1

3

1 Support for semantic sets

Hierarchical Network Model (Collins & Quilian, 1969)

• Lexical knowledge is organized hierarchically

• Advanced organizer

• Each concept is only linked to the closest concept

4

Spreading Activation Model (Collins & Loftus, 1975)

• Concepts are connected via nodes w/ different lengths of line

• Based on the degree of their association

• The stronger the association,

the closer the connection between the two concepts.

Support for semantic sets (cont.)

Hashemi & Gowdasiaei (2005)

• Group : semantically related (SR) vs. semantically unrelated (SUR)

• Proficiency: lower level vs. upper level

• 60 English learners in Iran (30 for each group)

• Both lower and upper level students in SR treatment reached

a significantly higher score than ones in SUR treatment

• Upper level students made greater gains than lower level ones.

5

2

3 Support for unrelated sets

Interference effect (Higa, 1963)

• When several similar words were introduced at the same time, these words will interfere with each other, impairing retention of them.

6

4 Support for unrelated sets (cont.)

Is the role of verbal ability explains exceptions to a strong age effect?

7

• Tinkham(1993) • Waring (1997)*

N=20 / L1 English, L1 Japanese* psuedowords with L1 translation

• Finkbeiner and Nicol (2003) N=47/ L1 English pseudowords with pictures

• Erten and Tekin (2008) N= 60/ L1 Turkish English vocabulary with pictures

• Bolger and Zapata (2011) N=66/ L1 English pseudowords using contextualized texts Eye-tracking study

8

1 “Real” Korean words

limited to English or Roman alphabet

the ecological validity

2

9

3 an immediate and delayed posttest

to see the effect of grouping words persists in the long term

2 a repeated-measures design

the error variance associated with individual differences

statistical power

1 In terms of accuracy on immediate and delayed posttests,

do SR and SUR groupings of Korean vocabulary differ in their effectiveness for

L2 learning? 2

10

3 Do pictorial and textual cues of testing have a differential effect on participants’ performance in terms of accuracy and reaction times?

2 In terms of reaction times on immediate and delayed posttests,

do SR and SUR groupings of Korean vocabulary differ in their effectiveness for

L2 learning?

11

12

Gender 9 males / 19 females

L1 English

Age 20. 54 years (SD: 2.50)

Formal instruction 2.36 semesters (SD: 1.31)

First exposure 18.50 years (SD: 4.07)

Weekly use 9.7 hours (SD: 7.78)

31 -> 28 students from the beginner and intermediate Korean classes

heritage speakers were excluded

48 unknown words

• selected from 120 basic words (word familiarity scale)

• elementary school level

• from K-6 vocabulary list

• concrete nouns

• # of letters, syllables, and frequency

the SuperLab software

A male/ female native speakers of Korean

Duration of recording = 1500 ms/word x 2

a voice recorder for interviews

13

14

SR condition Natural disaster

• 6 words

Kitchen utensils

• 6words

Shape

• 6words

Diseases

• 6words = 24 words

SR (Semantically Related) condition

SR condition A

• 6 words

B

• 6words

C

• 6words

D

• 6words = 24 words

SUR (Semantically Unrelated) condition

15

16

Picture

L1 English word

L2 Korean word

Sound clip of L2 Korean

• Repeat the word after listening

• Each block (6 words) repeated 3 times

17

Picture

L1 English word

L2 Korean word

Sound clip of L2 Korean

• Repeated twice

• 3 pictures in the same block

• Immediate feedback is provided Good job!

18

Picture

L2 Korean word

L2 – Pic Test L2 – Word Test

L1 English

L2 Korean word

19

Testing

SR

Word

Picture

UR

Word

Picture

Keep the same order of sets as the one in the training session

The order of modality was counterbalanced

The order of pictures was pseudo-randomized within each set (SR,UR)

20

1 Condition x Time

21

Accuracy Score Reaction Times

Condition* F(1,27)=10.27, p=.003, ηρ²= .28

Time**

F(1,27)=22.37, p<.001, ηρ²= .45

Condition* F(1,27)=11.17, p=.002, ηρ²= .29

Time

F(1,27)=3.06, p=.092, ηρ²= .10

SUR

SR

SUR

SR

2 Mode x Time

22

Accuracy Score Reaction Times

Mode x Time* F(1,27)=9.16, p=.005, ηρ²= .25

Mode* F(1,27)=11.17, p=.002, ηρ²= .29

Mode x Time*

F(1,27)=14.46, p=.001, ηρ²= .35

Picture

Word Picture

Word

*

*

1 “The words in sets were way more difficult. I mean, I knew that ‘hongsu (flood)) was a kind of natural disasters, but didn’t know what exactly it was.” (Participant 4, male)

3

23

Perceived Difficulties of SR sets

2 “The words related to kitchen were the most difficult because I don’t know, well, I guess because I’m not familiar with kitchen supplies. I think they all go.. together, but natural disasters were like…tsunami is a lot different from flood” (Participant 2, male)

Other factors

# of letters origin of the word (e.g. [choong-chee] cavity -> [chee] tooth presence of double consonants (e.g. [bbul], [kki]) -> pronunciation

Preference of testing modes

Picture (20) >>>> Word (8)

1 In terms of accuracy on immediate and delayed posttests,

do SR and SUR groupings of Korean vocabulary differ in their effectiveness for L2 learning?

24

3 Do pictorial and textual cues of testing have a differential effect on participants’ performance in terms of accuracy and reaction times?

2 In terms of reaction times on immediate and delayed posttests,

do SR and SUR groupings of Korean vocabulary differ in their effectiveness for L2 learning?

SUR condition -> a significant higher score

the effect of the SUR condition remained on the delayed posttest

the SUR condition -> shorter reaction times

the effect of the SUR condition remained on the delayed posttest

Presenting semantically grouped L2 words can cause semantic interference effects,

which in turn, can interfere with learning.

Picture testing mode -> higher score and faster response

the effect of the picture was absent on the delayed posttest

25

1 Make a unique contribution to the existing body of literature on the acquisition of Korean as a second language

2 Suggest the need for reevaluation of current pedagogical practice

Grouping related words is not the best way to teach vocabulary.

26

3 Provide some evidence to develop new, creative ways of introducing words to minimize interference effects of semantic relations

27

1 the third/ fourth language?

Asian language share the same cognates

might have facilitated the memorization of the target words

28

2 thematic grouping?

an effective presentation method in L2 vocabulary teaching

the proficiency level of the participants was not high enough

3 young learners?

no effect of clustering words for children (Papathanasiou, 2009)

the presence of concepts in

Ina Choi choiina1@msu.edu

30

Do

n’t

kn

ow

th

e w

ord

Hav

e se

en o

r h

eard

th

e w

ord

Thin

k I k

no

w t

he

wo

rd

Kn

ow

th

e w

ord

Kn

ow

th

e w

ord

;

Thin

k I k

no

w t

he

mea

nin

g

Kn

ow

th

e w

ord

;

Fair

ly s

ure

of

the

mea

nin

g.

Kn

ow

th

e w

ord

an

d it

s m

ean

ing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

감자 (potato)

어깨 (shoulder)

달력 (calender)

…

Revised

Hierarchical

Model (RHM)

31

L1

L2

Concepts (picture)

• L1: privileged access to meaning • Direct link :L2 words and L1 words

• L2 to L1 >> L1 to L2 • L1 to concepts >> L2 to concepts

• Backward translation (L2 to L1) Lexically mediated

• Forward translation (L1 to L2) Conceptually mediated

32

SR condition

Natural disaster

Kitchen utensils Shape Diseases

= 24 words

SR (Semantically Related) condition

SR condition = 24 words

SUR (Semantically Unrelated) condition

지진 가뭄 황사 해일 화산 홍수

행주 냄비 수세미 저울 국자 도마

직사각형 마름모 타원 원기둥 각뿔 사다리꼴

여드름 천식 충치 빈혈 다래끼 습진

A Kitchen utensils Shape Diseases

분지 빙하 경적 액체 묘목 이끼

간식 항구 흑연 도끼

송곳 물레방아

과일 망치 확성기

아가미 철봉 필기도구

일출 궁전 용수철 현미

경 합창 장신구