Presenter Information

George H. BorawskiFollow

Start Date

29-9-2019 11:30 AM

Description

Any acquisition in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) starts as word recognition; as such vocabulary acquisition is integral to language learning as a whole and is a precursor to fluent communication (Ellis, 1996; Moore, 1996). To maximize SLA, vocabulary acquisition must be optimized. However, vocabulary acquisition is understudied and underutilized, especially compared to other aspects of SLA (Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). Cook states, “…the vast bulk of examinations, syllabuses, and course books around the globe show little overt influence from SLA research” (1998, p.10). Courses, teachers, and students would benefit from directly addressing SLA research, rather than utilize inefficient methods (Cook, 1998; Moore, 1996). Problematic course books influence thousands of teachers and a multitude of students (Cook, 1998); this costs educational institutions billions of dollars globally. Prioritizing sound pedagogy when designing courses would alleviate the problems of inefficient acquisition in SLA and the financial cost. An outline is presented for creating and supplementing programs in instructed SLA, these guidelines utilize linguistic research on vocabulary acquisition: 1) The course is built using frequency data, from spoken corpus in the target language. Zipf’s law dictates that word frequency occurs on a predictable curve where the most frequent word is twice as common as the next most frequent word; word rank is inversely proportional to frequency (Milton, 2009). The 100 most frequent words can be up to 50% of a text (Moore, 1996). The 2,000 most frequent words of English make up about 80% of the language. The next 2,000 words are 8% of the occurrences (Milton, 2009). Vocabulary sorting based on frequency, will provide the most useful words and [Document title] will front-load functional words, allowing L2 acquirers to create grammatical constructions (Milton, 2009; Moore, 1996). 2) This frequency determined L2 vocabulary, uses small, alliterated word lists instead of semantic sets. Alliterated word lists and phonological similarity improve L2 vocabulary retention (Hulstijn, 2003; Laufer, 2009). Semantic sets have been shown to create confusion (Hulstijn, 2003; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001). 3) Pseudo immersion is avoided because it is not effective for L2 acquirers (Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001). Cody (2009) states, ‘immersion’ and incidental learning are often attempted. Although immersion is effective for (multiple) L1 acquisition, post critical-period acquisition is radically different; ‘mere exposure’ will not work (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003). Explicit instruction in the student’s native language is encouraged (Atkinson, 1987). Lexical meaning must be taught explicitly and utilizing explicit instruction can double retention rates (Laufer, 2009; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). 4) Mnemonic devices, visual and otherwise are utilized. Flipping an image upside creates a unique association with the word, rather than have the learner ‘mediate’ with the L1 representation, which they would otherwise default to (Hulstijn, 2003). Learner generated mnemonics were found useful in Cohen’s 1987 study (Laufer, 2009). Multiple studies have determined that mnemonic devices comparing an L2 with a semantically related L1 word are effective (Hulstijn, 2003).

Share

COinS
 
Sep 29th, 11:30 AM

Optimizing L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: Applied Linguistic Research

Any acquisition in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) starts as word recognition; as such vocabulary acquisition is integral to language learning as a whole and is a precursor to fluent communication (Ellis, 1996; Moore, 1996). To maximize SLA, vocabulary acquisition must be optimized. However, vocabulary acquisition is understudied and underutilized, especially compared to other aspects of SLA (Paribakht & Wesche, 1997). Cook states, “…the vast bulk of examinations, syllabuses, and course books around the globe show little overt influence from SLA research” (1998, p.10). Courses, teachers, and students would benefit from directly addressing SLA research, rather than utilize inefficient methods (Cook, 1998; Moore, 1996). Problematic course books influence thousands of teachers and a multitude of students (Cook, 1998); this costs educational institutions billions of dollars globally. Prioritizing sound pedagogy when designing courses would alleviate the problems of inefficient acquisition in SLA and the financial cost. An outline is presented for creating and supplementing programs in instructed SLA, these guidelines utilize linguistic research on vocabulary acquisition: 1) The course is built using frequency data, from spoken corpus in the target language. Zipf’s law dictates that word frequency occurs on a predictable curve where the most frequent word is twice as common as the next most frequent word; word rank is inversely proportional to frequency (Milton, 2009). The 100 most frequent words can be up to 50% of a text (Moore, 1996). The 2,000 most frequent words of English make up about 80% of the language. The next 2,000 words are 8% of the occurrences (Milton, 2009). Vocabulary sorting based on frequency, will provide the most useful words and [Document title] will front-load functional words, allowing L2 acquirers to create grammatical constructions (Milton, 2009; Moore, 1996). 2) This frequency determined L2 vocabulary, uses small, alliterated word lists instead of semantic sets. Alliterated word lists and phonological similarity improve L2 vocabulary retention (Hulstijn, 2003; Laufer, 2009). Semantic sets have been shown to create confusion (Hulstijn, 2003; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001). 3) Pseudo immersion is avoided because it is not effective for L2 acquirers (Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001). Cody (2009) states, ‘immersion’ and incidental learning are often attempted. Although immersion is effective for (multiple) L1 acquisition, post critical-period acquisition is radically different; ‘mere exposure’ will not work (Hyltenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003). Explicit instruction in the student’s native language is encouraged (Atkinson, 1987). Lexical meaning must be taught explicitly and utilizing explicit instruction can double retention rates (Laufer, 2009; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). 4) Mnemonic devices, visual and otherwise are utilized. Flipping an image upside creates a unique association with the word, rather than have the learner ‘mediate’ with the L1 representation, which they would otherwise default to (Hulstijn, 2003). Learner generated mnemonics were found useful in Cohen’s 1987 study (Laufer, 2009). Multiple studies have determined that mnemonic devices comparing an L2 with a semantically related L1 word are effective (Hulstijn, 2003).