Collocational Links in the L2 Mental Lexicon and the Influence of L1 Intralexical Knowledge

Wolter, Brent; Gyllstad, Henrik

doi:10.1093/applin/amr011

Cited by 243 publications

(350 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

302

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, some factors that were significant in previous studies, such as interlinguistic factors of L1-L2 inter-influence (Bylund et al, 2012;Irujo, 1986;Liao, 2010;Millar, 2011) and the primary language's influence on English (Liao, 2010;Smith, 2005;Wolter & Gyllstad, 2011), and the extralin guistic factor of the age of onset of learning English (Granena & Long, 2013;Wray, 2002Wray, , 2008, were not identified as influential in this study. This might be due to the fact that most ESL participants in this study belonged to the same age group, started learning English btween ages 5 and 12, and spent less than five years in an English-speaking country.…”

Section: Conclusion Limitations and Future Directionscontrasting

confidence: 60%

“…Some factors that were identified as significant in the previous research, such as the interlinguistic factor of the primary language's influence on Eng lish (Liao, 2010;Smith, 2005;Wolter & Gyllstad, 2011) and the extralinguistic factor of the age of onset of learning English (Granena & Long, 2013;Wray, 2002), did not influence the test scores in the group of L2 speakers in the pres ent study. This paradox might be partially explained by the fact that most of the participants started learning English between the ages of 5 and 12, while according to Granena and Long (2013), a younger age might have helped to develop their language intuition and holistic processing and thus positively correlate with recognition of false collocations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Millar (2011) andZyzik (2009) discuss similarity of multiword units in L1 and L2 as a significant factor influencing difficulty of comprehension. Conversely, Wolter and Gyllstad (2011) underline differences between L1 and L2 struc tures and claim that the main reason for difficulty in collocation recognition is a greater level of variability of hierarchical structures that combine words across languages. They argue that connections between words in collocations are dependent on a particular language (e.g., plastic surgery in English and пластическая операция [plastic operation] in Russian), and therefore are more difficult for language learners to recognize.…”

Section: Interlinguistic Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factors Impacting Recognition of False Collocations by Speakers of English as L1 and L2

Makinina¹

2018

TESL Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Conclusion Limitations and Future Directionscontrasting

confidence: 60%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Interlinguistic Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors Impacting Recognition of False Collocations by Speakers of English as L1 and L2

Makinina¹

2018

TESL Canada

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This may be an especially appealing avoidance strategy in case one is uncertain about the meaning of particular MWEs (e.g., idioms;Laufer, 2000) and in case a given category of L2 MWEs (e.g., phrasal verbs) is absent from the learners' L1 (Dagut & Laufer, 1985;Siyanova & Schmitt, 2007). But interference from the learners' L1 also occurs when members of a shared category of MWEs (e.g., collocations) are not congruent (Nesselhauf, 2003;Yamashita & Jiang, 2010;Wolter & Gyllstad, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-telling a story in a second language: How well do adult learners mine an input text for multiword expressions?

Hoang

Boers

2016

SSLLT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adult second language (L2) learners have often been found to produce discourse that manifests limited and non-native-like use of multiword expressions. One explanation for this is that adult L2 learners are relatively unsuccessful (in the absence of pedagogic intervention) at transferring multiword expressions from input texts to their own output resources. The present article reports an exploratory study where ESL learners were asked to re-tell a short story which they had read and listened to twice. The learners' re-tells were subsequently examined for the extent to which they recycled multiword expressions from the original story. To gauge the influence of the input text on these learners' renderings of the story, a control group was asked to tell the story based exclusively on a series of pictures. The results of the experiment suggest that multiword expressions were recycled from the input text to some extent, but this stayed very marginal in real terms, especially in comparison with the recycling of single words. Moreover, when learners did borrow expressions from the input text, their reproductions were often non-target-like.

show abstract

“…In terms of the difficulty of collocations for L2 learning, a distinction has been made between congruent and incongruent collocations in L2 acquisition (e.g., Vasiljevic, 2008;Wolter & Gyllstad 2011;Wolter & Gyllstad, 2013;Yamashita & Jiang, 2008Yassami, 2011). Collocation congruency refers to whether two languages share the same or have different word combinations to express the same concept, that is, congruent collocations share the same lexical components in learners' L1 and L2, while incongruent collocations are those where lexical components are different in L1 and L2.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the effectiveness of involvement load in acquisition and retention of ESL learners’ collocational knowledge

Majd¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning collocations is one of the difficult tasks in second language acquisition that has been largely overlooked in the research literature. The patterning of words and collocations in a language is not predictable based on grammar and lexicon alone. A variety of factors have been found to affect the acquisition of collocations in the ESL context such as exposure, the degree of L1-L2 differences, language proficiency level, and type of collocations. Previous research has focused predominantly on detecting ESL learners' collocational errors in which lexical miscollocations are among the most common. In particular, verb + noun lexical collocations such as draw conclusions are found to be more difficult than others. However, designing effective ways for second language learners to acquire collocations has not been examined in detail. The current study attempted to address this issue by exploring the effect of tasks with different involvement indexes with regard to verb + noun collocations, and by operationalising the Involvement Load Hypothesis proposed by Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) that provides the theoretical framework for the study.The main aim of this thesis is to increase the understanding of how ESL learners acquire and retain collocations, and to improve the effectiveness of tasks designed for assisting the acquisition and retention of L2 collocations. Learning tasks were designed where Involvement Load was varied from Low to Medium to High. The experimental hypothesis is that tasks with higher involvement load facilitate the learning and retention of L2 collocations better than tasks with lower involvement load. The participants in the study were selected from a single language group, Mandarin speakers from China, who were all university students studying at the University of Queensland.The study was based on a within subjects experimental design that included a detailed system for tracking learning tasks and items across groups so that the effects of different involvement loads could be measured. A pretest, an immediate posttest and a delayed-posttest of learning was performed. Also, at the conclusion of the experimental phase the participants answered a questionnaire that probed their learning experiences and evaluation of the tasks, focusing in particular on the difficulty and perceived effectiveness of the collocation tasks that varied from low to high involvement.The results of the data analysis showed a significant difference between pretest and posttest; and between prestest and delayed posttest, with a very strong effect showing that learning took place and a significant improvement was found for all Levels of Involvement. Hence, the findings from the analysis of the data did not support the prediction that tasks with higher involvement load would be more effective that lower involvement load tasks for learning collocations. In fact the low ii involvement tasks were found to be more effective immediately following the completion of the tasks. Moreover, results from the participants' perc...

show abstract

Collocational Links in the L2 Mental Lexicon and the Influence of L1 Intralexical Knowledge

Cited by 243 publications

References 39 publications

Factors Impacting Recognition of False Collocations by Speakers of English as L1 and L2

Factors Impacting Recognition of False Collocations by Speakers of English as L1 and L2

Re-telling a story in a second language: How well do adult learners mine an input text for multiword expressions?

Investigating the effectiveness of involvement load in acquisition and retention of ESL learners’ collocational knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About