The The Role of Learning Strategies in Second Language AcquisitionEarlyInfluence of Childhood Experience oin Adult Second Language Learning and Adulthood StrategiesStrategies Asha Halima Smith (email@example.com) Department of Psychology, Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 USA Michael Ramscar (Michael@psych.stanford.edu) Department of Psychology, Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 USA languages to native fluency is widely known (e.g., Johnson Abstract & Newport, 1989), the reasons for this are less well Bilingual adults have been shown to outperform understood. To what extent does biology contribute to monolingual adults in vocabulary learning in new languages children’s language learning advantage, and to what extent (e.g. Keshavarz & Astaneh, 2002). To explore why this are adult’s overall relative disadvantages a product of down happens, we examined the vocabulary learning strategies to factors such as habit, motivation and opportunity? Along employed by adults with varying amounts of second the same lines, how does bilingualism assist adults in the language learning experience. Our results suggest that learning new languages? Does childhood experience with adults with earlier experience of adding a new language to language learning alter how language learning is approached their native language(s) use different learning strategies than in adulthood? Here we seek to shed some light on these those who first added a new language later in life. Further, questions by examining a difference in the language the different approaches to learning new language learning abilities between adult groups: those who were vocabulary employed by our participants was directly linked exposed to second language learning in childhood (referred to the overall amount of vocabulary they learned. It appears to as bilinguals) and those who were not (referred to as that the age at which people first undergo the experience of monolinguals)bilinguals and monolinguals. adding a new language has an effect on the strategies they Since language learning involves understanding several employ in later language learning, and that this in turn may components of a language (e.g. vocabulary, grammar, influence the outcome of that later learning. semantics, etc.), it will be useful to explore these components separately. We will begin at a more basic level Introduction and focus only on vocabulary learning, which has been shown to extend to learning other aspects of language Differences have been found in ability to achieve native-like (CITE). The bilingual advantage in new language learning fluency in languages learned in adulthood. For example, does apply to domains as specific as vocabulary learning. some findings show that only those with exposure to a First and second language (L2) vocabulary learning may be language at 7-years-old or younger are able to achieve two very different processes. First language learning, for native-like fluency in that language (e.g. Johnson & example, involves adding labels to otherwise unnamed Newport, 1989; Flege, Yeni-Komshian, Liu, 1999). Some entities. Second language learning, on the other hand, evidence, on the other hand, demonstrates that some people requires one to apply new labels where first language (L1) are able to become fluent in new languages at an older age names may already exist. The current paper will explore (e.g. Birdsong, 1992 & Mollis). While age of acquisition past research on developmental differences in how people may be related to language learning success in some cases, may go about learning new labels for already labeled it does not seem to be as influential to all language learners. objects. Next, how the approach used for L2 vocabulary There may be developmental component in ability to learn learning resurfaces in learning subsequent languages will be new languages, but the story could be more complex. tested empirically. Finally, the implications of how strategy Evidence has suggested that experience learning previous use can influDo first language (L1) vocabulary learning and languages may also have an impact on future language second language (L2) vocabulary learning involve learning success (e.g. Cenoz & Valencia, 1994). The essentially the same processes? There are at least some current paper evaluates how both biological development reasons to believe that this might not be the case. First and experience may be useful in understanding language- language learning, for example, involves adding labels to learning success. otherwise unnamed entities. Second language learning, on Advantages in children’s and bilingual adult’s abilities to the other hand, involves learning new labels in a context learn new languages is not completely understood.While the where first language names for the same or similar things in difference in the ability of children and adults to learn the world may already exist. In this paper, we explore whether differences in prior learning experience, and the relationship between this and cognitive development affects Figure 1: Differences in approach to new vocabulary how people go about learning new language vocabulary. learning between children and adults. Specifically, we examine empirically whether the age at which individuals first added a language influences their subsequent learning of vocabulary in new languages. We These differences may result becauseAdditionally, the then consider the implications of the effects of strategy on ability of individuals to strategize in learning increases language learning. dramatically in childhood. Vocabulary learning strategy There is some evidence to support the idea that differences are evident when comparingThere is evidence experience may influence the approach learners take to that children and adults may use different strategies in vocabulary learning in a new language. Differences have learning vocabulary. Chen and Leung (1989) studied the L2 been found in the success with which different groups of vocabulary production of native Cantonese speakers of adults learn new language vocabulary (Keshavarz & differing ages who were all learning either French or Astaneh, 2002). Adults who have already learned a L2 English. Participants were asked to produce L2 terms perform better in new language vocabulary learning than (English/French) for both line drawing and L1 words. adults with no previous L2 learning experience (e.g. Adults were quicker to provide L2 words for L1-translations Keshavarz & Astaneh, 2002)., and there is some evidence than for line drawings. Children (second and fourth that this ability extends to other aspects of language (. graders), on the other hand, took less time producing words OCITE). from line drawings than from L1-translations. These Early experience learning L2 vocabulary and solely findings may suggest that adults may be tending to use a developing a L1 repertoire represent two distinctly different more lexically-mediated approach to learning (e.g. experiences. Opossibl thatthe opportunities for strategizing translating through L1), whereas children are using a in that the different groups are tending to employ different different approach, tending to map words directly to the learning strategies. things to which they correspond in the world.ence overall first language (L1) vocabulary learning and second language language learning success will be discussed. (L2) vocabulary learning are very different. For example, Chen and Leung (1989) found evidence suggesting that while L1first language learning, involves adding labels to children and adults approach L2 vocabulary learning otherwise unnamed entities, second languageL2 learning differently in the early stages of acquisition. Native involves also learning new labels in a context where L1first Cantonese speakers learning either French or English where language names for identical orthe same or similar things in asked to produce L2 terms (English/French) for both line the world may already exist. We suggest that learning L2 in drawings and L1 words. Adults took longer to provide L2 early childhood and learning L2 later in life predict different words for line drawings than for L1-translations. Children learning strategies.These different approaches to L2 word (second and fourth graders), on the other hand, took more learning can be characterized as followWs: when learning a time producing words from L1-translations than from the new L2 word, children may simply associatechildren may line drawings. Speed of L1-word-reading was not an simply associate the new word to a the perceptual influential factor. This pattern may suggest that adults are representationn they have of whatever is being referred to. using a more lexically-mediated approach (e.g. translating For example, consider a native English speaker learning the through L1), while children are using a more non-lexical Spanish word for cat (gato). Children may associate ‘gato’ concept-mediated approach. directly to their representation of a cat without referencing Children’sThese different approaches to L2 word information about the English word ‘cat’. Adults, on the learning can be characterized may proceed aas follows: other hand, may rely more on L1 knowledge when adding a when learning a new L2 word, childrenthey may map the new language. When learning the L2 word ‘gato,’ rather new word directly to the perceptual representation they have than mapping the new word directly to their representation of what is being referred todepicted. For example, consider of a cat, adults may be more likely to make use of their L1 a native English speaker learning the Spanish word for cat in the process. They may first map ‘gato’ to its L1- (gato). Children may associate ‘gato’ directly to their translation (cat) and make use of their existing mapping representation of a cat without referencingintegrating L1 between ‘cat’ and the referent under consideration (see information about the English word ‘cat’. Adults, on the Figure 1). other hand, may rely more on L1 knowledge when adding a new language. When learning the L2 word ‘gato,’ rather than mapping the new word directly to their representation Children Adults of a cat, adults may be more likely to make use of their L1 in the process. They may first map ‘gato’ to its L1- QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. CAT QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. CAT translation (cat) and make use of their existing mapping between then map ‘cat’ andto the referent under consideration (see Figure 1). GATO GATO language at a later age, when lexical-mediation is more Children Adults prevalent in the early stages of vocabulary learning, may result in the use of more L1 translating when adding future QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. CAT QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture. CAT new languages. To test these predictions, we compared examined the vocabulary learning of participants who obtained gained GATO GATO their first experience of adding a new language adding experience at various ages. Language adding experience Figure 1: Differences in approach to new vocabulary was defined as experience adding new terms to already learning between children and adults. named items. Those who learned two languages simultaneously were viewed as having experience adding Differences have been found in new language two names to an unnamed object rather than to an already vocabulary learning within adult groups (Keshavarz & named object. Members of this group were categorized by Astaneh, 2002). Adults who have already learned a L2 the age they first learned to add a new language to the pre- perform better in new language vocabulary learning than existing two languages. adults with no previous L2 learning experience. How might differences in learning strategies contribute to difference in vocabulary learning success amongst adults? Experiment 1 What developmental differences could be responsible for Participants were taught new language names for objects differences in learning strategies? One possibility could be that were easy to translate (familiar objects) and objects the development of strategic thinking during learning tasks. where translation was more difficult (novel objects). Younger children tend learn new information by dedicating Participants should perform best when learning new names most of their focus to the stimulus being observed. As they for objects in a condition that makes their more dominant mature, they begin to integrate previous knowledge to better strategy easier to use. If early learners are tending to interpret and commit new information to memory (Paris & avoiding L1 translations more when learning new language Lindauer, 1982), thus making them better able to use vocabulary, they should perform best when a L1 translation conscious learning strategies. While the use of strategic is more difficult to find. If later learners are depending thinking develops over time, the initial advancement seems more on making L1-translations when learning new to take place around the age of seven (see review in Bronson languages terms, they should have more difficulty recalling 2000). This increase in ability to use strategic thinking names for objects without translations. Also, if differences could influence changes in approach to language learning. in age of first L2 learning exposure are predictive of Better able to make use of learning strategies, it seems vocabulary fluency (e.g. monolinguals versus bilinguals), sensible that adults would be more likely to use L1 those with early L2 exposure should learn more object translations to assist with learning new language names overall. vocabulary. Children, on the other hand, may learn the new language vocabulary using a more direct mapping. The factors we describe above indicate that both the opportunity and means for strategizing in vocabulary acquisition may increase across development. Methods We suggest that the differences between child and adult Participants learning strategies may have implications in explaining Forty-sixThirty-nine participants were run tested in this some of the differences in new language vocabulary study. between the ages of 17 and 28 yearsTheir ages ranged learning between adults with various language learning from 17-years-old to 28-years-old (mean = 21-years-old). historiesmay affect the habitual strategies people use to All participants received course credit, financial learn vocabulary. PerhapsLearning to add a new language to compensation, or a small gift for their participation. Data an already existing language at a younger age, when a from sixsix participants was not analyzed. Three direct-mapping approach is more probable, results in using participants reported learning another language prior to L1 translations less when adding subsequent vocabulary, being exposed to English, one participant’s language whereas , learning to add a new language at a later age, learning history was unclear based on the information given when lexical-mediation is more prevalent, may results in the in the form performed at floor on the task, and two use of more L1 translating when adding subsequentanother participants did not understand that they would be quizzed languages. lLearning to add a new language to an already over the presented itemss (one of which also performed at existing language at a younger age, when a direct- floor on the task). Of the remaining fortythirty-three mappingusing a more conceptually-mediated approach participants (age range 17 through 28 years; mean age 210- (direct mapping to less linguistic representation) is more years-old), all were native English speakers (English was probable, may result in using L1 translations less when the first language they learned) and, with one exception, adding subsequent languages. Learning to add a new either undergraduate or graduate students at a western trials and on the right hand side of the screen in the university in the United States of America. remaining half. The pairings were consistent across groups although the ordering of the pairs was counterbalanced Materials using the same format as the training (6-block design with Photographs of six novel and six familiar objects were the object within each block rotating across subjects). To created. The novel objects were created and selected such ensure that we weren’t simply measuring list learning, the that they did not resemble recognizable items that had ordering of the objects during the comprehensive recall task readily identifiable names in English (or any other did not parallel the ordering of the items during training. languages). New names for each object were based on The accurately identified objects were recorded and the modified forms obtained from a Finnish dictionary. The percent of correct responses for novel items and for familiar object-name pairings did not represent the Finnish items was calculated. definitions of each word. Words were selected based on the The free recall (also referred to as production) task naturalness of pronunciation and dissimilarity to the English immediately followed the comprehensive recall task. Items words for the objects they represented. Pictures were were presented in an order previously used for neither presented using Microsoft PowerPoint. training nor comprehensive recall. Participants were shown A demographic information page was completed by the items they had previously seen and asked to produce the participants to report their age and language learning name of each object. The percent of accurately recalled item history. Participants listed each language of which they had names were recorded for both novel and familiar objects. any learning history, their fluency in each language on a 10- point Likert scale (1 indicating little or no knowledge of a Results language and 10 indicating perfect fluency), the condition in In order to compare early versus late learners, a split was which they learned each language (classroom setting, made between participants who had started learning an to environmental exposure, or both), the age they started add a new language before or at the age of 7-years-old (n = learning the language, years of practice with the language, 137; mean age = 210.5-years-old; mean age of first new and number of years since they last used each language. language learningL2 exposure = 43.42-years-old) and those Unrelated filler tasks taking approximately 3 minutes to who had started learning to add a new language L2 after 7- complete were also administered. years-old (n = 276; mean age = 2119.28-years-old; mean age of first L2 exposure = 13-years-old). The motivation behind splitting the data at this point was that there have Design and Procedure been reported developmental changes related to ability to Participants were told that they would be taught the names use strategic thinkinglanguage learning that seem to occur of a series of objects in a new language. Upon viewing each around this age (Bronson, 2000). For example, Johnson and object on a computer screen, the experimenter dictated the Newport (1989) found that native Chinese and Korean new name and the participant repeated it aloud. The speakers who had started learning English before the age of experimenter presented the next item after the name was 7 performed at the same level on an English grammaticality repeated. The arrangement of the objects was judgment task as native English speakers. Performance counterbalanced across subjects using a 6-block design. started to decrease with participants who first started Each blocked contained either two familiar objects and one learning English after 7-years-old. Although we are novel object or two novel objects and one familiar object. predicting that approaches to learning new language The position of objects within each block was vocabulary is linearly correlated with age of first L2 counterbalanced across subjects. After the training phase, exposure, 7-years-old seems like the most probable split if participants completed two unrelated questionnaires that early and late groups are to be compared. took approximately three minutes. A one-tailed t-test was run in order to measure The comprehensive recall task followed the filler differences between the early and late learners in overall task. Two previously learned items were presented on the performance. There was no significant difference in overall performance for the comprehensive recall portion of the task computer screen. The experimenter verbally presented one (p = .446). Early learners properly matched .86 of the new of the “new language” words from the training, and terms to their corresponding pictures and the late learners participants were asked to indicate which of the two objects properly matched .87 of the items. Based on a one-tailed corresponded to the word that they heard. Objects were ANOVA, Tthere was also no significantn interaction paired such that novel items were paired with familiar items between early and late new language learners and 33 percent of the time, novel items were paired with other recognitionall offor new terms for novel and familiar objects novel objects 33 percent of the time, and familiar items (p = .365). Early learners correctly identified more novel were paired with other familiar items 33 percent to of the objects (.92) than familiar objecEach group identified more time. Of the novel/familiar pairings, the novel item appears novel objects than familiar objects. However, the novel on the left hand side of the screen in half of the cases and on object advantage was only marginally significant for the the right hand side of the screen in the other half of the early learners (p = .06) and insignificant for the late learners cases. Also, the position of the correct item to be identified (p = .14). Early learners properly matched .92 of the novel appeared on the left hand side of the screen in half of the objects and .81 of the familiar objects and the late learners properly matched .90 of the novel objects and .85 of the need to be more difficult in order to assess overall learning familiar objects. ts (.81), while later learners recalled more differences. familiar objects (.91) than novel objects (.83) (p = .035). There was an interaction between how well early and late For the free recall portion of the task, a one-tailed t-test learners recalledand novel and familiar objects for both indicated that early learners did not recallrecalled comprehension andin free recall. Earlier L2 learners adders significantly more words that the later learners (mean performed better when objects did not have translations and accuracy early learners = .3952; mean accuracy late learners later learners performed better when objects did have = ..3228; p = .13601). translations. Learning translatable words may have made Examined as a continuous variable, age of first exposure their most dominant strategy easier to use, helping their adding a new language was negatively correlated with performance. The later learners did not seem as influenced overall recall on the task (r22 = .2202). 2 by the manipulation. This trend may indicate that the early A one-tailed ANOVA indicated that Tthere was a and later learners are approaching new language word significant interaction between language learning group and learning with different levels of dependency on their L1. accurate recall for novel versus familiar objects (p = .027). There wereas no clear strategy differences in between the Early learners recalled more names for novel objects (mean early and late L2 learners oin the comprehension task. It accuracy = ..4766) than for familiar objects (mean accuracy may be tahtthat strategy differences are only prevalent in = .308), while late learners performed worse onrecalled language production and that different learning processes novel object names (mean accuracy = .28) mthanore names are used in recognizing new languaglanguage vocabulary. for familiar object namess (mean accuracy = .351) than for However, considering the higher level of performance on novel objects (.24) (p = .02)(see Figure 2). hteHowever, considering that performance on the In addition to comparisons between the two learning comprehension task was near ceiling for both conditions and groups, age of new language adding experience was within both groups, it may be that our task was not examined as a continuous variable. The proportion of difficutldifficult enough to ellicitelicit performance familiar items correct was subtracted from the proportion of differences. To pinpoint potential differences in strategy novel items correct in order to obtain an overall score of a use during comprehension, we must either make the task biased performance in recalling new names for novel items. more difficult or change the nature of the task. A positive score would indicate that more novel than While comparing memory for novel and familiar objects familiar objects are being recall, while a negative score can tell us about how useful L1 translations are for different would indicate the opposite pattern. Level of novel bias was groupsadults, using novel objectsit does not adequately is negatively correlated with age of experience adding a new not a very good representation of the kinds of words taught language (r22 = .1972). 2 in language learning contexts. One would expect thatt i, htethe majority of new langaugelanguage words taught are familiar to adult learners. To examine the same research question in a more realistic context, in Experiment 2 adults will be taught new languaglanguage names for familiar objects. WWith some participants, we will induce a L1 translation stratagystrategy by presenting each pictured Figure 3: Accuracy between early and late learners when an object alongside an English (L1) translation withto some object is presented with and without the English labels for participantsn and in other we will not. the comprehension and recall tasks. We expect that lateearly L2 learners should perform better when we make their strategy easier to use and the Discussion early learners should perform worse because the extra L1 It was hypothesized that early L2new language information should interfere with their more practiced adderlearners would recall more words overall. This would strategy. Since this task is more representative of new indicate that the learning strategy that they are more prone language learning, it may be sensitive enough to detect any to using leadscould lead to more proficiency in new differences in comprehension.arly laerners have L1 translat language vocabulary learning. This was not the case in the . Later learners who rely more on their L1 perform best current experimentthe case only in the free recall task. It when they are able to make translations and have more may be that both strategies are useful in basic word difficulty when a translation is not available. Earlier memorizations tasks, but the strategy of the late learners learners, on the other hand, seem to benefit when the L1 becomes a setback when the words have to be applied in translation is not available, making directly mapping the linguistic contexts. This speculation, however, needs to be new word to the object representation easier. tested empirically in future work. It may be that differences The strategy used is not polarized between the two in vocabulary learning success in early adders and later groups. There is, in fact, a negative correlation between adders (as seen in differences between bilinguals and performing better on novel (versus familiar) objects and age monolingual (Keshavaraz & Astaneh, 2002)) applies more of first experience to adding a new language to existing to production than to comprehension. It could also be that language(s). This may indicate that the tendency to use a the comprehension measure was not sensitive enough to more L1-mediated strategy decreases continuously with age detect large differences in performance. Participants in both of first new language adding experience groups performed near ceiling, indicating that the task may . There seems to be differences in approaches to learning The same demographic information page as used in new language words for objects with and without L1 Experiment 1 was administered for participants to report translations correlated with age of first new language adding their age and language learning history. They listed each experience. Later learners seem to have more difficulty language to which they had exposure learning, their fluency learning the words without translations while the later in each language on a 10-point Likert scale (1 indicating learners seem to benefit from not having the translation little or no knowledge of a language and 10 indicating available. Differences did arise between the groups in perfect fluency), the condition in which they learned each performance with learning new names for familiar items. language (classroom setting, environmental exposure, or The next step is to examine the extent to which these both), the age they started learning the language, years of differences are tied to the amount of L1-translating practice with the language, and number of years since they incorporated into the learning strategy being used. How last used each language. Unrelated filler tasks taking will inducing a translation strategy influence performance in approximately 3 minutes to complete were also learning new language names for familiar objects? administered. Experiment 2 Design and Procedure Participants were taught new language names for only The design and procedure modeled that of Experiment 1. familiar objects with L1 translations. Half of the early Participants were told that they would be taught the names learners and half of the late learners were presented with of a series of objects in a new language. Upon viewing each objects on the screen accompanied by its written English object on a computer screen, the experimenter dictated the translation. The remaining participants saw the familiar new name and the participant repeated it aloud. The objects presented alone, as in the previous experiment. If experimenter presented the next item after the name was lexical mediation is being used, participants should recall repeated. The position of objects was counterbalanced more items when the L1 translations are given. If only the across presentations. Depending on the condition, late learners are using lexical mediation, there should be an participants saw objects presented either with or without improvement in the words prompted by the L1 translations English labels. After the training phase, participants in this group. If the early learners switched to lexical completed two unrelated questionnaires that took mediation during this task, they should show the same approximately three minutes. trends as the later learners. If they are using concept The comprehensive recall task followed the filler task. mediation during new language vocabulary learning, then Two previously learned items were presented on the the L1 word should interfere with their learning process and computer screen. The experimenter stated one of the “new decrease their performance. language” words from the training. Participants selected from the two objects, which represented the word that was stated. The position of the correct item to be identified appeared on the left hand side of the screen in half of the Methods trials and on the right hand side of the screen in the Participants remaining half. The pairings were consistent across groups Thirty-sevenfour participants were run in this study between although the ordering of the pairs was counterbalanced the ages of 17 and 23 years (mean = 19-years-old). All using the same format as the training. To ensure that we participants received course credit, financial compensation, were not simply measuring list learning, the ordering of the or a small gift for their participation. Everyone tested was a objects during the comprehensive recall task did not parallel native English speaker (English was the first language he or the ordering of the items during training. The accurately she learned) and either an undergraduate or graduate student identified objects were recorded and the percent of correct at a western university in the United States of America. responses for novel items and for familiar items was calculated. The free recall task immediately followed the Materials comprehensive recall task. Items were presented in an order previously used for neither training nor comprehensive Photographs of twelve familiar objects were gathered. The recall. Participants were shown the items they had objects were all collected from shared space on the Internet. previously seen and asked to produce the name of each New names for each object were collected and modified object. The percent of accurately recalled item names were from a Finnish dictionary. The object-name pairings did not recorded for both objects that appeared with and without represent the Finnish definitions of each word. Words were their English titles. selected based on the naturalness of pronunciation and dissimilarity to the English words for the objects they represented. Pictures were presented using Microsoft Results PowerPoint. In one condition each picture appeared with its Consistent with Experiment 1, early new language learners English name printed in large letters beneath it on the were defined as those who had exposure to adding a new screen. In the second condition the pictures appeared alone. language to an existing language(s) before the age of 7- years-old. Late new language adders were defined as those Overall, it can be concluded that the age at which one is who first had this experience at 7-years-old or older (late first exposed to L2 learning is related to how much they use learners). L1 translations in learning future languages. Our findings As in Experiment 1, there were no significant differences show that strategy use differences exist in vocabulary between the two groups in overall word memory for both comprehension and production, but more research must be the comprehension and free recall tasks. Two one-tailed done to better understand the consequences of different UNIANOVAs were run to test for interactions between strategies in vocabulary acquisition. early and late language groups and whether an item was In both experiments, there were no differences in overall presented with or without its English label. Significant vocabulary learning between the early and late L2 learners. interactions were found for both the comprehension (p = While we can conclude that the two langaugelanguage .036) and free recall portions of the task (p = .007). In learning groups make use of differntdifferent learning comprehension, early learners recalled more new language strategies, our data does not allow us to conclude that terms when the L1 word was not present (mean accuracy = eaithereither of these strategies influences language learning .93; std. = .10; n = 7) than when it was presented with the success outside of basic vocabulary memorization. Our next referent (mean accuracy = .77; std. = .14; n = 6). Later step is to examine how learning vocabulary using each learners, on the other hand, did not show this trend. They strategy can have an impact on other components involved performed similarly when the object was presented without becomignbecoming familiar with a new langaugelanguage. the L1 label (mean accuracy = .83; std, = .17; n = 11) and For example, what consequences can learning words when the label was presented (mean accuracy = .88; std. = through L1 translations have on making how well a person .12; n = 114) (see Figure 3). makes further generalizatinsgeneralizations about that word There was also an interaction in performance with the int hein the new language context? This question and others novel and familiar objects for the free recall task. The early will be explored in future studies. each strategy can have an new language adders performed similarly when the English impact early adn word was not presented (mean accuracy = .37; std. = .22; n = 7) and when it was (mean accuracy = .25; std. = .13; n = 5). The later learners, on the other hand, performed worse when the English word was present (mean accuracy = .18; References std. = .09; n = 11) than with it was presented (mean accuracy = .42; std. = .21; n = 14) (see Figure 3). Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68, 706-755. Formatted Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Nature and Nurture. New York: The Guildford Press. Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J.F. (1994). Additive trilingualism: Evidence from the Basque Country. Applied Formatted Psycholinguistics, 15, 195-207. Figure 3: Accuracy between early and late learners when an Chen, H-C. & Leung, Y-S. (1989). Patterns of lexical object is presented with and without the English labels for processing in a nonnative language. Journal of the comprehension and recall tasks. Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(2), 316-325.Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second General Discussion language acquisition. Language, 68, 706-755. For free recall in both experiments, early L2 language Flege, J.E., Yeni-Komshian, G.H., & Liu, S. (1999). Age learners performed best when using L1 translations was constraints on second-language acquisition. Journal of Formatted easiest to avoid. They performed better in learning new Memory and Language, 41, 78-104. language terms for objects that did not have clear English Bower, G.H., Clark, M.C., Lesgold, A.M. & Winzenz, D. translations than for objects that had pre-existing English (1969). Hierarchical retrieval schemes in recall of labels, and they performed better when an object was categorized word lists. Journal of Verbal Learning and pictured alone rather than paired with its corresponding L1 Verbal Behavior, 8: 323-343. term. Later learners showed an opposite pattern. When Cenoz J. (2003) The additive effect of bilingualism on third translating was made more difficult their performance language acquisition: A review. International Journal of declined and when translating was easiest, their Bilingualism, 7: 1, 71-87 Johnson, J. S. & Newport,E. L. (1989). Critical period performance increased. The trend was also true for effects in second language learning: The influence of comprehension in Experiment 2, suggesting that strategyies maturational state on acquisition of English as a second differences are also prevalent during comprehension, language. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99. provided the words being learned are more representative of actual language laernlearning. Keshavarz, M. H. & Astaneh, H. (2002). The impact of bilinguality on the learning of English vocabulary as a foreign language (L3). Proceedings II Simposio Internacional Bilinguismo.Mayberry, R. (1993). First- language acquisition after childhood differs from second-language acquisition: The case of American Sign Language. Journal of Speech and hearing Research, 36, 1258-1270. Paris, S. G., & Lindauer, B. K. (1982). The development of cognitive skills during childhood. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of Developmental Psychology. Englewood Formatted Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Snow, C. E., & Hoefnagel-Hoehle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from second language learning. Child Development, 49, 1114-1118.
Pages to are hidden for
"Pre Test Excerpt"Please download to view full document