Keywords
affix difficulty
L2 English teaching
How to Cite
Number of views: 958
Number of downloads: 576
Abstract
Knowledge of derivational morphology is considered an important aspect of vocabulary knowledge both in L1 (mother tongue) and L2 (second or foreign language) English language learning. However, it is still not clear whether different derivational affixes vary in their (learning) difficulty. The present study examines whether Bauer and Nation’s (1993) teaching order of L2 English affixes can account for the difficulty learners have with recognising the affixes. The participants in the study were L1 Estonian and Russian learners of English at upper-secondary schools in Estonia (n = 62). Their performance was measured on a word segmentation task. There were significant differences in the number of affixes the learners were able to successfully recognise at different levels, as classified by Bauer and Nation (1993). By and large, with the exception of no significant difference between Level 5 and Level 6 affixes, the higher the affix level was, the less likely the learners were to recognise the affixes at this level. I argue that these results can support the order proposed by Bauer and Nation. The implications of the finding for teaching and further research are also discussed.References
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C., & Steel, D. (1997). Metalinguistic knowledge, language aptitude and language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 1(2), 93-121.
Alegre, M., & Gordon, P. (1999). Rule-based versus associative processes in derivational morphology. Brain and Language, 68(1-2), 347-354.
Bailey, N., Madden, C., & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a "natural sequence" in adult second language learning? Language Learning, 24(2), 234-243. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1974.tb00505.x
Bauer, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4), 253-279.
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 169-190. doi: 10.1023/A:1008131926604
Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239-253. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0703_3
Chuenjundaeng, J. (2006). An investigation of SUT students’ receptive knowledge of English noun suffixes (Unpublished MA thesis). Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand.
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., & Silva, R. (2010). Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60(1), 21-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00550.x
Clahsen, H., & Neubauer, K. (2010). Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in native and non-native speakers. Lingua, 120(11), 2627-2637.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment [electronic version]. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_en.pdf
Felser, C., & Clahsen, H. (2009). Grammatical processing of spoken language in child and adult language learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(3), 305-319. doi: 10.1007/s10936-009-9104-8
Friedline, B. E. (2011). Challenges in the second language acquisition of derivational morphology: From theory to practice (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, USA.
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-50. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00147.
Gollan, T. H., Foster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 112-239.
Hayashi, Y., & Murphy, V. (2010). An investigation of morphological awareness in Japanese learners of English. The Language Learning Journal, 39(1), 105-120. doi: 10.1080/09571731003663614
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 47-77. doi: 10.1093/applin/21.1.47
Jiang, N. (2004). Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4), 603-634. doi: 10.1017/S0142716404001298
Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research, 14(1), 1-26. doi: 10.1191/026765898674105303
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning, 26(1), 125-134.
Leontjev, D. (2016). ICAnDoiT: The impact of computerised adaptive corrective feedback on L2 English learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Marslen-Wilson, W. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 175-193). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mochizuki, M., & Aizawa, K. (2000). An affix acquisition order for EFL learners: An exploratory study. System, 28(2), 291-304.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Perlmutter, D. (1988). The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (Eds.), Theoretical morphology (pp. 79-100). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Põhikooli riiklik õppekava õigusakt; Lisa 2 [Basic School National Curriculum Act: Annex 2.] (2010). Retrieved from https://www.riigiteataja.ee/aktilisa/1281/2201/0017/13275423.pdf
Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework: Word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 17-36.
Schmitt, N., & Zimmermann, C. B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 145-171. doi: 10.2307/3588328
Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H. (2008). Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245-260. doi: 10.1017/S1366728908003404
Thorndike, E. L. (1942). The teaching of English suffixes. Teachers College, 43(8), 657-658.
Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1-2), 231-270.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
License
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.