A comparison of the effects of image-schema-based instruction and translation-based instruction on the acquisition of L2 polysemous words

This quasi-experimental study investigated the effectiveness of two types of vocabulary instruction — image-schema-based instruction (ISBI) and translation-based instruction (TBI) — on the acquisition of second language (L2) polysemous words. Fifty-eight Japanese high school learners of English were divided into two treatment groups (ISBI and TBI) and a control group. The treatment groups were given 20 minutes of instruction on the target words, namely the verb break and the preposition over. In order to examine the effectiveness of instruction, an acceptability judgment test and a production test were administered prior to instruction (pre-test), two days after instruction (post-test 1) and two weeks after instruction (post-test 2). The results showed that ISBI tended to be as effective as TBI for both acceptability judgment test and production test scores, except in one case where ISBI was significantly more effective than TBI. This study suggests that image-schema from the field of cognitive semantics can serve as a pedagogical devise in teaching L2 polysemous words.

[1]  C. Goddard.  On and on: Verbal explications for a polysemic network , 2002 .

[2]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  Feedback for Language Transfer Errors , 1989, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[3]  Conditions on Interlingual Semantic Transfer. , 1984 .

[4]  Zoltán Kövecses,et al.  Idioms: A View from Cognitive Semantics , 1996 .

[5]  I. Helene Ijaz,et al.  LINGUISTIC AND COGNITIVE DETERMINANTS OF LEXICAL ACQUISITION IN A SECOND LANGUAGE , 1986 .

[6]  D. Bolinger.  The Atomization of Meaning , 1965 .

[7]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[8]  Melvin Howards.  How Easy Are “Easy” Words? , 1964 .

[9]  Stephen Krashen,et al.  The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications , 1986 .

[10]  S. Csábi.  A Cognitive Linguistic View of Polysemy in English and its Implications for Teaching , 2004 .

[11]  P. Robinson.  A rich view of lexical competence , 1989 .

[12]  Paul Pimsleur.  A MEMORY SCHEDULE , 1967 .

[13]  Herbert L. Colston,et al.  The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations , 1995 .

[14]  J. Taylor,et al.  Contrasting prepositional categories: English and Italian , 1988 .

[15]  Birgit Henriksen,et al.  THREE DIMENSIONS OF VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT , 1999, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  Andrea Tyler,et al.  Reconsidering Prepositional Polysemy Networks: The Case of Over , 2001 .

[17]  B. Laufer,et al.  Lexical Guessing in Context in EFL Reading Comprehension. , 1984 .

[18]  G. Lakoff.  Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind , 1989 .

[19]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  Psycholinguistic Determinants of Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning , 1993 .

[20]  Phillip Rowles.  Teaching and Learning Vocabulary , 2003 .

[21]  Steven A. Stahl.  Three Principles of Effective Vocabulary Instruction. , 1986 .

[22]  Annette Visser.  Learning Core Meanings. , 1989 .

[23]  Joseph Hilferty.  Through as a means to metaphor , 1999 .

[24]  S. Coakes.  SPSS : analysis without anguish : version 20.0 for Windows , 2017 .

[25]  Hazenberg,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students : an empirical investigation , 2005 .

[26]  Robert B. Dewell,et al.  Over again: Image-schema transformations in semantic analysis , 1994 .

[27]  R. Schmidt.  The role of consciousness in second language learning , 1990 .

[28]  Paul Nation,et al.  Where Would General Service Vocabulary Stop and Special Purposes Vocabulary Begin , 1995 .

[29]  N. Presmeg.  The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason , 1992 .

[30]  S. Lindstromberg.  Prepositions: Meaning and Method. , 1996 .

[31]  Anatol C. Kreitzer,et al.  Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space , 1997 .

[32]  Annette Herskovits.  Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning , 1988 .

[33]  Andrea Tyler,et al.  Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Pedagogical Grammar: The Case of Over , 2003 .

[34]  Annette Herskovits,et al.  Language and spatial cognition , 1986 .

[35]  Xin Xun.  Vocabulary Learning and Teaching , 1991 .

[36]  Batia Laufer.  Reading in a foreign language: how does L2 lexical knowledge interact with the reader's general academic ability' , 1992 .

[37]  Paul Lennon,et al.  GETTING ‘EASY’ VERBS WRONG AT THE ADVANCED LEVEL , 1996 .

[38]  E. Kellerman.  Giving Learners a Break: Native Language Intuitions as a Source of Predictions about Transferability , 1978 .

[39]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  The Embodied Approach to the Polysemy of the Spatial Preposition On , 2001 .

[40]  Charles Ruhl.  On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics , 1989 .

[41]  William E. Nagy,et al.  CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF READING Technical Report No . 627 ON THE ROLE OF CONTEXT IN FIRST-AND SECOND-LANGUAGE VOCABULARY LEARNING , 2011 .

[42]  Toshihiko Yamaoka,et al.  A Prototype Analysis of the Learning of On by Japanese Learners of English and the Potentiality of Prototype Contrastive Analysis (Part 2) , 1996 .

[43]  Junko Yamaai,et al.  Vocabulary learning and teaching , 2009 .

[44]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[45]  B. P. Taylor,et al.  THE USE OF OVERGENERALIZATION AND TRANSFER LEARNING STRATEGIES BY ELEMENTARY AND INTERMEDIATE STUDENTS OF ESL1 , 1975 .