Does the Morphological Structure of Li Equivalents Influence the Processing of L2 Words? Evidence from Arabic-English Bilinguals

-2.90

2.73

.715

Compound + mono * mono + compound

1.10

2.73

.978

Compound + compound *

mono + mono

-1.40

2.73

.956

Compound + compound *

mono + compound

2.60

2.73

.777

Mono + mono * mono + compound

4.00

2.73

.469

Table 11. Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons of word types for each group of participants

		PYP			Seniors
Item Type	Mean Difference	Std. Error	P	Mean Difference	Std. Error	P
Compound + mono * compound + compound	2.40	3.46	.898	-5.40	3.81	.508
Compound + mono * mono + mono	-3.00	3.46	.822	-2.80	3.81	.882
Compound + Single * mono + compound	7.20	3.46	.202	-5.00	3.81	.569
Compound + compound * mono + mono	-5.40	3.46	.428	2.60	3.81	.902
Compound + compound * mono + compound	4.80	3.46	.526	.40	3.81	>.999
Mono + mono * mono + compound	10.20*	3.46	.043	-2.20	3.81	.938

Discussion

The current study aimed to examine if the morphological structure of L1 translation equivalents influences the processing of L2 words. The Arabic-English participants, who were recruited from two levels of L2 proficiency, completed a free recall task and a discrete word association task using English monomorphemic and compound nouns that matched or mismatched the morphological structure of their Arabic equivalents. The statistical comparisons showed some influence for word type in the free recall task and the number of associations. Among the PYPs, a facilitatory effect was noted for English compound nouns with Arabic compound equivalents (a case of lexical matching) over English monomorphemic nouns with Arabic compound equivalents (a case of lexical mismatching) in the free recall task. Additionally, the PYPs provided a higher number of associations for the English monomorphemic nouns with monomorphemic translation equivalents (a case of lexical matching) than the English monomorphemic nouns with compound translation equivalents (a case of lexical mismatching) in the discrete word association task. As for Seniors, English compound nouns with Arabic compound equivalents (a case of lexical matching) exhibited a reverse pattern of results as they were recalled significantly less than English monomorphemic nouns with Arabic compound equivalents (a case of lexical mismatching) and less than English compound nouns with Arabic monomorphemic equivalents (a case of lexical matching). Additionally, the Seniors recalled a significantly higher number of English monomorphemic nouns with monomorphemic translation equivalents (a case of lexical matching) than English ompound nouns with Arabic compound translation equivalents.

The two cases of advantage for lexical matching over lexical mismatching among PYPs in the free recall task and the discrete word association task align with our predictions and with Levy, Goral, and Obler's (2007) claim that L2 learners are particularly sensitive to the morphological structure of L1 equivalents. This finding also supports earlier studies (e.g., Cheng, Wang & Perfetti, 2011; Holmquist, 2016; Ko, Wang & Kim, 2011) that showed a facilitatory effect for cases of lexical matching over cases of lexical mismatching. As for Seniors, the finding that two cases of lexical mismatching was recalled better than a case of lexical matching is not in line with our predictions although it could still be used to argue for a continued influence for L1 morphological structure (Levy, Goral & Obler, 2007).

Another interesting case of significant difference is the Seniors' recall of more English monomorphemic nouns with Arabic monomorphemic equivalents (a case of lexical matching) than English compound nouns with Arabic compound equivalents (a case of lexical matching). This finding can somehow be used to support the morphological decomposition model (e.g., Taft & Forster, 1975) since this is a case of compound nouns being processed differently than monomorphemic nouns. However, the fact that PYPs did not exhibit a similar pattern of results as compared to Seniors lends support to the interaction model of morphological processing (Caramazza, Laudanna & Romani, 1988; Taft, 1994) as the model allows for a number of variables to influence the processing of multi-morphemic items. It is possible that the fact that the PYPs have been enrolled in an intensive English program involving explicit instruction of formal features, including morphological structure, for three semesters has helped them process monomorphemic and compound nouns similarly. It is documented in the second language acquisition literature that English as a medium of instruction programs needs to be supplemented with some focus on form instruction (Lightbown &Spada, 2013).

In this context, it is important to discuss the influence of language proficiency on the results. First, the fact that only five cases of significant differences were observed in the results across the two groups of participants and the two tasks may reflect the participants' relatively high proficiency level. As explained earlier, the PYPs in the current study have passed B1 and are studying towards B2 according to the Common European Framework. The Seniors completed the B2 level and studied their majors for three more years in English. Perhaps, conducting the experiments with participants with a lower level of proficiency would have led to different results. Second, the fact that a facilitatory effect for lexical matching was noted only among the PYPs seems to lend support to the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) which postulates that increased L2 proficiency may reduce the bilinguals' reliance on the L1. This finding also seems to partially align with some earlier studies (e.g., Elston-Gьttler, Paulman & Kotz, 2005) which support an L1 influence for learners of lower proficiency, not those of higher proficiency. Third, the finding that PYPs recalled more English compound nouns with Arabic compound equivalents than English monomorphemic nouns with Arabic compound equivalents while Seniors showed a reverse pattern could reveal a special sensitivity to the formal structure of words among participants of lower proficiency. Compound nouns seem to be particularly memorable among low-proficient language learners due to the fact that they have fewer competitors in memory and a smaller «fan» in terms of associated words as compared to those with higher levels of proficiency (Altarriba & Bauer, 2004).

As for the results of the word association task, no significant differences were noted for word type or language proficiency when association strength was considered and only one case of comparison reached significance among the PYPs when the number of associations was considered. Although these results are not in line with our predictions, they support Heidari-Shareza M., and Tavakoli M. (2016) who found an influence for lexical mismatches in certain tasks (e.g., receptive knowledge of meaning and form and of associations), but not in other tasks that involved the productive word association task. Heidari-Shareza M., and Tavakoli M. (2016) interpreted this finding in terms of the nature of the difference between the lexicalized and non-lexicalized stimuli they used. They explained that the difference between these two types of stimuli was mainly semantic as non-lexicalized words incorporate more semantic components than lexicalized ones. This difference is likely to show more clearly in meaning-dependent tasks. Hence, the task type features as an important variable in lexicalization studies.

Interestingly, the results of the word association task can also be interpreted in terms of the difference in the organization of the mental lexicon in English and Arabic since the word association task directly taps into the associations in the mental lexicon. As proved earlier (Boudelea, 2014; Boudelea & Marslen-Wilson 2001, 2013, 2015), the Arabic mental lexicon is morphemic because Arabic, unlike English, is a nonconcatenative language that superimposes morphemic units upon each other in word formation processes, resulting in morphologically complex surface forms with discontinuous morphemes. Concatenative languages, like English, to the contrary, form morphologically complex words in a linear fashion, which preserves an influential impact for semantic variables, on the structure of the mental lexicon. Hence, the word association task may not be the best fit for studies examining the effect of lexicalization mismatching between a concatenative and a non- concatenative language, particularly when the focus is on morphological structure. It is worth noting that the finding that the word association task may behave differently in English (concatenative language) than Arabic (non-concatenative language) was recently pointed out in two studies on language and emotion (El-Dakhs & Altarriba, 2018; 2019).

While comparing the results of the current study with earlier ones, it is important to note two methodological differences. First, earlier studies (e.g., Jiang, 2002; Paribakht, 2005; Chen & Truscott, 2010; Chen, Wang & Perfetti, 2011) mainly relied on tasks that involved reading while the current study employed two tasks that presented the stimuli auditorily to the participants. The difference in modality may have affected the findings of the current study since K. Elston-Gьttler, S. Paulman and S. Kotz (2005) suggested that the locus of activation for L1 equivalents is probably orthographic. Second, the current study focused on the morphological structure of L1 and L2 words and is thus more comparable to studies targeting the morphological aspects (i.e., Chen, Wang & Perfetti, 2011; Holmquist, 2016; Ko, Wang & Kim, 2011). In this regard, Chen C., Wang M., and Perfetti C. (2011) and Ko I., Wang M., and Kim S. (2011) used a different type of stimuli than the current study as their L2 stimuli either had L1 equivalent words or were non-lexicalized in L1. This type of L1-L2 difference may trigger a stronger L1 influence than is the case in the current study where L2 words always mapped to L1 words. As for Holmquist K. (2016), the study involved a translation recognition task, a task that may boost the L1 influence by placing learners in a more bilingual mode where the two languages are active in the bilingual's mind (Grosjean, 2001).



Conclusion

The current study aimed to examine the influence of L1 translational activation on L2 processing with respect to morphological structure using a free recall task and a discrete word association task. The results showed some L1 influence on L2 processing. The influence was facilitatory in two comparisons among the participants of lower proficiency whereas it was inhibitory in two comparisons among the participants with higher proficiency. The results generally support Levy, Goral, and Obler's (2007) claim that L2 learners exhibit sensitivity to the morphological structure of L1 words. Additionally, the results of the current study are aligned with the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) and a number of earlier studies (e.g., Elston-Gьttler, Paulman & Kotz, 2005) that predicted a stronger L1 facilitatory influence among participants with lower proficiency. Likewise, the results lend support to the interaction model of morphological processing (Caramazza, Laudanna & Romani, 1988) since the language proficiency seemed to serve as a strong determinant of the decomposition of compound nouns.

In addition to the influence of language proficiency, another important modulating factor to lexicalization studies turned out to be task type. Contrary to the free recall task, the word association task failed to show any significant differences for word type or language when association strength was considered and produced differential behavior for only one word type when the number of associations was examined. This finding aligned with Heidari-Shareza and Tavakoli's (2016) claim that different tasks can show varied effects in lexicalization studies. This finding was also interpreted in light of the different organizational structure of the mental lexicon in English and Arabic, being a concatenative and a non-concatenative language respectively (Boudelea, 2014; Boudelea & Marslen-Wilson 2001, 2013, 2015).

Based on the study results, a number of recommendations can be proposed. Theoretically, the influence of translational activation may be task-dependent. Hence, it is recommended to use a variety of tasks before making any generalizations. Practically, it is highly recommended that language teachers pay special attention to L2 words that mismatch morphologically with their L1 translation equivalents at lower levels of proficiency since this type of words seems to cause special challenges for learners. As for future research directions, it is recommended to conduct more research into the effect of lexicalization mismatching on L2 word processing across populations of different levels of language proficiency and backgrounds. It is particularly recommended to examine the effect of lexical mismatching using a gender-balanced sample and a large number of stimuli to avoid the limitations of the current study.



References

1. Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L.M. (2004). The distinctiveness of emotion concepts: A comparison between emotion, abstract, and concrete words. The American Journal of Psychology, 117, 389-410. https://doi.org/10.2307/4149007 Altarriba, J., & Mathis, K.M. (1997). Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 36 (4), 550-568. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2493

2. Anderson, J.R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(74)90021-8Bergmann, C., Sprenger, S.A., & Schmid, M.S. (2015). The impact of language coactivation on L1 and L2 speech fluency. Acta Psychologica, 161, 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.07.015

3. Boudelea, S. (2014). Is the Arabic mental lexicon morpheme-based or stem-based? Implications for spoken and written word recognition. In E. Saiegh-Haddad & R.M. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives. Literacy (Vol. 9, pp. 31-54). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8545-7_2

4. Boudelea, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2001). Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon. Cognition, 81, 65-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00119-6 Boudelea, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2013). Morphological structure in the Arabic mental lexicon: Parallels between Standard and Dialectal Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28 (10), 1453-1473.

5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.719629 Boudelea, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W.D. (2015). Structure, form and meaning in the mental lexicon: Evidence from Arabic. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience,30 (8), 955-992. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1048258Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. II: Development, writing, and other language processes, pp. 257294). London: Academic Press.

6. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 287-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(88)90017-0

7. Carroll, G., Conklin, K., & Gyllstad, H. (2016). Found in translation: The influence of L1 on the processing of idioms in L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38 (3), 403-443. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000492 Chen, H.-C., & Ho, C. (1986). Development of Stroop interference in Chinese-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12 (3), 397-401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.12.3.397 Chen, H.-C., & Leung, Y.-S. (1989). Patterns of lexical processing in a nonnative language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (2), 316-325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.2.316 Chen, C., & Truscott, J. (2010). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31 (5), 693-713. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq031

8. Cheng, C., Wang, M., & Perfetti, C.A. (2011). Acquisition of compound words in Chinese-English bilingual children: Decomposition and cross-language activation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 583-600.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000221

9. El-Dakhs, D.A.S., &Altarriba, J. (2018). The distinctiveness of emotion words: Does it hold for foreign language learners? The case of Arab EFL learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47 (5), 1133-1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018- 9583-6

10. El-Dakhs, D.A.S., & Alrarriba, J. (2019). How do emotion word type and valence influence language processing? The case of Arabic-English bilinguals. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48 (5), 1063-1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019- 09647-w

11. Elston-Gьttler, K.E., Paulmann, S., &Kotz, S.A. (2005). Who's in control? Proficiency and L1 influence on L2 processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17 (10), 1593-1610. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892905774597245Elston-Gьttler, K.E., & Williams, J.N. (2008). First language polysemy affects second language meaning interpretation: Evidence for activation of first language concepts during second language reading. Second Language Research, 24 (2), 167-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307086300

12. Espinosa, S.M. (2010). Boys' and girls' L2 word associations. In R.M.J. Catalan (Ed.), Gender perspectives on vocabulary in foreign and second languages (pp. 139163). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274938_7

13. Frenck-Mestre, C., &Prince, P. (1997). Second language autonomy. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (4), 481-501. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2526

14. Golaghaei, N., & Sadighi, F. (2013). L1 glossing and lexical inferencing: Evaluation of the overarching issue of L1 lexicalization. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4 (4), 1-24.

15. Grosjean, F. (2001). The bilingual's language modes. In J. Nicol (Ed.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 1 -22). Oxford: Blackwell.

16. Hдikiц, T., Bertram, R., &Hyцnд, J. (2011). The development of whole-word representations in compound word processing: Evidence from eye fixation patterns of elementary school children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 533-551. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000208

17. Heidari-Shahreza, M.A. (2014). The effect of L1-L2 lexicalization mismatch on incidental acquisition of receptive vocabulary knowledge. International Letters of Social & Humanistic Sciences, 39, 67-76. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress. com/ILSHS.39.67

18. Heidari-Shahreza, M.A., & Tavakoli, M. (2016). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental vocabulary acquisition by Iranian eFl learners. The Language Learning Journal, 44 (1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.201 2.708051

19. Hernandez, A., Li, P., & MacWhinney, B. (2005). The emergence of competing modules in bilingualism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (5), 220-225. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.003

20. Holmquist, K. (2016). Lexical processing of compound words in a L2 - A reaction time-based investigation of morphological structure sensitivity in Swedish-English bilinguals. Student paper at Lund University, Sweden. Retrieved from https://lup. lub. lu. se/student-papers/search/publication/8597838

21. Hopp, H. (2017). Cross-linguistic lexical and syntactic co-activation in L2 sentence processing. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7 (1), 96-130. https://doi. org/10.1075/lab. 14027.hop

22. Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (4), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004047

23. Ko, I.Y., Wang, M., & Kim, S.Y. (2011). Bilingual reading of compound words. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40 (1), 49-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10936-010- 9155-x

24. Kroll, J.F., & Curley, J. (1988). Lexical memory in novice bilinguals: The role of concepts in retrieving second language words. In M. Gruneberg, P. Morris & R. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (Vol. 2, pp. 389-395). London: Wiley.

25. Kroll, J.F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008

26. Kroll, J.F., & Tokowicz, N. (2001). The development of conceptual representation for words in a second language. In J.L. Nicol & T. Langendoen (Eds.), One mind, two languages: Bilingual language processing (pp. 49-71). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

27. Levy, E.S., Goral, M., & Obler, L.K. (2007). Doghouse/chien-maison/niche: Compounds in bilinguals. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The representation and processing of compound words (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228911.003.0006

28. Lightbown, P.M., &Spada, M. (2013). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29. MacGregor, L.J., & Shtyrov, Y. (2013). Multiple routes for compound word processing in the brain: Evidence from EEG. Brain and Language, 126 (2), 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.04.002

30. Mankin, J.L., Thompson, C., Branigan, H.P., & Simner, J. (2016). Processing compound words: Evidence from synaesthesia. Cognition, 150, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.01.007

31. Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 6 (2), 97-115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001068

32. Nefs, H., Assink, E., & Knuijt, P. (2003). Effects of sublexical frequency and meaning in prefixed words. In E. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words: Crosslanguage studies (pp. 113-137). Amsterdam: Kluwer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978- 1-4757-3720-2_9

33. Paribakht, T.S. (2005). The influence of first language lexicalization on second language lexical inferencing: A study of Farsi-speaking learners of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 55 (4), 701-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.0023- 8333.2005.00321.x

34. Potter, M.C., So, K., von Eckardt, B., & Feldman, L.B. (1984). Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and more proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23 (1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022- 5371(84)90489-4

35. Schmidtke, D., van Dyke, J.A., & Kuperman, V. (2018). Individual variability in the semantic processing of English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition, 44 (3), 421-439. https://doi. org/10.1037/xlm0000442

36. Sholl, A. Sankaranarayanan, A., &Kroll, J.F. (1995). Transfer between picture naming and translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory. Psychological Science, 6 (1), 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00303.x

37. Sцkmen, A.J. (1993). Word association results: A window to the lexicons of ESL Students. JALT Journal, 15 (2), 135-150.

38. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9 (3), 271-294. https://doi. org/10.1080/01690969408402120

39. Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14 (6), 638-647. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80051-X

40. Talamas, A., Kroll, J.F., &Dufour, R. (1999). Form related errors in second language learning: Apreliminary stage in the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2 (1), 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728999000140

41. Tьrker, E. (2016). The role of L1 conceptual and linguistic knowledge and frequency in the acquisition of L2 metaphorical expressions. Second Language Research, 32 (1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315593336

42. van Heuven, W.J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK:

43. A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67 (6), 1176-1190. https://doi.Org/10.1080/1 7470218.2013.850521

Размещено на Allbest.ru