Pre Test Excerpt by x29Gd4

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 8

									The The Role of Learning Strategies in Second Language AcquisitionEarlyInfluence
  of Childhood Experience oin Adult Second Language Learning and Adulthood
                               StrategiesStrategies
                                   Asha Halima Smith (ashas@psych.stanford.edu)
                                        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.

								
To top