'Sequence' and 'Order' in the Development of L2 Lexis

'Sequence' and 'Order' in the Development of L2 Lexis: Some Evidence from Lexical Confusions BATIA LAUFER University of Haifa

INTRODUCTION

In the late sixties and the seventies, the behaviouristic accounts of language acquisition were submitted to empirical investigation and consequently to criticism (Dulay and Burt 1973,1974; Richards 1974;Corder 1967). The view that learners with different native languages learnt a foreign language in entirely different ways was challenged by researchers, who suggested an alternative hypothesis according to which L2 learning followed a fixed route of development irrespective of the learners LI. Following studies in LI acquisition which showed that there was a predictable route of development in the learning of some structures and morphemes (Klima and Bellugi 1966; Brown 1973), a related hypothesis about L2 was postulated: the developmental route which the second language learner followed was similar to that followed by a child learning the same language as his mother tongue. This assumption became known as the 'LI acquisition = L2 acquisition hypothesis'. The empirical studies which investigated this hypothesis dealt mainly with syntax, for example, the order of acquisition of some grammatical functors in L2 Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 3 © Oxford University Press 1990

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on April 27, 2014

The study compared native speaking learners of English with foreign learners, with regard to confusions of 'synforms' (similar lexical forms). Tests were designed in which the learners were required to distinguish between synforms often categories (ten types ofsynformic similarity). Hierarchies of difficulty (i.e. the extent to which synforms induced errors) were produced for the ten categories of synforms for the two groups of learners. The orders of difficultyfor the two groups (native andforeign) correlated at 0.83 at the 0.01 probability level. A hierarchy ofdifficulty was also producedfor four 'super-categories'. The analysis showed that native speaking learners and foreign learners shared an order of difficulty: suffix synforms created the most difficult synformic distinctions, followed by the vocalic, and then the prefix and consonantal. Adopting the distinction between 'sequence'and 'order'in language acquisition it can be argued that, in learning to distinguish between synforms, all learners, native and foreign, follow a similar sequence, an overall developmental route, although the order within each super-category may differ for each group of learners.

282

SEQUENCE AND ORDER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF L2 LEXIS

LEXICAL CONFUSIONS AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Words of similar form are sometimes confused by both native speakers and foreign learners. When confusion occurs with an adult educated native speaker, this is usually a case of an accidental lapse—a slip of the ear in comprehension and a slip of the tongue in production. (For studies of such errors, see, for example, the collection of papers in Fromkin 1980.) In such cases, the speaker or hearer accidentally accesses, instead of the intended word, its 'near neighbour' in the mental lexicon, since words of similar form are likely to be stored near each other (Fay and Cutler 1977; Cutler and Fay 1982). When, on the other hand, learners of a foreign language confuse words of similar form, the error is usually not accidental but stems from a defective (wrong or incomplete) representation of one or both of the confused items'


(Dulay and Burt 1973,1974), the acquisition of negatives (Ravem 1968; Wode 1976), interrogatives (Ravem 1974; Butterworth and Hatch 1978), and relative clauses (Schumann 1980). The results of the above studies, especially the longitudinal ones, supported the view that L2 acquisition indeed followed a natural developmental route which was not very different from that found in some LI acquisition studies (for example, Porter 1977). However, there was also evidence to suggest that LI and L2 acquisitional routes differed (Felix 1978; Brown 1973). To reconcile the conflicting evidence, Ellis (1985) suggests making a distinction between sequence of development and order of development in the second language. Sequence refers to the overall developmental profile, starting, in grammar, with unanalysed units, followed by invariant word order, then variant word order, then morphological development, ending with complex sentence structure. Sequence may well be common to both LI and L2 acquisition. Order of development, on the other hand, refers to the acquisition of details within each general stage. Order may well differ from learner to learner as a result of individual differences, for example, a different LI. Thus, learners 'follow a standard sequence but vary in the order in which specific features are acquired' (Ellis 1985: 64). The modified LI = L2 hypothesis will claim, then, that the sequence of L2 acquisition resembles that of LI, while the order of acquisition may differ. The studies referred to so far investigated the development of grammar. By comparison, research on lexical development has been scarce. (For possible reasons for the neglect, see Levenston 1979; Meara 1980; Laufer 1986). Most studies that compare lexical behaviour in L2 and LI are relatively recent. Meara (1978) and Randall (1980) studied differences between associations provided by native speakers and L2 learners to the same words, in the attempt to investigate the effect of language proficiency on associative behaviour. Olshtain (1987) deals with the acquisition of word formation devices as an indication of near-native competence at the advanced level of L2 proficiency. Blum-Kulka and Levenston (1987) discuss the use of some pragmatic indicators in Hebrew and English by learners and native speakers of each of the two languages.

BATIALAUFER

283

DESIGN OF THE PRESENT STUDY

Purpose The experiments reported in this paper attempt to examine the similarities and/ or differences experienced by English native speaking children and foreign learners of English in distinguishing between words of similar form. Subjects For that purpose, 528 subjects were tested, of which 321 were adult foreign learners of English (ages 18-25) in Israel and the UK, native speakers of 21 languages, whose level of English was the equivalent of the FCE (First Certificate of English). The remaining 207 subjects were English native speakers, age 12, from five Edinburgh primary schools. Both groups of subjects (the foreign students at FCE level and the native speaking children, age 12) were learners of English. Their vocabulary may have sufficed for communication and comprehension of moderately difficult written language, but it was still developing: new words and additional meanings of already familiar words were being continually added to the learner's lexicon, whether the lexicon in question was that of the native tongue or the foreign language. Test items The test items were pairs/groups of similar words selected from a large corpus of lexical errors which had previously been collected from foreign learners'


forms. He may remember a part of the item's form, but not all of it. For example, in the case of an incomplete representation of prize, the last consonant may not be recalled easily—the learner may be uncertain whether it is /s/ or /z/. In the case of a wrong representation of prize, the word will be said as /prais/. In the first case, the learner's not recalling the last consonant, when prize is heard or read, it may be interpreted as the word price since the two words differ precisely in the consonant that is not recalled; in the case of a wrong representation of the item /s/ instead of/z/, the error is bound to occur. Since vocabulary acquisition involves acquiring the correct representation of words in the mental lexicon (i.e. with all the specifications spelled out correctly)1 and since the acquisition of lexis is a gradual process (Levenston 1979; Meara 1984), it is reasonable to assume that the more advanced a learner becomes, the fewer confusions he will make. This is probably true of both the foreign learner and the native-speaking child. It was mentioned earlier that similarities have been found in the way the grammar of a particular language is learnt by children as LI and by foreigners as L2. It would be interesting to see whether in vocabulary acquisition, too, there are similarities between the two groups of learners,2 i.e. whether the LI acquisition = L2 acquisition hypothesis could be supported by evidence from lexical development. As lexical confusions are a part of vocabulary acquisition, a comparison of native speakers and foreign learners with respect to such confusions can provide some evidence for or against similar acquisition patterns of LI and L2 learners.

284


writing performance and interpretations of texts. The pairs/groups of the confused words were called 'synforms' (similar lexical forms) and were classified into ten categories on the basis of features of similarity between them.3 Here are the ten categories of synforms. (More examples for each category are listed in Laufer 1985: Appendix 1.)

integration).

Category- 3—synforms which differ from each other in a suffix present in one synform but not in the other (for example, historic, historical; sect, sector). Category 4—synforms which have the same root, not productive in present-day English, but different prefixes (for example, consumption, assumption, resumption; compress, suppress, repress, oppress). Category 5—synforms which differ from each other in a prefix present in one synform but not in the other (for example, passion, compassion; fault, default). Category 6—synforms identical in all their phonemes except one vowel or diphthong (for example, affect, effect /a'fekt, i'fekt/; set,sat /set, saet/). Category 7—synforms which differ from each other in a vowel present in one synform but not in the other (for example, cute, acute /kju.t, a'kju.t/; quite, quiet /kwait, kwaiat/; date, data /deit, 'delta/). Category 8—synforms identical in all their phonemes except one consonant (for example, price, prize /prais, praiz/; extend, extent /iks'tend, iks'tent/). Category 9—synforms which differ from each other in a consonant present in one synform but not in the other (for example, ledge, pledge; simulate, stimulate; mean, means (noun)). Category 10—synforms identical to each other in their consonants but different in their vowels (more than one vowel) (for example, base, bias /beis, 'baias/; manual, menial /'maznjual, 'miinjal/; embrace, embarrass Am'breis, im'baeras/). Elicitation procedures For each of the ten categories of synforms, two written multiple choice tests (version A and version B) were designed. Both versions of a particular test were taken by the same students, that is, each synform was tested twice with each group of learners. Version A of each test consisted of sentences with a gap to be filled in each sentence. The examinees were given four alternatives from which they had to choose the correct answer, for example: The factory ... included fifteen workers. a staff b stiff c stuff d stove


Category 1—synforms which have the same root, productive in present-day English but different suffixes (for example, considerable, considerate; imaginary, imaginative, imaginable). Category 2—synforms which have the same root, not productive in present-day English, but different suffixes (for example, capable, capacious; integrity,

BAT1A LAUFER

285

Version B of the same test, which was given to the learners after they had completed version A, consisted of individual words with four possible explanations of the meaning of each word. The examinee had to choose the correct interpretation, as in the following example:

The explanations in a-d corresponded to the four possible answers in the parallel sentence in version A. Thus, alternative a (staff) in test Version A corresponded to alternative a (group of people working together) in version B; alternative b (stiff) in A corresponded to b (not easily bent) in B; c (stuff) in A corresponded to c (material of which something is made) in B; d (stove) corresponded to d (apparatus used for warming rooms). This correspondence between the two versions meant that the same distractors were provided twice for each synform by means of the two test versions. The fact that test version A tested synforms in sentences, while test version B tested them in isolation, does not mean that we wanted to check context effect on synform confusion. The versions were simply two elicitation methods: test version A tried to elicit synform confusions when the allegedly confused words were actually seen by the examinee; version B of the same test tried to elicit synform confusions when the examinee was faced with the interpretation of the word tested, of its allegedly confusing synforms, and of two other distractors. It was believed that the likelihood of results being artificially affected by a particular testing method would be reduced if the same phenomena were tested by two different testing methods which are reputable and widely used.4 Each pair of tests (testing one synform category) was given to a group of native speakers and a group of foreign learners. Each group comprised thirty students on the average. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The tests checked (a) the frequency of the synform confusions and (b) whether this frequency was significant or not. Tables 1 and 2 display the following information: 1 x2 values for the difference between the number of synform errors and other errors in the column labelled 'favourite error'; 2 x2 values for the difference between the number of synform errors and all the other responses, including the correct one, in the column labelled 'favourite response' (altogether four x2 values are presented in the table); 3 an indication whether each x2 value is significant (+) or not (—), but only in the direction of synform errors, i.e. if their number is higher, not lower than that of the other responses.


STAFF a. group of people working together b. not easily changed in shape c. material of which something is made d. apparatus used for warming rooms.

286


Table l:x2 values for synform errors—native speakers Favourite error TestB Test A

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

6.15 + 26.9 + 18.43 +

considerable/considerate credible/credulous economic/economical superficial/artificial passion/compassion staff/stuff cute/acute price/prize addition/addiction merely/merrily

0

18.23 2.97 15.72 32.79 5.15 25.8

+ + + + + +

39.77 70.5 99.0 7.46 19.3 6.7 61.2 14.33 12.46 8.87

Favourite response Test A TestB + + + + + + + + + +

2.03 0.15 2.39 59.95* 1.39 38.13* 12.31* 3.49* 14.63* 3.07

-

19.16 9.63 18.25 8.96* 0.18 21.04 0.94 135.90* 21.60* 0.004

+ + + -

Table 2:%2 values for synform errors—foreign learners Category number

Favourite error TestB Test A

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

9.77 95.3 68.4 1.74 20.39 8.08 38.42 2.68 8.45 42.5


+ + + + + + + +

55.91 172.4 198.0 10.28 7.98 82.5 32.25 7.55 5.26 44.39

Favourite response TestB Test A + + + + + + + + + +

0.007 6.59 13.6 33.59* 0.13 3.95* 5.41 5.7* 11.1* 11.08

+ + + +

14.28 15.58 61.03 2.04 4.3* 0.07 2.97 0.27 6.16* 7.74

+ + + +

mean that the number of other responses, not synform errors, was significantly higher. Therefore, a (—) appears in the 'significance' columns. This is in accordance with the decision to mark a result with a (—) when the number of synform errors was not significantly higher but lower than that of the other responses.

A point of clarification is appropriate here. %2 values were chosen for presentation rather than the percentage of synform errors since in different tests different percentages of synform errors were expected to occur by chance. Therefore, comparison of categories in terms of synform-error inducing power could not be made on the basis of the actual percentage of synform error, but by comparing their respective differences between the observed and the expected numbers of synform errors, or %2 value. Hierarchy of difficulty: individual categories As mentioned earlier, the x2 value is an appropriate indication of difficulty since the higher the value, the more synform errors were made in comparison with the


Category number

BATIA LAUFER

287

Table 3: Hierarchy of difficulty of synform categories Category number

Rank order for native speakers

Rank order for foreign learners

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1 3 2 10 5 9 6 8 7 4

4 2 1 10 5 6 5 9 8 3



expected number of these errors (except in the cases marked with * where the number of other responses was higher than expected in comparison with the synform errors). However, since for each category there are four %2 values, not one, an additional criterion had to be added in measuring the relative difficulty of the categories—the number of significant differences. Thus, the most difficult categories were considered to be those with four pluses (+) for significance of X2; next, those with three pluses, then with two, then with one. Within this main distinction, if several categories had the same number of significant %2 values, their order of difficulty was determined as follows: the higher the value of %2 results in the 'favourite response' tests, the more difficult the category was thought to be. Another possibility would be to take into account all the %2 values, but since the 'favourite response' result was a more certain indication of difficulty, it was judged to be the proper criterion of difficulty after the main distinction (i.e. the number of significant results). When the %2 value was significant in the direction of other responses, it was taken to be an adverse indication of difficulty and therefore was assigned a negative value in comparison with other categories. On the basis of these two criteria, the number of significant differences in the four x2 tests and the x2 values in the 'favourite response' tests, two orders of difficulty were worked out: one for native speakers; the other for foreign learners. In Table 3 rank number 1 indicates the most difficult category and rank 10, the easiest one. To find out how similar the two orders were, the ranks were correlated. Spearman rank order correlation was calculated to be 0.83, significant at 0.01 probability level. This correlation indicates that the order of difficulty is quite similar for the two groups of learners. However, it does not mean that both native speakers and foreign learners experience similar difficulty with individual categories of synforms. Tables 1 and 2 show that some categories of synforms induced a significant number of synform errors in the case of foreign learners, but not native speakers. What the correlation indicates is that for each group of

288


learners some categories are more difficult than others and the order of their difficulty is quite similar even though the degree of difficulty might vary considerably.


Hierarchy of difficulty: major groups ofsynform categories Another way of looking at the resemblance of the two orders is by organizing the ten categories into the four major categories of synforms: suffix synforms, prefix synforms, vocalic synforms, and consonantal synforms, calculating the average rank order of each major group and comparing the average rank orders of native speakers and foreign learners.5 The idea of'average' order of difficulty was developed by Krashen (1982) with respect to the morpheme acquisition. In his comparison of children learning English as their mother tongue and adults learning English as a second language, with respect to the acqusition of certain morphemes, Krashen organized these morphemes in three major groups and claimed that the order of acquisition of these three groups was similar for native speakers and foreign learners. However, the order of acquisition of the individual morphemes in each of the three groups might be different for the different learner. According to the principle of the average order of difficulty in synform categories, the ranks will appear as shown in Table 4. Looking at the average rank orders, we can see that the internal order of difficulty of the four groups is similar for the two types of learners, native and non-native. The most difficult ones are the suffix synforms, then the vocalic, then the prefix and the consonantal. As in Krashen's case, the order of difficulty

Table 4: The average order of difficulty of the four major categories of synforms Category number

Suffix 1. considerable/considerate 2. credible/credulous 3. economic/economical Prefix 4. superficial/artificial 5. passion/compassion

Native speakers Category rank order 1 3 2

Average order

2

Foreign learners Category rank order

Average order

4 2 1

2.3

10 5

7.5

10 5

8.5

Vocalic 6. staff/stuff 7. cute/acute 10. merely/merrily

9 6 4

6.3

6 5 3

4.6

Consonantal 8. price/prize 9. addition/addiction

8 7

7.5

9 8

8.5

BATIA LAUFER

289

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The study compared native speaking learners of English with learners of English as a foreign language, with regard to confusions of 'synforms' (similar lexical forms). Specifically, tests were designed in which the learners were required to distinguish between synforms of ten categories (ten types of synformic similarity). The frequency of synformic confusions and the significance of this frequency were calculated for each category of synforms and for each group of learners, i.e. each category was measured in terms of its synformerror inducing power. On the basis of this information, hierarchies of difficulty were produced (a) for the individual categories of synforms, (b) for the four major groups of categories, each one for native speakers and for foreign learners. The hierarchies of native speakers were then compared with those of the foreign learners. In the case of the individual categories, Spearman rank order correlation was 0.83, significant at 0.01 probability level. In the case of the major groups of categories, the internal rank order was similar in the two groups of subjects. The most difficult synformic distinctions were those of the suffix synforms, the vocalic, then the prefix and the consonantal.


for each individual category within a major synform group may be different for the two kinds of learners, see for example categories 1 and 6. The similarity in the rank order of the four major groups of synform categories does not necessarily point to the fact that both native speakers and foreign learners experience similar difficulty with the groups of categories. What it shows is that in each group of learners, the relative difficulty of the four major groups of categories is as described in the previous paragraph. The question is whether this hierarchy of difficulty, which is based on results of a cross-sectional study, actually reflects the order in which the learner of English, as LI or L2, learns to distinguish between the various synformic contrasts in the course of his learning. In spite of a number of criticisms of the 'accuracy order = acquisition order' principle, with regard to the morpheme studies, it has also been claimed that the two types of order can be equated on the grounds that the more accurately an item or structure is used, the earlier it is acquired. (For a discussion see, for example, Hatch and Farhady 1982; Borland 1984). If we accept the notion that the route of acquisition is reflected in the accuracy results and bear in mind that vocabulary learning is a gradual process, the following conclusions seem to emerge from the results of the study; the sequence in which learners of English, both native and foreign, would learn to distinguish between the synformic contrasts is: consonantal and prefix synforms first, then the vocalic, then the suffix ones. As opposed to the identical sequence (the overall development, Ellis 1985), the order in which they learn to distinguish between synforms of each individual category within the major categories will be different for native speakers and foreign learners (see Table 4)-

290


NOTES 1 A proper representation would include semantic and syntactic features as well. Our interest here, however, is in form only. 2 We are not talking about the acquisition of concepts, which varies considerably between children and adults because of cognitive differences. 3 For a detailed discussion and classification of 'synforms' see Laufer (1985). Synforms were defined as similar lexical forms. Similarity, in turn, was defined in terms of general characteristics of all synforms and particular characteristics of each of the postulated ten categories. 4 See, for example, the vocabulary sub-test in the FCE and CPF tests. 5 The grouping into four categories was based on similarities between categories within each major group: synformic differences in suffixes, prefixes, vowels, consonants. REFERENCES Blum-Kulka, S. and E. A. Levenston. 1987. 'Lexical-grammatical pragmatic indicators.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9:155-69. Borland, H. E. 1984. "The Acquisition of Some Features of English Syntax by Four Groups of Adolescent Immigrants to Australia.' Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.


Adopting the distinction between sequence and order of acquisition, we may argue on the basis of the results, that sequence (the overall pattern of development) in acquiring the synformic distinctions is common to both the native speakers and foreign learners. It corresponds to the accuracy order of the major groups of synform categories. However, the order of acquiring the synformic distinctions of each specific category is different for native speakers and foreign learners (though not too different) and corresponds to the accuracy order of the ten individual categories. It is not claimed here that the native language of the learner has no role in learning to distinguish between synforms. Native speakers and foreign learners experience different degrees of difficulty, as was shown by the results. Moreover, in Laufer (1985), the responses of foreign learners were analysed according.to LI families (Romance, Germanic, Semitic); the analysis indicated that there were significant differences in the three LI groups. However, these findings do not invalidate the conclusion that, in learning to distinguish between synforms, all learners, native and foreign, follow a similar sequence, an overall developmental route, starting with an accurate distinction between prefix and consonantal synforms, followed by differentiation between vocalic synforms, and ending with an accurate distinction between suffix synforms. The order within each of the four major categories, and the degree of difficulty each category induces, may differ for each group of learners. Similar sequence and different order in studies of grammar have been considered as evidence for the modified LI acquisition = L2 acquisition hypothesis. The results of the present study suggest that in vocabulary acquisition, too, learners may follow a similar developmental route. (Received September 1988)

BATIALAUFER

291


Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Butterworth, G. and E. M. Hatch. 1978. 'A Spanish-speaking adolescents acquisition of English syntax' in E. M. Hatch (ed.): Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Corder, S. P. 1967. 'The significance of learners' errors.' International Review ofApplied Linguistics. 5:161-69. Cutler, A. and D. A. Fay. 1982. 'On mental lexicon, phonologically arranged; comments on Hurford's comments.' Linguistic Inquiry 13:107-12. Dulay, H. C. and M. K. Burt. 1973. 'Should we teach children syntax?' Language Learning 23:245-58. Dulay, H. C. and M. K. Burt. 1974. 'Natural sequences in child language acquisition.' Language Learning 24: 37-54. Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fay, D. A. and A. Cutler. 1977. 'Malaproprisms and the structure of the mental lexicon.' Linguistic Inquiry 8: 505-20. Felix, S. 1978. 'Some differences between first and second language acquisition' in N. Waterson and C. Snow (eds.): Development of Communication. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fromkin, V. A. 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance. Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen and Hand. London: Academic Press. Hatch, E. M. and H. Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Klima, E. and V. Bellugi. 1966. 'Syntactic regularities in the speech of children' in J.Lyons and R.Wales (eds.): Psycho linguistic Papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. New York and London: Oxford University Press. Laufer, B. 1985. 'Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: the Hypothesis of "Synforms" (Similar Lexical Forms).' Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh. Laufer, B. 1986. 'Possible changes in attitude towards vocabulary acquisition research.' International Review ofApplied Linguistics 24:69-75. Levenston, E. A. 1979. 'Second language acquisition: issues and problems.' Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 4:147-60. Meara, P. M. 1978. 'Learners' word associations in French.' Interlanguage Studies Bulletin 2:191-211. Meara, P. M. 1984. 'The study of lexis in interlanguage' in A. Davies, C. Criper, and A. P. R. Howatt (eds.): Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Olshtain, E. 1987. "The acquisition of new word formation processes in second language acquisition.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 221-31. Porter, R. 1977. 'A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisition in first language learners.' Language Learning 27:47-62. Randall, M. 1980. 'Word association behaviour in learners of English as a foreign language.' Polyglot 2 (fiche 2). Ravem, R. 1968. 'Language acquisition in a second language environment.' International Review ofApplied Linguistics 6: 175-85. Ravem, R. 1974. 'The development of WH questions in first and second language learners' in J. C. Richards (ed.).

292


Richards, J. C. (ed.) 1974. Error Analysis. London: Longman. Richards, J. C. 1974. 'A non-contrastive approach to Error Analysis' in J. C. Richards (ed.). Schumann, J. H. 1980. 'The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners' in R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds.): Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Wode, H. 1976. 'Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition.' Working Papers on Bilingualism 15:37-57.

Synform test—category 10, version A

Student... Mother tongue . . . In each sentence below a word is missing. From the four alternatives which follow each sentence, decide which word best fits that sentence. Put a cross in the corresponding box. 1. The characters in the play were t o o . . . to be interesting. a. 0 ingrained b. () ingenious c. Qingenuous d. 0 infectious 2. It is hard to discuss politics without personal.... a. 0 base b. Q basis c. ()bias d. () bathe 3. They criticized our terms but failed t o . . . an alternative. a. 0 propose b. Q purpose c. 0 prose d. () purse 4. Students over thirty years of age are n o t . . . for these scholarships. a. 0 eligible b. 0 legible c. 0 legislated d. () elevated 5. He had to accept any job he could get, even the most... ones. a. 0 manual b. 0 menial c. 0 main d. 0 medium 6. He did not mean to be rude; he was . . . trying to mind his own business. a. 0 markedly b. 0 merely


APPENDIX

BATIA LAUFER

293

c. 0 merrily d. Q meagerly 7. Not many candidates turned up; therefore anyone... was accepted for the job. a. 0 available b. () valuable c. () veiled d. () avoidable

9. The local... employed sixty workers. a. 0 dainty b. () deary c. Q dairy d. Q diary 10. The ink has . . . on the desk. a. Q spilt b. 0 split c. 0 spelled d. () spoiled 11. They... other teams to reach the Cup Final. a. 0 illuminated b. 0 eliminated c. Q illustrated d. Q elevated 12. He held her to him and . . . her warmly. a. () engrossed b. 0 engraved c. 0 embraced d. Q embarrassed 13. . . . of currency restrictions is considered a criminal offence. a. 0 deface b. 0 defiance c. 0 defence d. Q fence 14. Mention of sex and . . . were taboo in Victorian literature. a. 0 exercise b. Q excursion c. 0 excretion d. Q expectation 15. Saving the life of an enemy in distress is particularly.... a. 0 humorous b. 0 humid


8. He tried t o . . . the fact that he was poor. a. 0 council b. Q cancel c. 0 conceal d. () cancer

294

16.

17.

19.

c. 0 human d. 0 humane Something must be done to raise the... of these troops after defeat. a. 0 morale b. 0 moral c. 0 mural d. (Jmore Candidates are required to write a ... of this text in no more than one third of its length. a. 0 precis b. 0 precise c. () precious d. 0 P r e s s I don't like my boss, so here's my notice to a. 0 quiet b. 0 quite c. ()quit d. ()quiz His appearance was deceptively mild because he had a... temper. a. 0 fairy b. 0 fiery c. ()fair d. ()far

Synform test—category 10, version B

Student... Mother tongue... Choose the alternative which means most nearly the same as the word(s) in block letters and put a cross in the corresponding box. 1. INGENUOUS a. 0 deeply fixed b. 0 clever and skilful c. 0 innocent d. () spreading disease 2. BIAS a. 0 place where armed forces have their tents, stores, etc. b. 0 foundation c. 0 prejudice d. 0 put in water 3. PROPOSE a. 0 suggest b. 0aim c. 0 language not in verse form d. 0 small bag


18.


BATIA LAUFER

295

4. ELIGIBLE a. 0 suitable b. 0 readable c. Q made laws d. () raised

b. o° n 'y c. Q happily d. Q poorly 7. AVAILABLE a. 0 that may be obtained b. 0 °f great worth or use c. Q covered d. Q that can be escaped 8. CONCEAL a. 0 g rou P of people appointed to manage affairs b. 0 cross out c. Ohi d e d. () disease growth in the body 9. DAIRY a. 0 delicate b. 0 darling c. 0 building where milk products are made d. 0 daily record of events 10. SPILT a. 0 ran over the side of the container b. 0 broke into two c. 0 named the letters of a word d. () made useless 11. ELIMINATE a. 0 g"ve light to

b. 5 r e m o v e

c. 0 explain by examples d. 0 r a i s e 12. EMBRACE a. 0 w r r t e in large letters b. 0 c u t words on a hard surface c. 0 take into one's arms d. 0 cause confusion


5. MENIAL a. 0 done with the hands b. 0 suitable for a servant c. 0 principle d. Q middle quality 6. MERELY a. Q clearly

296


13. DEFIANCE a. 0 sP°il the appearance b. 0 open disobedience c. 0 protection d. Q wooden barrier 14. EXCRETION a. 0 practice b. () short journeys c. () discharge from the system d. 5 awaiting Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Haifa Library on April 27, 2014

15. HUMANE a. 0 funny b. Qdamp c. 0 of man d. 0 kind-hearted 16. MORALE a. () state of mind and spirit b. 0 concerning principles of right and wrong c. 0 of a wall d. 0 greater in quantity 17. PRECIS a. 0 restatement in shortened form of the chief ideas b. 0 exact, correctly stated c. 0 of great value d. 0 the newspapers 18. QUIT a. 0 not noisy b. 0 relatively c. 0 leave d. ()test 19. FIERY a. 0 small imaginary being with supernatural powers b. 0 flaming c. 0just d. 0 distant