Difference between revisions of "Juffs - Feature Focus in Word Learning"

From LearnLab
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 31: Line 31:
 
3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?
 
3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?
  
To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks based on previous L1 research.  The first task is a fill-in-the-blank type of activity in which students are provided with a base form and a meaningful context and asked to fill-in-the-blank with an appropriate (i.e., morphologically complex) form.  This task, similar to the Test of Morphological Structure (Rubin, 1988) that has been used in L1 acquisition research (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; 2003), is designed to assess learners’ productive morphological knowledge in obligatory contexts. An L2 learner would see the base form “friend” and a meaningful context that required the adjective form of “friend” to elicit “friendly” from an L2 learner. Each of the four tasks will test different components of L2 derivational knowledge. Native speakers will pilot the task in the fall of 2009, with a pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010.
+
To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks based on previous L1 research.  The first task is a fill-in-the-blank type of activity in which students are provided with a base form and a meaningful context and asked to fill-in-the-blank with an appropriate (i.e., morphologically complex) form.  This task, similar to the Test of Morphological Structure (Rubin, 1988) that has been used in L1 acquisition research (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; 2003), is designed to assess learners’ productive morphological knowledge in obligatory contexts. An L2 learner would see the base form “friend” and a meaningful context that required the adjective form of “friend” to elicit “friendly” from an L2 learner. Each of the four tasks will test different components of L2 derivational knowledge. Native speakers piloted the task in the fall of 2009, and results are being tabulated. A pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010 will collected learner data.
  
 
Selected References
 
Selected References
  
 
Hay, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 342-348.
 
Hay, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 342-348.
 +
 
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insenstivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.
 
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insenstivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.
 +
 
Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge
 
Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge
 +
 
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 11, 245-260.
 
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 11, 245-260.

Revision as of 15:05, 10 January 2010

PI Ben Friedline, Alan Juffs
Start date September 2009
End date July 2010
Learnlab English


L2 learning of derived words

Ben Friedline and Alan Juffs


Research Questions

Why are ESL learners so poor in their knowledge of English morphology? What are the knowledge components that are the most challenging for learning through normal language exposure? Do learners have a representational problem or a processing problem? Specifically, what instructional interventions can be designed to overcome observed processing differences in L1 and L2 morphology?

Research plan For year 1, the goal of the research is to analyze the knowledge components of ESL learners to lay the groundwork for a hypothesis-based intervention. The research will systematically investigate the components of L2 learners’ knowledge of English derivational morphology to address the following questions:

1) What are the components of L2 derivational knowledge? 2) Are these components different from L1 derivational knowledge? 3) Does L1 matter for the acquisition of derived words in an L2?

To answer these questions, Friedline has developed a series of tasks based on previous L1 research. The first task is a fill-in-the-blank type of activity in which students are provided with a base form and a meaningful context and asked to fill-in-the-blank with an appropriate (i.e., morphologically complex) form. This task, similar to the Test of Morphological Structure (Rubin, 1988) that has been used in L1 acquisition research (e.g., Carlisle, 2000; 2003), is designed to assess learners’ productive morphological knowledge in obligatory contexts. An L2 learner would see the base form “friend” and a meaningful context that required the adjective form of “friend” to elicit “friendly” from an L2 learner. Each of the four tasks will test different components of L2 derivational knowledge. Native speakers piloted the task in the fall of 2009, and results are being tabulated. A pull out from the ELI in Spring 2010 will collected learner data.

Selected References

Hay, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 342-348.

Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insenstivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 603-634.

Lardiere, D. (2006). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. New York: Routledge

Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 11, 245-260.