Teaching Considerations for Non-Lexicalized L2 Words Seula Han Phuong Tran Shane Lanning Thomas McAlister Ball State University

Introduction  Class project from Spring 2014  Second Language Vocabulary: A cognitive perspective  Ongoing project

Literature Review  Depth of Processing Theory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) — intensity vs. duration  Noticing Hypothesis (Schmidt, 1990) — exposure  Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001) — motivation and judgment

Acquisition Strategies Research  Lexical Inferencing  Synonym Generation  Dictionary Usage  Assisted Reading Paribakht and Wesche (1999)

Knowledge Sources  sentence-level grammar  word morphology  punctuation  world knowledge  discourse and text  homonymy  word associations  cognates Paribakht and Wesche (1999)

What are students doing with non-lexicalized L2 words?  They skip them (Blum & Levensten, 1979; Sjöholm, 1998 )  So, our question becomes, what would they do, if they had to decode them?

Methodology  Graduate-level students with various L1 backgrounds (n=4)  1 Arabic, 1 Chinese, 2 Vietnamese  Repeated reading vs. Guided reading  Non-lexicalized vs. Lexicalized words  Pseudo-words were used for both categories  Think-aloud task for both sessions  Assessment

Sample Items: Non-lexicalized  Session 1 (Repeated reading)  The show that we watched was full of gorks. It was about life in America long ago, but you could see some people wearing wristwatches. People used to carry watches in a pocket on a chain. No one used to wear wristwatches. Also, one person was wearing modern day shoes. It was very strange to see! (anachronism)  Session 2 (Guided reading)  We are having traffic problems due to the snopy last night. Cars are moving slowly on slippery roads. Pedestrians need to watch their steps as the sidewalks are both watery and icy. Things become more unbearable in the freezing weather. What a winter day it is! (sleet) Question: What is the weather like?

Non-lexical Strategies Coding  Repetition: Participant repeats any part of the part of the passage; i.e. word, sentence, etc.  Word-form: Participant attempts to compare sound or form to another word (e.g. hormones could be related to harmony because they look similar)  Syntactic: Participant tries to find meaning by looking at the words syntactic function (e.g. makes is a verb in this sentence)

Non-lexical Strategies Coding Cont.  Contextual: Participant tries to figure out the word by figuring out the meaning of the phrasal-, clausal-, or discourse-level context (e.g. it says that he likes to get his exercise, so the word might mean healthy)  Verifying: Participant checks the inferred meaning against the wider context (e.g. Michael avoids going to parties. Michael ‘hates’ going to parties)  Self-inquiry: Participant asks himself or herself a question  Monitoring: Participant evaluates the ease of the word

Teaching Implication I  No different effects between reading tasks on short-term retention  Two tasks: Repeated Reading vs. Guided Reading.  Mean of score for non-lexical words in assessment tests  Assessment 1: 3.75 out of 5  Assessment 2: 3.5 out of 5  No conclusion on which task (i) requires a deeper level of processing (Craik & Lockhart,1972) on short-term retention.

Teaching Implication II  More strategies used in Repeated Reading than in Guided Reading  Repeated Reading: More time  More Strategies  Guided Reading: Guided questions made participants self-perceive to have understood the passages and the unknown words  less strategies needed to infer word meaning  If you are trying to get students to employ strategies, use the repeated reading

Teaching Implication III  Guided reading might help with inference accu- racy  3 participants had higher inference accuracy in gui-ded reading than in repeated reading.  Guided questions helped grasp the overall context, create contextual cues, and converge inference po-ssibilities  more accurate guesses.  If you want to practice inferencing, use the repeated reading

Limitations and Future Study  Sample  Larger sample  Different proficiency levels  Context for non-lexicalized words  Methodology  Assessment test  Think-aloud task

Reference  Craik,F.I.M.,& Lockhart,R.S.(1972). Depth of processing:A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11,  Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22,  Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners' lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 61(1),  Paribakht and Wesche (1999) Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,  Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11,

Acknowledgements  We thank Brian Greer and Reem Alsufayan who were also part of this project and Dr. Hamada who directed the project.  We also thank the participants for collaborating on the project.

Thank you!