellerman, E. (1979). The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4, 2748.
Laufer, B. (1990). Words you know: How they affect the words you learn. In J. Fisiak
(Ed.), Further insights into contrastive linguistics (pp. 345-353). Amsterdam:
John Benjarnins.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). The architecture of normal spoken language use. In G. Blanken,
J. Dittman, H. Grimm, J. Marshall, & Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and
pathologies: An international handbook (pp. 1-15). Berlin: de Grunyter.
-21-
Melka, F. (1997). Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. InN. Schmitt & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 84102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milton, J. (2006). X-Lex: the Swansea Vocabulary Levels Test. In Coombe, Davidson,
and Lloyd Proceedings of the 7th and 8th Current Trends in English Language
Testing (CTELT) Conference, (pp. 29-39). TESOL Arabia: UAE.
Milton, J (2009). Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. New York:
Multilingual Matters
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A
case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 1-28.
Qian, D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: an assessment perspective. Language learning,
52, 513-536.
Qian, D., & Schedl, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure
for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21, 28-52.
Rott, S. (2007). The effect of frequency of input-enhancements. Language Learning, 57,
165-199
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P, & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading.
Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-45.
Schmitt, N. ( 1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary:
A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48, 281-317.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching
Research, 12, 329-363.
Schmitt, N. (2010a). Researching Vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave
Macmillan. New York: NY.
Schmitt, N. (2010b). Key issues in teaching and learning vocabulary. In R. ChaconBeltran, C. Abello-Contesse, & M. M. Torreblance-Lopez (Eds.), Insights into
-22-
Non-native Vocabulary Teaching and Learning (pp. 28-40). Buffalo, NY:
Multilingual Matters.
Sonaiya, R. ( 1991 ). Vocabulary acquisition as a process of continuous lexical
disambiguation. IRAL, 29, 273-284.
Strick, G. J. (1980). A hypothesis for semantic development in a second language.
Language Learning, 30, 155-176.
Swan, M. (1997). The influence of the mother tongue on second language vocabulary
acquisition and use. InN. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 156-180). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tekmen, A., & Daloglu, A. (2006). An investigation of incidental vocabulary acquisition
in relation to Ieamer proficiency level and word frequency. Foreign Language
Annals, 39, 220-243.
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on
incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Study of Second
Language Acquisition, 19, 287-307.
Webb, S. (2007a). Learning word pairs and gloss<:d sentences: The effects of a single
context on vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 11, 63-81.
Webb, S. (2007b). The effects of synonymy on second-language vocabulary learning.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 19, 120-136.
Webb, S. (2009). The Effects of Receptive and Productive Learning of Word Pairs on
Vocabulary Knowledge. Regional Language Centre Journal, 40, 360-376.
Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (2010). Lexical inferencing in a first and second
language: Cross-linguistic dimensions. Multilingual Matters. Tonawanda;
New York.
Wolter, B. (2006). Lexical network structures and L2 vocabulary acquisition: The role of
Ll lexicaVconceptual know ledge. Applied Linguistics, 2 714, 741-7 4 7.
Zareva, A., Achwanentlugel, P., & Nikolava, Y. (2005). Relationship between lexical
competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. SSLA, 27, 567-595.
-23-
A
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Complexo
rC
o
m
p
l
i
c
αt
e
d
?
I
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
sf
o
rWordMeaningKn
owledgeDevelopmenti
n
Fo
r
e
i
g
nLanguage
H
i
d
e
k
iGoya
語葉知識は外国語学習の中でも特に必要不可欠な知識の一つであり、近年その
効果的な学習方法や教授方法が盛んに研究されている。本論文は、母語や第二
言語習得論の様々な理論的枠組みを検討し、
「外国語教師が語葉を効果的に教
える為には、何をどのように教えるべきか ?J という問いへの提言を行った。
本調査で対象とした理論的枠組みは、主に語葉知識、母語の影響を示す意味転
o
r
d
s
e
n
s
eに焦点を当てた意味的知識の処理、そして第 2言語習論の内、
移
、 W
近年多くの研究者の注目を集めているコネクショニズムの 4つであった。調査
の結果、外国語学習者の母語話者程度の語薬知識獲得の困難さの理論的な説明
と、その説明を元に外国語教師が実際に教室で意識すべき事項や具体的指導方
法が、これまでの指導方法と相 E補完的に示唆された。また現行の理論的枠組
みの限界が示され、学習者コーパスを利用しての学習者の語葉知識の学習研究
分野への新たな手法の可能性が示された。
24
ー