Words to count on: L1 and L2 speakers’ percep4ons of nonce words in vocabulary research and some implica4ons Barry Lee Reynolds
[email protected] Ph.D., Learning & Instruc4on, Na4onal Central University, Taiwan MA, TESOL, Murray State University, USA
Educa4on Center for Humani4es & Social Sciences Na4onal Yang-Ming University, Taiwan 1
Outline • • • • • • • •
Introduc4on Literature Review Problem Statement & Research Ques4on Methodology Results Discussion Conclusions References 2
Introduc4on (1/5) • Incidental Vocabulary Acquisi4on largely refers to the process of gaining word knowledge through the task of reading without expec4ng said word knowledge to be assessed (Huls4jn, 2001). • In incidental vocabulary acquisi4on, the purpose of reading is to acquire content knowledge or to simply enjoy reading (Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). 3
Introduc4on (2/5) • Researchers have assessed the knowledge of target words to examine the effects that independent variables have on a word’s incidental acquisi4on through reading. • The general conclusions of both L1 and L2 studies are that extensive reading provides opportuni4es for exposure to more vocabulary in varied contexts, something that is not always possible in the classroom. 4
Introduc4on (3/5) • There are three main methods that researchers have used to measure vocabulary knowledge incidentally acquired through reading. • Researchers using a pretest-posbest methodology determine par4cipants’ acquired word knowledge by comparing results from pretests and posbests (e.g., Horst, Cobb, & Meara, 1998; Horst & Meara, 1999; Kweon & Kim, 2008; Lehmann, 2007; Pigada & Schmib, 2006; Rob, 1999; Tekmen & Daloğlu, 2006; Waring & Takaki, 2003; Zahar, Cobb, & Pada, 2001). • The second method is a paired posbest design (e.g., Jenkins et al., 1984; Nagy et al., 1985, 1987; Shu et al., 1995), in which each par4cipant group receives two vocabulary assessments, with the target words of only one of the assessments occurring within the text read.
5
Introduc4on (4/5) • The third and most popular method used is a posbest-only design (e.g., Bai, 2001; Chen & Truscob, 2010; Day, Omura, & Hiramatsu, 1991; Dupuy & Krashen, 1993; HeidariShahreza & Tavakoli, 2012; Huls4jn, 1992; Huls4jn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996; Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmib, 2010; Pibs et al. 1989; Saragi et al., 1978; Webb, 2007, 2008), in which researchers may or may not compare results with that of a control. – Usually, a posbest-only design uses nonce words as target words, whose use researchers claim not only eliminates sensi4vity to target words that would occur if they appeared on pretests but also controls for outside exposure because par4cipants will not encounter the nonce words outside the target text read (Saragi et al., 1978; Webb, 2007).
6
Introduc4on (5/5) • It is assumed that par4cipants have no previous knowledge of the nonce words prior to the reading of the target text. • The current study aims to further inves4gate this assump4on by determining whether vocabulary gains as shown on assessments can be abributed solely to incidental acquisi4on through reading. 7
Literature Review (1/7) • A number of incidental vocabulary acquisi4on research studies using nonce words as target words have reported anomalies. • The results of Saragi et al. (1978) presented conflic4ng data in that some of the nonce words were learned but others not. – The researchers abempted to explain this result by abribu4ng the difference in learning to contextual support and nonce word “similarity to words in the mother-tongue” (Saragi et al., 1978, p. 76) 8
Literature Review (2/7) • Pibs et al. (1989) also reported the use of nonce words to be somewhat problema4c in “that two items had abnormally high scores. The first item was nochy, meaning ‘night.’ This is close to the Spanish word for ‘night’, noches. The second item was moloko, meaning ‘milk’.” (p. 273)
9
Literature Review (3/7) • Waring and Takaki (2003) report “the subjects may have found the learning of subs4tute words more difficult because they may have already known the real English word forms prior to reading” (p. 151). Interviews revealed that many par4cipants were able to guess the meaning of the subs4tute words yoot (yes) and molden (dead); the par4cipants said they assumed the subs4tute words were synonyms for their corresponding English words. However, some of the par4cipants misunderstood the meaning of the subs4tute words because of their similarity in pronuncia4on to English or Japanese words.
– Waring and Takaki (2003) showed, when a different form of a real word is used, learners will at least consider the word to be a synonym of a known word and at most be aware of the research methodology being employed.
10
Literature Review (4/7) • Webb (2007) acknowledged, “Since replaced forms are not authen4c words, it cannot be certain if they behave in the same way as real words,” and goes on to state that studies using nonsense words as real-word replacements are “simula4ng language learning” (p. 50) • In a later 2008 study, Webb made sure that the spellings of nonce words did not always conform to English. He admits that this could affect acquisi4on outcomes, but in an interview, he found that par4cipants were not aware that the target words were disguised forms, claiming that par4cipants may have treated them as synonyms. S4ll, he notes that one of the ar4cle reviewers had suggested that the disguised forms may have reduced the chance of par4cipants being able to infer word meaning. 11
Literature Review (5/7) • Brown, Waring, and Donkaewbua (2008) used subs4tute words but no men4on was made of how their use could have affected acquisi4on. • Pellicer-Sánchez and Schmib (2010) men4oned that it was possible that the uniqueness of the foreign words could have made them more salient, thus increasing the chance of acquisi4on. 12
Literature Review (6/7) • Bai (2011) noted that the difference between the results in her two studies could be due to “nonsense word[s] maybe be[ing] conspicuous. They likely draw students’ aben4on and possibly affect the research results” (p. 44)
13
Literature Review [Summary] (7/7) • Findings generally indicate modest amounts of vocabulary growth, with es4mates of the number of exposures to target words needed to acquire them ranging from six exposures to more than 20, depending on the study (Waring & Na4on, 2004). • However, these studies ques4on the use of nonce words in incidental vocabulary acquisi4on research in that nonce words may create a situa4on in which word meanings are more or less difficult to acquire by par4cipants than real-word equivalents.
14
Problem Statement & RQ (1/2) • Although a number of variables have been inves4gated for their effects on the incidental acquisi4on of word knowledge through reading, the usage of nonce words as target words has received lible aben4on. • Instead, nonce-word usage con4nues to be jus4fied by researchers preven4ng par4cipants from becoming aware of the fact that vocabulary knowledge will be assessed. • It is with these concerns in mind that the current review of previous incidental vocabulary acquisi4on literature was conducted and the execu4on of the current study was undertaken. 15
Problem Statement & RQ (2/2) • The principle objec4ve of collec4ng qualita4ve data through the use of a post hoc interview was to gain insights on English-L1 and English-L2 speakers’ percep4ons of nonce words. • Analysis of the qualita4ve data will allow for sugges4ons to improve research methodologies used when inves4ga4ng the incidental acquisi4on of vocabulary through reading. • RQ: Do adult English-L1 and English-L2 speakers differen4ally perceive nonce words encountered through the reading of fic4on? 16
Methodology (1/3) • English-L1-Speaking Par4cipants (n = 9)
– monolingual English speakers – recruited from two general educa4on English literature courses and one general educa4on introduc4on to applied linguis4cs course from two Midwestern state universi4es in the USA
• English-L2-Speaking Par4cipants (n = 10)
– studying EFL at the 4me of the study – recruited from an advanced English novel reading elec4ve course at a na4onal university in northern Taiwan 17
Methodology (2/3) • Interview Language – Conducted in English with the English-L1 speakers and in English and Chinese with the English-L2 speakers – Hoped to indirectly elicit par4cipants’ percep4ons regarding the nonce words that appeared within an excerpt from the target text
18
Methodology (3/3) • Interview Protocol – Par4cipants were individually given a 4,588-token excerpt from the the novel The BFG (Dahl, 1987). • •
Within the excerpt appeared 31 nonce-word types (64 tokens), which cons4tuted less than 2% of the excerpt. The nonce words used as target words behaved like normal English words; they took on parts of speech and showed inflec4on and deriva4on like other English words.
– The par4cipants were asked to read the excerpt without any aid (i.e., dic4onaries) and wait for addi4onal instruc4on. •
Most took about 30 minutes to finish reading.
– Ayerward, they were instructed to “Please highlight any words from the excerpt you think a typical ESL/EFL learner should try to learn that would be helpful in improving his or her English.” •
Some par4cipants asked how many words they should highlight. They were then told, “Please highlight any words you feel would be helpful to ESL/EFL learners.”
– A series of ques4ons was then asked to indirectly uncover the par4cipants’ percep4ons of the nonce words that appeared within the excerpt they had just read.
19
s dealt with the vocabulary that in the novel. Question 5 asked, problem?” Exactly 30% of the L1 6) and 50% of the L2 experimend the unknown words to be a
ere there too many unknown = 3) of the L1 experimental parf the L2 experimental particied that there were too many novel. The percentage of L1 exwho deemed the novel as havn words was lower than the xperimental participants who n words a problem. The oppoexperimental group: The pertal participants who considered roblem was lower than the perntal participants who deemed many unknown words. The reh some L1 speakers considered problem, the problem was not umber of unknown words enIt appears that although some here were too many unknown speakers still felt that the unproblem.
arterly, 50(1)
Being Useful for Learning Results of the number of English and nonce words highlighted for each participant during the post hoc interviews is shown in Table 3. L1 experimental participants tended to highlight more words than L2 experimental
Results (1/6)
TABLE 3 Comparison of L1 and L2 Speakers’ Highlighted Words L1 speaker ID
English word types
Nonce word types
L2 speaker ID
English word types
Nonce word types
1
153
0
1
28
2
2
106
0
2
14
3
3
156
0
3
29
0
4
27
0
4
78
10
5
15
0
5
9
0
6
72
0
6
5
0
7
27
0
7
17
2
8
35
0
8
4
0
9
105
0
9
23
3
10
27
6
20
Results (2/6) • Ques4on 1: Why did you highlight those words? – The answers varied for both groups. – A majority of the responses were that the words highlighted are oyen encountered in daily life or would be useful for conversing in English.
21
Results (3/6) • Ques4on 2: There are many other words that appear in the excerpt of the novel you read. Why didn’t you highlight other words? – 5 of 9 English-L1 speakers men4oned nonce words in their responses. – English-L1 speakers referred to the nonce words as nonsense words, made-up words, or nonsensical words; they felt nonce words were not commonly used and would not be worth learning by an ESL or EFL learner. – None of the English-L2 speakers made reference to the nonce words.
22
Results (4/6) • Ques4on 3: Why didn’t you highlight ___? • It was asked of the English-L1 speakers who made no men4on of nonce words in their previous replies, and all of the English-L2 speakers. • The blank was replaced by any nonce word not highlighted by that par4cular par4cipant. • The ques4on was asked while poin4ng to that nonce word. • The same nonce word, whizzpoppers, was used for the English-L1 speakers because none of them had highlighted any of the nonce words. • For the English-L2 speakers, whichever nonce word not highlighted on the first page of the excerpt was pointed to. – The remaining 4 English-L1 speakers reported that they did not highlight the nonce word because it was a nonsense word and would not be helpful for ESL or EFL learners. – The responses from the English-L2 speakers were harder to interpret.
23
Results (5/6) • It appears as if many of these English-L2 speakers doubted the authen4city of the nonce word. – Par4cipant 2 stated, “I am not sure whizzpoppers is a prac4cal word because before I read the story, I never saw it.” – Par4cipant 3 asked, “Is that a word? Actually, I didn’t know I could use it.”
24
Results (6/6) • There were some responses that may lead one to believe that these English-L2 speakers treated the nonce words as real English words. – Par4cipant 9, for example, said, “I don’t know. Should I have highlighted it?”
25
Discussion (1/5) • Generally, it is hard to determine whether all the English-L2 speakers were able to discern a difference between real English words and nonce words. • Even if they were able to do so, some of these same par4cipants highlighted nonce words in the excerpt prior to being asked these ques4ons. • Regardless of whether they were aware of the words highlighted were nonce words, this indicates that they s4ll felt nonce words were worthy for ESL and EFL learners to learn. 26
Discussion (2/5) • The results of the interviews suggest that English-L1 and English-L2 speakers gave a different status to nonce words. – Here, status refers to whether these two groups of par4cipants felt the nonce words were worth learning.
• It should also be noted that these interviews were conducted about five weeks ayer the formal experiment, and not all the par4cipants who were involved in the formal experiment were willing to be interviewed.
– This delay between the experiment and the interviews could have also affected par4cipants’ percep4ons of the nonce words. 27
Discussion (3/5) • One of the English-L2 speakers noted: – To tell you the truth, I did think this was a real word when I read the book, but ayer we did the ac4vity in class, I couldn’t really think of anything similar…so ayer class, I looked it up and can’t really see anything related in the dic4onary. So, I actually never saw that before, and I searched on Google, and it said it’s a word the author uses in the book.
• Clearly, par4cipants could have checked online or tried looking in dic4onaries for some of the nonce words ayer the experiment was over and discovered many of the nonce words assessed were not real English words. 28
Discussion (3/5) • The interview data shows that English-L1 speakers gave nonce words a different status than English-L2 speakers. • All nine English-L1 speakers interviewed stated that nonce words were not worth learning and would not be important except for comprehending the novel; however, these speakers did not state that nonce words were not important. – These English-L1 speakers in fact during the formal experiment were shown to have acquired the meanings of some of the nonce words. – Previous incidental vocabulary acquisi4on research has shown that importance given to words will determine how much aben4on is given to those words, which in turn will affect acquisi4on.
• It is possible that the English-L1 speakers gave a status to the nonce words encountered in The BFG as being important for comprehension but not for reten4on.
29
Discussion (4/5) • Knowing whether a word is real or fake may affect how the reader treats the word. – When reading a novel for pleasure, readers may realize the importance of names of characters, places, or objects that reoccur throughout the novel, but that does not necessarily mean readers will be encouraged to retain those words once the novel has been read. – The nonce words encountered by the English-L1 speakers may have been recognized as such, and therefore this could have influenced how the nonce words were treated; during the reading task, the English-L1 speakers, for example, may have tended to focus more on target words that they perceived as aids in following the plot of the novel.
30
Conclusions (1/3) • Previous research using nonce words to inves4gate incidental acquisi4on of vocabulary through reading seems to have been conducted under the assump4on that research par4cipants treat unknown nonce words the same way they treat unknown real words encountered while reading.
– The use of nonce words in incidental vocabulary acquisi4on research is jus4fied because it eliminates the need for pretests and thus the par4cipants’ sensi4vity to the target words that will be assessed ayer reading the target text. – Using nonce words also ensures that outside the experimental task, research par4cipants will not encounter words that will be assessed. – The use of nonce words further provides researchers with jus4fica4on for not using a control group, because any vocabulary acquisi4on shown through vocabulary assessments is assumed to be the result of incidental learning.
31
Conclusions (2/3) • However, previous research results also highlight the need of control groups in research whose methodologies use nonce words to assess acquisi4on. • Doing so will help ensure that the outcomes shown on vocabulary assessments is due to incidental acquisi4on and not guessing or enhanced saliency because of nonce-word oddi4es. 32
Conclusions (3/3) • The use of nonce words could confound acquisi4on results if par4cipants realize that the nonce words are basically proxies represen4ng already known real words or give the nonce words a different status than real English words. • Some may dismiss this no4on with the sugges4on that par4cipants may believe that nonce words are real synonyms for already known real words. • Although this may be true, researchers should ques4on whether acquiring a nonce word with an already known synonym as an anchor is the same as acquiring a completely separate and new real word. 33
References Bai, Y.-L. (2011). The degree of freedom of reader choice and second langauge incidental vocabulary learning. (MA Thesis), Na4onal Central University, Chungli, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Brown, R., Waring, R., & Donkaewbua, S. (2008). Incidental vocabulary acquisi4on from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 136-163. Chen, C., & Truscob, J. (2010). The effects of repe44on and L1 lexicaliza4on on incidental vocabulary acquisi4on. Applied Linguis4cs, 31(5), 693-713. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq031 Dahl, R. (1982). The BFG. New York: Puffin. Day, R. R., Omura, C., & Hiramatsu, M. (1991). Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7(2), 541-551. Dupuy, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisi4on in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 4(1&2), 55-63. Heidari-Shahreza, M. A., & Tavakoli, M. (2012). The effects of repe44on and L1 lexicaliza4on on incidental vocabulary acquisi4on by Iranian EFL learners. The Language Learning Journal, iFirst, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/09571736.2012.708051 Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11(2), 207-223. Horst, M., & Meara, P. (1999). Test of a model for predic4ng second language lexical growth through reading. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), 303-328. Huls4jn, J. H. (1992). Reten4on of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. J. L. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguis4cs (pp. 113-125). Hampshire: MacMillan Academic and Professional Ltd. Huls4jn, J. H. (2001). Inten4onal and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elabora4on, rehearsal and automa4city. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cogni4on and Second Language Instruc4on (pp. 258-286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huls4jn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dic4onary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 327-339. Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educa4onal Research Journal, 21(4), 767-787. Kweon, S.-O., & Kim, H.-R. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisi4on in extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 191-215. Lehmann, M. (2007). Is inten4onal or incidental vocabulary learning more effec4ve? The Interna4onal Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(1), 23-28. Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educa4onal Research Journal, 24(2), 237-270. Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253. Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmib, N. (2010). Incidental vocabulary acquisi4on from an authen4c novel: Do Things Fall Apart? Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 31-55. Pigada, M., & Schmib, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisi4on from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), 1-28. Pibs, M., White, H., & Krashen, S. D. (1989). Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading: A replica4on of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5(2), 271-275. Rob, S. (1999). The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners' incidental vocabulary acquisi4on and reten4on through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisi4on, 21, 589-619. Saragi, T., Na4on, I. S. P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System, 6(2), 72-78. Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., & Zhang, H. (1995). Incidental learning of word meanings while reading: A Chinese and American cross-cultural study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 76-95. Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educa4onal Research, 69(3), 261-285. Tekmen, E. A. F., & Daloğlu, A. (2006). An inves4ga4on of incidental vocabulary acquisi4on in rela4on to learner proficiency level and word frequency. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 220-243. Waring, R., & Na4on, I. S. P. (2004). Second language reading and incidental vocabulary learning. Angles on the English-Speaking World, 4, 11-23. Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2), 130-163. Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repe44on on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguis4cs, 28(1), 46-65. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml048 Webb, S. (2008). The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 232-245. Zahar, R., Cobb, T., & Spada, N. (2001). Acquiring vocabulary through reading: Effects of frequency and contextual richness. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(4), 541-572.
34
Acknowledgements
35
