05.06.2014 Views

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of - Queen Margaret University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

As many adults have acquired a wide vocabulary <strong>in</strong> their native language (L1)<br />

s<strong>in</strong>ce childhood, second language learn<strong>in</strong>g (L2) <strong>of</strong>fers the opportunity to<br />

evaluate the learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> new vocabulary <strong>in</strong> adulthood. Van Hell and Mahn’s<br />

(1997) <strong>in</strong>vestigation compared the success <strong>of</strong> employ<strong>in</strong>g two learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />

techniques - keyword mnemonics (KM) and rote rehearsal (RR) – by healthy<br />

adults. Keyword mnemonics <strong>in</strong>volved an elaborate creation <strong>of</strong> an association<br />

between the L2 and L1 word, for example, if Dutch L2 keyword = pa<strong>in</strong>t, L1 word<br />

= paard (sounds and looks similar to keyword), L1 translation = horse. A mental<br />

image <strong>in</strong> which the words <strong>in</strong>teract could be visualis<strong>in</strong>g a horse carry<strong>in</strong>g a pa<strong>in</strong>t<br />

pot on its back (van Hell and Mahn, 1997). Rote rehearsal simply <strong>in</strong>volved<br />

memoris<strong>in</strong>g and repeat<strong>in</strong>g the new words silently and then with it’s paired<br />

translation. Both KM and RR learners recalled the same number <strong>of</strong> items with<br />

KM learners requir<strong>in</strong>g more time to recall the vocabulary. The authors suggest<br />

that KM <strong>in</strong>volves the creation <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>teractive image between the target word<br />

and their native language translation but query its use with <strong>in</strong>experienced<br />

second language learners. Lotto and de Groot (1998) also evaluated the ability<br />

<strong>of</strong> healthy adults to learn new vocabulary compar<strong>in</strong>g the presentation <strong>of</strong> the L2<br />

word with its native language translation, with the presentation <strong>of</strong> L2 with its<br />

pictorial representation alone. The results <strong>in</strong>dicated that participants<br />

demonstrated better learn<strong>in</strong>g when from the L1/L2 word presentation than with<br />

L2 and picture representation alone. They also reported that cognates (i.e. share<br />

parts <strong>of</strong> orthographic and /or phonological form with translation) and high<br />

frequency words were easier to learn than non-cognates and low frequency<br />

words.<br />

A number <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigations have employed nonsense or non-words to evaluate<br />

how healthy adults learn new vocabulary. De Groot and Keijzer’s (2000)<br />

<strong>in</strong>vestigation paired native language words with non-words us<strong>in</strong>g a pairedassociation<br />

technique. The results <strong>in</strong>dicated that cognate words were easier to<br />

learn than non-cognates and also less easily forgotten (as assessed one week<br />

58

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!