L2 English derivational knowledge: Which affixes are learners more likely to recognise?

• Authors: Dmitri Leontjev
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

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.

Keywords

EN

derivational morphology; affix difficulty; L2 English teaching

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 225-248

Dates

published

2016-06-30

Contributors

author

Dmitri Leontjev

• University of Jyväskylä

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.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/ssllt.2016.6.2.3