Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Context, word, and student predictors in second language vocabulary learning

  • EVELIEN MULDER (a1), MARCO VAN DE VEN (a1), ELIANE SEGERS (a1) and LUDO VERHOEVEN (a1)

Abstract

We examined to what extent the variation in vocabulary learning outcomes (vocabulary knowledge, learning gain, and rate of forgetting) in English as a second language (L2) in context can be predicted from semantic contextual support, word characteristics (cognate status, Levenshtein distance, word frequency, and word length), and student characteristics (prior vocabulary knowledge, reading ability, and exposure to English) in 197 Dutch adolescents. Students were taught cognates, false friends, and control words through judging sentences with varying degrees of semantic contextual support using a pretest/posttest between subjects design. Participants were presented with an English target word and its Dutch translation, followed by an English sentence. They were instructed to judge the plausibility of the sentence. Mixed-efffects models indicated that learning gains were higher for sentences with more semantic contextual support and in students with stronger reading comprehension skills. We were the first to show that Levenshtein distance is an important predictor for L2 vocabulary learning outcomes. Furthermore, more accurate as well as faster learning task performance lead to higher learning outcomes. It can thus be concluded that L2 study materials containing semantically supportive contexts and that focus on words with little L1-L2 overlap are most effective for L2 vocabulary learning.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Context, word, and student predictors in second language vocabulary learning
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Context, word, and student predictors in second language vocabulary learning
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Context, word, and student predictors in second language vocabulary learning
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Evelien Mulder, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Montessorilaan 3, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: e.mulder@pwo.ru.nl

References

Hide All
Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17, 814823.
Adlof, S., Frishkoff, G., Dandy, J., & Perfetti, C. (2016). Effects of induced orthographic and semantic knowledge on subsequent learning: A test of the partial knowledge hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 29, 475500.
Alderson, J. C., Nieminen, L., & Huhta, A. (2016). Characteristics of weak and strong readers in a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 100, 853879.
Audacity Team. (2015). Audacity®: Free Audio Editor and Recorder. Version 2.1.2. Retrieved October, 29, 2015, from http://audacity.sourceforge.net/
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Linguistic Data Consortium.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 148.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & McCaslin, E. S. (1983). Vocabulary development: All contexts are not created equal. Elementary School Journal, 83, 177181.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsh, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.
Bialystok, E. (2015). Bilingualism and the development of executive function: The role of attention. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 117121.
Boersma, P. (2001). Praat: A system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5, 341345.
Bolger, D. J., Balass, M., Landen, E., & Perfetti, C. A. (2008). Context variation and definitions in learning the meanings of words: An instance-based learning approach. Discourse Processes, 45, 122159.
Brenders, P., van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2011). Word recognition in child second language learners: Evidence from cognates and false friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109, 383396.
Breslow, N. E., & Clayton, D. G. (1993). Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 925.
Bultena, S., Dijkstra, T., & van Hell, J. G. (2014). Cognate effects in sentence context depend on word class, L2 proficiency, and task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 12141241.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671.
Chrabaszcz, A., & Gor, K. (2017). Quantifying contextual effects in second language processing of phonolexically ambiguous and unambiguous words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 909942.
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29, 243263.
Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 118.
Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Gibson, E., Christophe, A., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2017). Words cluster phonetically beyond phonotactic regularities. Cognition, 163, 128145.
de Groot, A. M. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 10011018.
de Groot, A. M., Dannenburg, L., & van Hell, J. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 600629.
de Groot, A. M., & 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, 156.
de Groot, A. M., & Nas, G. L. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90123.
Diependaele, K., Lemhöfer, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). The word frequency effect in first- and second-language word recognition: A lexical entrenchment account. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 843863.
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and language, 41, 496518.
Elgort, I., Perfetti, C. A., Rickles, B., & Stafura, J. Z. (2015). Contextual learning of L2 word meanings: Second language proficiency modulates behavioural and event-related brain potential (ERP) indicators of learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30, 506528.
Elgort, I., & Warren, P. (2014). L2 vocabulary learning from reading: Explicit and tacit lexical knowledge and the role of learner and item variables. Language Learning, 64, 365414.
Ellis, N. C. (2013). Second language acquisition. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, S. M., & Steyn, H. S. (2003). Practical significance (effect sizes) versus or in combination with statistical significance (p-values): Research note. Management Dynamics, 12, 5153.
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In E. W. Walker (Ed.), Explorations in the biology of language (pp. 139174). Montgomery, VT: Bradfort Books.
Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. (2013). Cloze tests may be quick, but are they dirty? Development and preliminary validation of a cloze test of reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 1628.
Hancin-Bhatt, B., & Nagy, W. (1994). Lexical transfer and second language morphological development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 289310.
Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115, 10901103.
Howard, M. W., & Kahana, M. J. (2002). When does semantic similarity help episodic retrieval? Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 8598.
Huensch, A., & Ventura, N. (2017). Understanding second language fluency behavior: The effects of individual differences in first language fluency, cross-linguistic differences, and proficiency over time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 755785.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434446.
Keenan, J. M., & Meenan, C. E. (2014). Test differences in diagnosing reading comprehension deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 125135.
Kuppens, A. H. (2010). Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure. Learning, Media and Technology, 35, 6585.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211240.
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259284.
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10, 707710.
Lindgren, E., & Muñoz, C. (2013). The influence of exposure, parents, and linguistic distance on young European learners’ foreign language comprehension. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10, 105129.
Lotto, L., & de Groot, A. M. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 3169.
Ma, T., Chen, B., Lu, C., & Dunlap, S. (2015). Proficiency and sentence constraint effects on second language word learning. ActaPsychologica, 159, 116122.
Martens, R. L., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic motivation one-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 368376.
Monaghan, P., Chang, Y. N., Welbourne, S., & Brysbaert, M. (2017). Exploring the relations between word frequency, language exposure, and bilingualism in a computational model of reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 121.
Nassaji, H. (2003). Higher-level and lower-level text processing skills in advanced ESL reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 87, 261276.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word-recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85101.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342356.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of Functional Literacy, 11, 6786.
Pytlyk, C. (2017). Are orthographic effects language specific? The influence of second language orthography on second language phoneme awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 233262.
Rayner, K., Ashby, J., Pollatsek, A., & Reichle, E. D. (2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Implications for the EZ Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 720.
Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification: A word-experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 219237. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0703_2
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523568.
Sense, F., Meijer, R. R., & van Rijn, H. (2016). On the Link between Fact Learning and General Cognitive Ability. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Starreveld, P. A., de Groot, A. M., Rossmark, B. M., & van Hell, J. G. (2014). Parallel language activation during word processing in bilinguals: Evidence from word production in sentence context. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 258276.
University of Colorado at Boulder. (2003). Latent Semantic Analysis online application. Available at Latent Semantic Analysis @ CU Boulderwebsite, www.lsa.colorado.edu
van de Ven, M., Tucker, B. V., & Ernestus, M. (2011). Semantic context effects in the comprehension of reduced pronunciation variants. Memory & Cognition, 39, 13011316.
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19.
van Hell, J. G., & Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780789.
Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word–nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 143154.
Wurm, L. H., & Fisicaro, S. A. (2014). What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does (and what it does not do). Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 3748.
Zhang, D., Chin, C. F., & Li, L. (2017). Metalinguistic awareness in bilingual children’s word reading: A cross-lagged panel study on cross-linguistic transfer facilitation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 395426.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed