Re: Cainntear's affective filters:
As I said, though, I know my tolerance for uncertainty is lower than most people's, so I do remember to keep that in mind when considering what is appropriate for other people. However, I do remember seeing a study by Mondria (summarised in his article on vocab myths
) which showed that inferring meaning had no noticeable benefit over being given the meaning, and took longer. To me that suggests that most other people aren't really much better at learning without being certain than me, just that they're better at handling it emotionally than me.
Your source simply tries to break some "myths".
"Words should always be learned in context.”
"There is little doubt about the helpfulness of contexts such as a sentence or a text in the process of learning words.
A context not only shows the word and
its use, but it can also help in retaining a word and its meaning (Mondria, 1996).
For example, someone can learn the
French word canne with the help of
the sentence Le vieil homme marche
à l’aide d’une canne. When, later on,
the learner does not remember what
the word canne means, he or she may
remember that the word occurred in
a sentence with vieil homme and/or
marche, which reminds him or her
of the meaning of canne. Thus, con-
text can help in retaining words, and
therefore it seems logical to argue
that words should always be learned
However, there are two caveats to this
‘rule of thumb’. First, many (concrete)
words can be learned efficiently without context. Presenting such words
without a context"...etc.
Myth 5: “Words whose meanings have been inferred from context are retained better.”
The explanation for the retention effect
of inferring is that inferring creates all
kinds of links (elaborations) between
the word, its meaning, the context, and
the knowledge already present in the
learner. These links provide additional
retrieval routes, which increase the
chance that the word and its mean-
ing will be remembered (Anderson,
[According to the results of the experiment] it is only when the word meanings are intentionally memorized that the learning effect becomes substantial, as shown by the retention figures of the meaning-inferred method (47%) and the meaning-given method (50%)...Thus, in this experiment no evidence can be found for the idea that inferred word meanings are retained better.
The results become even more interesting when we take into account the amount of time spent by the pupils on the different learning methods. Then
it turns out that the meaning-inferred
method takes considerably more time
(in the experiment about 25% more)
than the meaning-given method. Con-
sequently, the efficiency of the mean-
ing-inferred method is lower than that
of the meaning-given method.Does this imply that learners should
not infer word meanings from context
any more? Of course not, as inferring
is a useful compensation strategy when
our vocabulary knowledge is limited.
However, inferring is not the most efficient learning strategy.
Myth 6: “Words learned produc-
tively are retained better.”
It is often believed that words are
better retained when they are better retained when they are learned
This one should be of interest to the group. However, back to inferencing:
Lexical Inferencing in Listening: Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge and Listening Proficiency
"Lexical inferencing as an efficient strategy to deal with unfamiliar words
"This study sought to investigate the role of depth of vocabulary knowledge (DVK) in lexical inferencing success and determine the relationship between students' DVK and listening proficiency."
"The results indicated that DVK was a determining factor in lexical inferencing success, and that there was a positive relationship between students' DVK and their listening proficiency."https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... roficiency
Lexical Inferencing in Listening: Patterns of Knowledge Source Use across L2 Listening Proficiency Levels
"The findings revealed the profound
impact of listening proficiency on lexical inferencing
. In-depth analysis of the protocols demonstrated the contribution of listening proficiency to making correct guesses and using
more combinations of knowledge sources...
In other words, listening proficiency can be a predictor of learners' lexical inferencing success, in the way that more proficient listeners attempted more lexical inferences, used a range of knowledge sources for inference generations and were more successful in their attempts..."https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... DwDU7vvwqW
Lexical Inferencing in Second Language Listening Comprehension
This paper investigates the knowledge sources that L2 learners use to infer word meaning in listening comprehension, and how language proficiency affects their use of the knowledge sources. Data were colleted from six subjects using the verbal reporting method. The results reveal that the most frequently used knowledge source was the local co-text. The subjects were also found to use co-text combined with world knowledge to infer word meaning. Morphology was also used to some extent. The importance of the interaction of the knowledge sources at different levels immerged.
Language proficiency is an important factor determining the use of the knowledge sources. The low proficiency subjects resorted to general world knowledge more frequently as a result of their weak linguistic processing abilities. In contrast, the high proficiency subjects were more able to use their linguistic knowledge (morphological knowledge) and combine relevant knowledge sources to infer word meaning. Inferencing is an important strategy that L2 learners use to handle unfamiliar words.
However, most research on lexical inferencing has been conducted in reading comprehension (Bensoussan and Laufer, 1984; Haastrup, 1991; Haynes, 1993; Huckin & Bloch, 1993; Morrison, 1996; Fraser, 1999; Paribakht & Wesche, 1999; Vaurio, 1999; Nassaji, 2003; 2004; Bengeleil and Paribakht, 2004). Not much is known about how L2 learners infer word meaning in listening comprehension. As Ellis (1995) pointed out, how learners acquire vocabulary from oral input is a neglected area. The negligence on this issue has not changed in spite of the fact that “oral contexts are clearly vital for L1 learners
and may also play an important role in L2 lexical development…” (Wesche and Paribakht, 1999:177). This study investigates lexical inferencing in listening comprehension.
LP subjects were often weak in linguistic processing and hence failed to process meaning. In such a case, they tended to resort to salient words and related world knowledge to infer word meaning. However, when their linguistic processing was unsuccessful, the activated background knowledge was unlikely appropriate.
The above example indicates that linguistic processing plays a crucial role in lexical inferencing in listening. This is because successful linguistic processing is necessary for the activation of the correct background knowledge to infer word meaning
. The current study disconfirms Nassaji’s (2003) observation that the use of world knowledge was related to more successful inferences than the use of other knowledge sources. Whether the use of world knowledge relates to successful inferences seems to depend on whether there are sufficient constraints of linguistic processing.
Another proficiency related difference is found in the use of morphological knowledge related to the target words. The protocol data reveal that the HP subjects are more able to use morphological knowledge to infer word meaning than the LP subjects, a result consistent with Haastrup (1991) and Morrison (1996). In addition, the HP subjects were more able to use their morphological knowledge and co-text or background knowledge jointly to infer word meaning than the LP subjects.
An implication derived from the study is that learners might be trained to make a better use of the inferencing strategy. For instance, teachers could develop their awareness of the use of the strategy and of the possible knowledge sources they could use in inferring word meaning. As less proficient learners are found to be less able to use linguistic clues to infer word meaning, teachers could perhaps work out ways to enhance their use of linguistic clues to infer word meaning. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... aGkDRRYT3O
Incorrect inferences and contextual word learning in English as a second language
"When readers encounter new words they may try to infer their meanings from context. Such contextual inferences may be correct or incorrect. This research considered the efect of incorrect meaning inferences on contextual word learning in English as a second language... The results revealed a diferential efect of incorrect inferences on the explicit and implicit knowledge of the vocabulary items."
" ... the negative effect of incorrect inferences was no worse than that of not providing an inference. Furthermore, meaning generation scores of participants with larger L2 vocabularies were not negatively affected by erroneous inferences; conversely, producing no inference resulted in lower scores
. This suggests that negative effects of making incorrect inferences on word learning from reading diminish as L2 readers’ proficiency increases.
.... Thus, when unfamiliar L2 words occur in informative sentence contexts, explicit incorrect meaning inferences during reading have some negative effect on the establishment of explicit form-meaning mapping for lower proficiency participants, but they appear to be benign as far as the development of implicit knowledge and establishment of lexical representations are concerned.
These results have important implications for vocabulary research; they show that the choice of measures affects findings in word learning studies, especially at early stages of learning. This is because different aspects of word knowledge may have different learning trajectories. The ability to explicitly articulate an accurate core meaning for a novel word may take longer to develop in contextual learning (even after consulting a dictionary), but the development of its lexical representation can be underway from the first contextual encounter, whether or not the reader is able to explicitly articulate an accurate meaning inference.
Taken together, the results of the present study confirm the hypothesis that explicit meaning inferences during L2 reading do not necessary predict the development of implicit word knowledge. Implicit lexical knowledge is likely to develop with each informative contextual encounter, as a by-product of the co-occurrence of the new word with known words and by virtue of the new word assuming a specific grammatical and thematic role in a sentence
(Ferretti, McRae & Hatherell, 2001; Landauer & Dumais, 1997). Nevertheless, making an effort to infer word meanings from context appears to be beneficial, compared to not doing so
, at least for the development of explicit word knowledge. A possible reason for the boost provided by an attempt to infer meanings from context is that it brings readers’ attention to the immediate and larger sentence context, facilitating their engagement with contextual cues.Based on the study findings, a recommendation can be made that L2 readers attempt to infer meanings of unfamiliar words from context, without being overly concerned about making explicit incorrect guesses. Even when initial guesses are not fully on target, the act of guessing the meaning from context seems to contribute to the incremental establishment of lexical representation which can be fine-tuned with future encounters.."https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... yrOHRFF2FQ
Measuring the impact of translation on the accuracy and fluency of vocabulary acquisition of English
- We study how translation affects ESL vocabulary learning.
- Use of translation increases the retrieval time of L2 lexical items.
- Excessive use of translation decreases long-term retention of L2 lexical items.
This article assesses the impact of translation on the acquisition of vocabulary for higher-intermediate level students of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL). The use of translation is a relevant issue in the research of Second Language (L2) acquisition and different authors provide arguments on both sides of the issue... The students can instantly obtain the dictionary definition of a word and its translation to their native language...Results show that abundant use of translation may increase accuracy in the short term, but in the longer term, it negatively affects accuracy and possibly fluency. However, students who use translation in moderation seem to benefit the most.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0814001223