English Language Learners (ELLs) experience a distinctive set of linguistic
challenges while trying to acquire a second language in the academic field. These
difficulties, especially at the level of morphology and vocabulary acquisition, are the
essential focus of this literature review. For this reason, in this chapter, I will explore
research related to using roots and affixes to promote content area vocabulary
acquisition in English Language Learners. I begin by describing the importance of
vocabulary knowledge in language learning. I then move to a discussion of how
scholars have viewed academic language development, as well as morphological
awareness in vocabulary acquisition. I conclude by describing the benefits of using
morphological analysis in vocabulary acquisition, as well as the Word Mapping
strategy.
Morphological Awareness in Vocabulary Acquisition
Morphological awareness involves the ability to decode morphemes and it is
also defined as “children’s conscious awareness of the morphemic structure of words
and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure” (Carlisle 1995, p. 194).
Because approximately 60% of new words acquired by school age children are
morphologically complex (Nagy & Anderson, 1984), morphological awareness plays
an important role in vocabulary development.
Previous studies have revealed that morphological awareness is directly
correlated to vocabulary acquisition. For example, Chung and Hu (2007) conducted a
study that examined Chinese learners who were learning to read. This study found
that young children’s morphological awareness is closely linked to vocabulary
knowledge. By conducting a study on a group of 115 kindergartners and 105 second
graders, McBride-Chang, Wagner, Muse, Chow, and Shu (2005) discovered
that morphological awareness is a good predictor of vocabulary knowledge.
Similarly, Kieffer and Lesaux (2012) argued that “one aspect of word-general
knowledge involves awareness of morphology” (pg. 351). Nevertheless, most of
these studies have been conducted in monolingual scenarios, with limited research in
the area of second language development.
While the above studies reveal the positive impact of morphological awareness
on students’ native language vocabulary acquisition, Zhang and Koda (2012) carried
out a study on the contribution of morphological awareness and lexical inferencing
ability to second language (L2) vocabulary knowledge. According to the authors,
morphological awareness contributed to L2 vocabulary knowledge directly and also
indirectly through the mediation of learners’ lexical inferencing ability (Zhang &
Koda, 2012). Zhang and Koda (2012) asserted that those learners who possessed
better morphological awareness tended to learn words better, and in turn, possessed
larger vocabularies. Additionally, Zhang and Koda noted that morphological
awareness had significant indirect effects on reading comprehension, through the
mediation of vocabulary knowledge alone.
Studies also suggest a positive relationship between morphological awareness
and reading comprehension. According to Lam, Chen, Geva, Luo, and Li (2012),
morphological awareness contributed significantly to reading ability and reading
comprehension. Another study conducted by Ramirez, Chen, Geva, and Kiefer
(2010) among Spanish-speaking children who were English Language Learners
suggested that morphological awareness is important for word reading in Spanish.
This investigation also revealed that morphological awareness developed in children's
native language is associated with word reading in English, their second language.
Various aspects of morphological awareness may be particularly useful for
vocabulary building (Mcbride-Chang et al., 2005) and reading comprehension. In
research carried out by Kirby et al. (2012) , results indicated that morphological
awareness was a significant predictor of word reading accuracy and speed,
pseudoword reading accuracy, text reading speed, and reading comprehension for 103
first through third grade children. In addition, the authors suggested the importance of
incorporating such roles of morphological awareness in assessments and instruction.
Similarly, Ramirez, Chen, Geva, and Luo, (2011) emphasized the significant
influence of first language structure on the development of second language
morphological awareness, and the similar contribution of morphological awareness to
word reading across monolinguals and ELLs.
Benefits of Using Morphological Analysis in Vocabulary Acquisition
Morphological analysis is defined as the ability to use knowledge of root
words and affixes to determine the meanings of unfamiliar, morphologically complex
words (Larsen & Nippold, 2007). It is essential to highlight the importance of
morphological analysis since "about 60 percent of the new words a student encounters
in reading are analyzable into parts that give substantial help in figuring out their
meanings" (Nagy & Scott, 2000, p. 275). As a matter of fact, findings suggest there
are potential benefits for incorporating morphology into academic language
instruction, particularly for language minority learners (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012).
Numerous studies reveal the benefits of using roots and English suffixes and
prefixes to enhance vocabulary knowledge. One of the virtues of this knowledge is
that it encourages independent learners, and increases word consciousness (Corson,
1997, as cited in Stebick & Nichols, 2014). In addition, instruction in word parts
should focus on roots, suffixes, and affixes that are of high utility and can be applied
to help understand new and novel words (Stebick & Nichols, 2014). However, this
morphological analysis should be taught directly in order to increase vocabulary
knowledge. Baumann, Edwards, Tereshinki, Kame’enui, and Olejnik (2002) reported
that fifth-grade students who received instruction in morphological elements increased
their ability to decode unknown words. Similarly, a study conducted by Lee (2011)
suggested that children receiving morphological instruction performed significantly
better on measures of literacy achievement than comparison groups.
On the other hand, Harris, Schumaker, and Deshler (2011) pointed out that
morphological analysis skills are commonly developed when learners get older. For
instance, research conducted by Anglin, Miller, and Wakefield (1993, as cited in
Harris et al., 2011) revealed that student knowledge of root words, inflected words,
derived words, and literal compounds significantly increased across the age groups as
the students got older. The researchers stated that student knowledge of morphology
was greater in students enrolled in grade four than in younger students and continued
to improve across the grades.