Subscribe

Subscribe to our Newsletter and get informed about new publication regulary and special discounts for subscribers!

ILSHS > Volume 39 > The Effect of L1-L2 Lexicalization Mismatch on...
< Back to Volume

The Effect of L1-L2 Lexicalization Mismatch on Incidental Acquisition of Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge

Full Text PDF

Abstract:

The researcher was interested to explore the possible effects of L1-L2 lexicalization mismatch on the acquisition and retention of receptive vocabulary knowledge by 90 Persian-speaking EFL learners. Lexicalization mismatch was defined in the context of this study as the lack of a lexically equivalent translation in learners’ L1 (i.e. Persian) for an L2 word (i.e. English). Thus, non-lexicalized words referred to those L2 words that required a longer string of L1 words to cover their essential semantic features. The findings indicated that there were significant differences between lexicalized and non-lexicalized target words in the receptive knowledge of meaning and form and receptive knowledge of associations. Thus, it seems non-lexicalized words are most likely to cause extra difficulty for EFL learners in the semantic aspects of vocabulary knowledge. Using enhanced input within a systematic vocabulary recycling program is recommended to deal with such words.

Info:

Periodical:
International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (Volume 39)
Pages:
67-76
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.39.67
Citation:
M. A. Heidari-Shahreza "The Effect of L1-L2 Lexicalization Mismatch on Incidental Acquisition of Receptive Vocabulary Knowledge", International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, Vol. 39, pp. 67-76, 2014
Online since:
Sep 2014
Authors:
Mohammad Ali Heidari-Shahreza
Keywords:
Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition, L1 Translation, Lexicalization Mismatch, Persian-Speaking EFL Learners
Export:
RIS, BibTeX, Text
Distribution:
Open Access

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References:

Barcroft J., Language Learning 52 (2002) 323-363.

Barcroft J., Foreign Language Annals 37 (2004) 200-208.

Chen C., Truscott J., Applied Linguistics 31 (2010) 693-713.

Day R. R., Bamford J., Reading in a Foreign Language 14(2) (2002).

Harding L., Language Testing 29 (2011) 163-180.

Heidari-Shahreza M. A., Tavakoli M., The Language Learning Journal 40 (2012) 1-16.

Heidari-Shahreza M. A., International Journal of Culture and History 1 (2014) 1-14.

Heidari-Shahreza M. A., Moinzadeh A., Barati H. (a), GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 14 (2014) 43-55.

Heidari-Shahreza M. A., Moinzadeh A., Barati H. (b), International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 3 (2014) 83-96.

Heidari-Shahreza M. A., Moinzadeh A., Barati H. (c), Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics 3 (2014) 81-91.

Hemchua S., Schmitt N., Prospect 21 (2006) 3-25.

Kirn E., Hartmann P. (2002). Interactions 1: Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill/ Contemporary.

Nation I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York, NY: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Paribakht T. S., Language Learning 55 (2005) 701-748.

Shintani N., TESOL Quarterly 47 (2013) 36-62.

Sunderman G., Kroll J. F., Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28 (2006) 387-422.

Tagashira K., Kida S., Hoshino Y., System 38 (2010) 412-421.

Webb S., Applied Linguistics 28 (2007) 46-65.

Mohammad Ali Heidari-Shahreza (d), International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 20 (2014) 14-21.

Mohammad Ali Heidari-Shahreza (e), International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 25 (2014) 25-33.

Mohammad Ali Heidari-Shahreza (f), International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 25 26 (2014).

Show More Hide