Differences have been found in ability to achieve native-like fluency in languages
learned in adulthood. For example, some findings show that only those with exposure to
a language at 7-years-old or younger are able to achieve native-like fluency in that
language (e.g. Johnson & Newport, 1989). In one classic study, Johnson and Newport
evaluated 46 adult native Chinese or Korean speakers who had learned English as a
second language at various ages. They measured English fluency by having participants
judge the grammatical accuracy of a series of English sentences. They found that
performance on this task was directly tied to the age that each participant arrived in the
United States. Participants who were immersed in English before the age of 7 were able
to accurately judge the grammaticality of sentences at the same level of accuracy as
native English speakers. After the age of 7, there was a negative correlation between age
of arrival (AOA) in the United States and performance in correctly judging the accuracy
of sentences until around the age of 16. Predictive power of AOA on proficiency
decreased after the ending of puberty (see Figure 1).
Some evidence, on the other hand, demonstrates that some people are able to
become fluent in new languages at an older age (e.g. Birdsong, 1992). Birdsong
compared native English speakers, who started learning French between the ages of 11
and 28-years-old and had moved to France between the ages of 19 and 48-years-old, to
native French speakers. Participants completed a task where they were presented with
written French sentences and had to rate how acceptable each sentence was. Of the 20
native English speakers, only 5 of the participants’ judgments differed significantly from
the norm of the native French speakers. While age of acquisition may be related to
language learning success in some cases, it does not seem to be as influential to all
language learners. There may be developmental component in ability to learn new
languages, but the story could be more complex. Evidence has suggested that experience
learning previous languages may also have an impact on future language learning success
(e.g. Cenoz & Valencia, 1994). The current paper evaluates how both biological
development and experience may be useful in understanding language-learning success.
Advantages in children’s and bilingual adult’s abilities to learn new languages is
not completely understood. To what extent does biology contribute to children’s
language learning advantage, and to what extent are habit, motivation, and opportunity
influential? Along the same lines, how does bilingualism assist adults in the learning new
languages? Does childhood experience with language learning alter how language
learning is approached in adulthood? Here we seek to shed some light on these questions
by examining a difference in the language learning abilities between adult groups: those
who were exposed to second language learning in childhood (referred to as bilinguals)
and those who were not (referred to as monolinguals).
We will first evaluate the relationship between language learning history and
future language learning success. More specifically, how bilingualism correlates with
success in learning subsequent languages. Since language learning involves
understanding several components of a language (e.g. vocabulary, grammar, semantics,
etc.), it will be useful to explore these components separately. We will examine this
question at a more basic level and focus only on vocabulary learning, which has been
shown to extend to learning other aspects of language (CITE).
Next, we will discuss how children may approach second language (L2) learning
differently than adults. Then we will make predictions about how learning strategies
developed in childhood can assist in adult language learning contexts. Finally we will
present a series of studies supporting our predictions and uncovering some of the
mechanisms behind the child and bilingual adult language learning advantage.
Bilingualism and Language Learning Success
A body of research has demonstrated that language-learning history may be
influential in ultimate success at learning new languages. Eisenstein (1990) demonstrated
that childhood bilingualism is positively correlated with overall language learning
aptitude. She evaluated a sample of English monolingual (no L2 exposure before 10years-old) and bilingual (ability to communicate in more than one language learned
before the 10-years-old) university students. The participants were issued a shortened
version of the Carol Sapon Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT), which is designed
to measure overall language learning aptitude. Participants were also asked to report
their high school grades in foreign language courses, college grades in foreign language
courses, and self-ratings of language learning aptitude. Not only did bilinguals receive
higher grades in foreign language courses than monolinguals, but they also scored
significantly higher on the MLAT and rated themselves higher on language learning
aptitude (Eisenstein, 1980).
As further evidence, Cenoz and Valencia (1994) compared Spanish monolingual
and Spanish-Basque bilingual university students in their success in learning English.
English-fluency tests were given to both native Spanish speakers and Spanish-Basque
bilinguals who had studied English between 4 and 9 years. All other influential factors
partialled out (intelligence, age, motivation, and English exposure), bilingualism in
Spanish and Basque was a strong predictor of English fluency. Those who were fluent in
more than one language were more successful at learning English.
Spanish and Basque are relatively dissimilar languages, sprouting from different
genealogical origins. There is also an unparallel relationship between how broadly
Basque is used in comparison to Spanish. Spanish-Basque bilinguals typically encounter
more situations where Spanish is useful. In order to examine how bilingualism may
influence L3 acquisition with variable differences between L1 and L2, Sanz (2000)
replicated Cenoz and Valencia’s findings comparing Spanish-Catalan bilinguals to
Spanish monolinguals. Spanish and Catalan are both romance languages and Catalan has
a wider use when compared to Spanish that Basque. Partialling out other influential
factors (exposure and motivation), Spanish-Catalan bilinguals were more successful at
learning English than Spanish monolinguals (all high school juniors). A similar trend
was also found in teaching monolinguals and multilinguals (all native English speakers)
Euskera in a controlled laboratory setting (Ramsay, 1980).
In the realm of vocabulary learning, evidence also supports that bilingual adults
are ultimately more successful than monolinguals at learning vocabulary in a new
language.
Keshavarz and Astaneh (2002) compared Armenian-Persian bilinguals
(Armenian – first language (L1), Persian – L2), Turkish-Persian bilinguals (Turkish - L1,
Persian - L2), and Persian monolinguals in their new-language vocabulary acquisition.
The Armenian-Persian bilinguals and Persian monolinguals were taking a pre-university
course of the Tehran language. The Turkish-Persian bilinguals were taking an academic
course in Tebriz. To measure students’ levels of vocabulary acquisition at the time of
testing, the Controlled Productive Ability Test (CPAT) was administered, adapted to the
language being learned. Participants were presented with sentences containing only the
first letter of one target word. The number of sentences completed filling in the proper
target word was measured for scoring.
Both bilingual groups significantly outperformed the monolinguals on the
vocabulary test.
The vocabulary learning advantage does not seem to be language
specific considering that both bilingual groups, with different language histories and
learning different languages, showed heightened vocabulary learning skills when
compared to the monolinguals. It can be concluded that early L2 learning experience is
tied to success in future language learning. The first step in understanding why this may
be is to look why each group may be approaching language learning differently.
Development and Strategic Learning
Early experience learning L2 vocabulary and solely developing a L1 repertoire
represent two distinctly different experiences. While L1 learning involves adding labels
to otherwise unnamed entities, L2 learning involves also learning new labels in a context
where L1 names for identical or similar things may already exist. We propose that due to
the slow development of the ability to use strategic thinking, the age at which one is
introduced to L2 learning may influence how they approach the task.
Approach to learning seems to change as children age. Younger children learn
new information by dedicating most of their focus to the stimulus being observed. As
they mature, they begin to integrate previous knowledge to better interpret and commit
new information to memory (Paris & Lindauer, 1982). Appel and colleagues (1972)
found that older children may be using more conscious learning strategies when they are
told to memorize lists of items. They showed pre-school children (mean age 4;6), first
graders (mean age 7;1), and fifth graders (mean age 11;0) a series of pictures of familiar
objects. In one condition, the children were told to look at the pictures and in another
condition they were told explicitly to memorize the pictures. The expectation was that if
older children use strategies for memorization, they should recall more items when
instructed to memorize the list. Younger children should perform similarly in each
condition because they approach new information similarly whether or not there is intent
for learning.
As expected, the fifth-graders recalled more items when they were told to
memorize the pictures than when they were told to simply look at the pictures. The
preschool children and first graders, on the other hand, did not recall significantly more
objects under either instruction. The first graders showed a trend similar to that of the
fifth graders, but the results were not significant.
As more evidence of strategy use, when told to memorize the pictures, the fifth
graders recalled pictures in order of similarity rather than in order of presentation. This
implies that they are using previous knowledge about object categories as a mnemonic
for storing the information. This was not the case of the preschoolers and first graders.
More often, they recalled the pictures in order of presentation. The fifth graders also
mouthed the names of each picture as it was presented and recited the names of previous
pictures rotely throughout the teaching phase significantly more often when told to
memorize the pictures rather than when told just look at them. Once again, the first
graders displayed a similar trend, but the results were not significant. The preschool
children did not display any of this behavior.
This data led to what is known as the differentiation hypothesis. The
differentiation hypothesis suggests that older children tend to approach information
differently when they have the intention of learning that information. They use
information that they have already stored about categories to cluster information into
more meaningful chunks. They then use forms of rehearsal to help commit the items to
memory. Younger children, on the other hand, seem to act more as perceivers, taking in
the information as it is presented. The 11-year-olds seem to have a firmer grasp on
strategy use than the younger age groups. While not significantly more advanced, the 7year-olds seem to be taking initial steps toward using more strategies to aid with learning.
Research has been done showing that there are developmental differences in strategic
thinking between the younger two age groups.
As one example, there is evidence of the development in strategy use between
children between the ages of 3 and 7-years-old. Within this age frame, children advance
from recalling list items as quickly as possible before forgetting, to using rote rehearsal to
assist with memory. Istomina (1948) observed differences in how preschool-aged
children approach memorization tasks. During play, the children were given a memory
task. They were asked to remember items from a grocery list and purchase those items
from the play area simulating a grocery store. The goal of the study was to monitor the
children’s behavior as they completed the task.
The majority of the 3 through 4-year-olds were impatient while the experimenter
gave instructions and read the list. They remembered few items and were uneffortful in
understanding the task. A small minority of the 3 through 4-year-olds, all of the 4
through 5-year-olds, about half of the 5 through 6-year-olds, and about one-third of the 6
through 7-year-olds, were more attentive, but displayed very simple memorization
techniques. The primary approach they used was to rush to the grocery story play area
and recite as many items as they could as quickly as possible.
The most developed display of strategic memorization was seen only in the older
two age groups. About half of the 5 through 6-year-olds and about two-thirds of the 6
through 7-year-olds repeated the list items either aloud or under their breath after hearing
them. They would also ask the experimenter to repeat certain items on occasion during
training (see Table…).
The observations made by the experimenters suggest that there are changes in
strategic thinking as children develop. Some 3-year-olds seemed to have had a grasp of
more basic memorization techniques (recalling words as close as possible to the time the
words were originally presented). In the 6 – 7-year-old age group, the majority of the
children had advanced to using rehearsal and asking for repetition to recall words. While
the 7-year-olds are not as advanced as 11-year-olds (Appel, et al, 1972), this is evidence
that strategic thinking is developing gradually within the younger age group.
The differences in how children approach learning can be found by examining the
development of the frontal cortex and cognitive control throughout childhood. Bronson,
(2000) reviews a body of literature showing that the ability to use complex rules and
strategies increases slowly over childhood. Between the ages of
As the ability for strategy use develops, approach to L2 vocabulary learning may
also evolve. There is evidence that children approach L2 vocabulary learning differently
than adults (Chen & Leung,1989). We will examine how adults and children approach
L2 vocabulary learning differently and how adults with this early experience may
approach vocabulary learning in a way similar to younger learners.
Learning Strategies
As we have seen approaches to learning seems to evolve with age and the
development of using strategic thinking. We suggest that this evolution may be reflected
in new language vocabulary learning. Learning L2 in early childhood and learning L2
later in life may predict different learning strategies. When learning a new L2 word,
children may simply associate the new word to a perceptual representation of whatever is
being referred to. For example, consider a native English speaker learning the Spanish
word for cat (gato). Children may associate ‘gato’ directly to their representation of a cat
without referencing information about the English word ‘cat’. Adults, on the other hand,
may rely more on L1 knowledge when adding a new language. When learning the L2
word ‘gato,’ rather than mapping the new word directly to their representation of a cat,
adults may be more likely to make use of their L1 in the process. They may first map
‘gato’ to its L1-translation (cat) and make use of their existing mapping between ‘cat’ and
the referent under consideration (see Figure 1).
Children
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
CAT
Adults
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
CAT
GATO
GATO
Figure 1: Differences in approach to new vocabulary learning between children and
adults.
Potter, et al. (1984) present data suggesting that conceptual representations
mediate L2 vocabulary learning at both early and late stages of language learning. They
examined native English speakers who had studied French in school for two or three
years (earlier stages of learning) and native Cantonese speakers who had learned English
in school and had lived in an English-speaking country for at least one year (later stages
of learning). Participants had to read written names of L1 words and produce L1 words
for line drawings of objects. They also did the same task using their L2: translating
written L1 words into L2 and producing names for line drawings using their L2. As a
replication of past findings, it was expected that word reading in L1 would be faster than
picture naming in L1 (Cattell, 1886; Fraisse, 1960; Potter & Faulconer, 1975). More
processing seems to be involved in retrieving object names than pronouncing written
words. It was also predicted that this effect would disappear when applied to translating
L1 words to L2 and naming pictures in L2. If L2 learning is conceptually mediated, it
should take just as long to produce the item name in response to a written word as in
response to a picture because conceptual representations needed to be accessed in order
to produce the verbal labels for each, as opposed to the L2 word being linked directly to
its L1 translation. This pattern was found in both beginners and more advanced language
learners. This suggests that concept mediation is used in both early and late stages of
new language learning.
Chen and Leung (1989) further evaluated the role of L1 lexical mediation and
concept mediation during new language vocabulary learning. They found that adults in
the later stages of L2 learning used more concept mediation, while those in the earlier
stages of learning used more lexical mediation. In addition, they found that children used
more concept mediation than the more experienced L2 learners. The study examined
adult beginners (mean age: about 20-years-old), child beginners (mean age: about 7years-old), and adult proficient L2 speakers (mean age: about 20-years-old). The adult
beginners had about 2 to 3 years of French classroom learning, the adult advanced
learners had 12 or more years of experience speaking English, and the child beginners
had been speaking English for about 2 years. All of the participants had the same nativelanguage (Cantonese). The children and more fluent learners were tested using English
(English was the language being learned), while the less fluent learners were evaluated in
French (French was the language being learned).
Similar to the design used by Potter, et al. (1984), participants had to read L1
(Cantonese) words and name line drawings in L1. As consistently found, picture naming
took longer than word reading in all groups. Participants also had to translate Cantonese
words into a different language (English/French) and provide names for pictures using
that language (English/French). Differences arose in results from this task. The
proficient learners showed no differences between translation and naming times,
suggesting that they have a conceptually mediated approach to new language vocabulary
processing: that is equal use of conceptual access was needed for word translations and
for picture naming. The adult beginners, however, took significantly more time during
picture naming than the word translating, while the child beginners spent significantly
more time translating words than naming pictures. This suggests that adult beginners use
more lexical mediation than the adult proficient speakers and the child beginners.
Translating one lexical item to another took the least amount of time for this group. It
also demonstrates that child beginners use more concept mediation than the adults. An
image of an item yields faster translation than a written word.
Another explanation for children's performance could be that they had lower
reading skills than the adults, making them slower to deal with lexical tasks in general.
However, this pattern was replicated with participants two grade levels above (Grade 4)
the original group. From this data, it appears that adult beginners use lexical mediation
the most to process information, while child beginners use it the least.
Other studies have also supported the idea that new language vocabulary learning
is more lexically mediated during the earlier stages of learning than in later stages. Kroll
and Curley (1988) found translations to be faster than L2 picture-naming in early L2
learners, but the naming and translation speeds did not differ for more proficient learners.
Talamas, Kroll, and Dufour (1999), used a different design to support the same finding.
High and low proficient English-Spanish bilingual adults (Spanish as L2) were given a
translation judgment task. An English word would be paired with a Spanish translation
and participants were asked to judge as quickly as possible whether or not the translation
was accurate. In the case of inaccurate pairings, sometimes the translation was lexically
similar to its proper translation and sometimes it was semantically similar. For example,
in judging the correct Spanish translation for ‘man’ (hombre), participants may see the
word ‘hambre’ (hunger -lexically similar) or the word ‘mujer’ (woman -semantically
similar).
If lexical mediation is used to judge translations, lexically similar words should
provide more interference, resulting in slower naming times. If lexical mediation is used,
semantically similar words should provide more interference, resulting in slower naming
times. Less proficient Spanish speakers spent more time making judgments when words
were lexically similar, while the more proficient speakers met more interference judging
the semantically similar words. This provides further evidence of the use of lexical
mediation in the earlier stages of language learning and concept mediation in the later
stages.
Potter, et al. (1984) suggest that concept mediation is prevalent throughout all
stages of L2 acquisition. Other data suggests that concept mediation is used only in the
later stages of L2 learning, while lexical mediation is used more in the earlier stages
(Chen & Leung, 1989; Kroll & Curley, 1988; Talamas, Kroll, Dufour, 1999). Evidence
also puts forth the notion that children use more concept mediation than adults. It seems
that age influences learning strategies, but the data on stage of language learning is more
contradictory.
A factor that has not been examined by the presented studies is that of how
language-learning history may influence learning strategies. Some adults may use
concept mediation in the earlier stages of new language learning because they have
developed an interpretation of a more flexible link between words and their referents with
early experience learning a previous L2. Not having this early experience may account
for the participants who use lexical mediation in the early stages of language learning.
These factors were not addressed in the presented studies. However, differences have
been found between language learners with various learning histories using other
measures.
Evidence suggests that co-ordinate bilinguals, compound bilinguals, and
monolinguals may have different approaches to new language word learning (Lerea &
LaPorta, 1971). Co-ordinate bilinguals were defined as bilinguals who "learned two
languages with dissociated meanings for parallel signs" (p. 293). This group consisted of
participants who had learned their L2 in elementary school. Compound bilinguals were
defined as bilinguals who learned two languages in a way such that "the equivalent words
of each language [were] linked to one meaning" (p. 293). Participants in this group
learned their L2 in school at the age of 13-years-old. Monolingual participants never
reported learning an L2.
Seventeen co-ordinate bilinguals, 17 compound bilingual, and 17 monolinguals
between the ages of 17 and 46 years-old (median age: 19-years-old) were taught two lists
of 9 paired associate words. The word pairs consisted of an English word and its Hebrew
translation (all participants were fluent in English and unfamiliar with Hebrew). One list
was presented auditorily, via tape recorder, and participants were told to repeat the words
with proper pronunciation. The other list was presented visually (Hebrew words were
presented using Roman characters) and participants were asked to transcribe the
presented words. After each learning trial, participants were quizzed over there memory
of the pairs of words in each list. They repeated each trial and testing phase until they
showed perfect memory for each word pair in the lists.
During the auditory learning task, the co-ordinate bilinguals recalled word pairs
accurately with significantly less learning trials than the monolinguals. During the visual
learning task, however, the monolinguals used significantly less learning trails than the
co-ordinate bilinguals. There was a significant between-group interaction. The
compound bilinguals performed between the monolinguals and co-ordinate bilinguals.
That is, they needed more trials to learn the Hebrew words and translations than the coordinate bilinguals and less trials than monolinguals during the auditory task. Likewise,
they needed fewer trials to learn the words than the co-ordinate bilinguals and more trials
than the monolinguals during the visual task. These differences were not significant from
any group.
One causal story that can be told from this data is that the co-ordinate bilinguals,
who started learning their L2 in elementary school when their reading skills were less
developed, grew accustomed to using strategies of word learning that are more dependent
on auditory cues than the other two groups. However, the take-home message from this
data rests in the visual-cue results. The monolinguals found the written translations to be
more helpful for memory than the early L2 learners (the co-ordinate bilinguals) did. As
we have seen in previous data (Chen & Leung, 1989), when compared to adults, children
have more difficulty translating written L1 words into an L2 than naming pictures in an
L2. This was interpreted to mean that children used concept-mediation to apply meaning
to L2 words. Based on this interpretation, the current data could also be explained in
terms of concept versus lexical mediation. Those with later or no experience with L2
learning depend more on lexical mediation when learning vocabulary in a new language.
The earlier L2 learners, on the other hand, find visual word cues less helpful because they
are more accustomed to using conceptual mediation (whether or not the auditory cues
parallel conceptual mediation is unclear). In other, words the approach used during L2
learning is still applied to the learning of additional languages.
Some adults seem to use concept mediation in the early stages of new language
learning (Potter, et al., 1984), while some may be using lexical mediation (Chen &
Leung, 1989). It may be that approach to language learning is to some extent influenced
by when previous languages were acquired.
Overall, we have seen that there is a bilingual advantage in new language
vocabulary learning (Keshavarz & Astaneh, 2002). This advantage may be linked to
learning strategies used during the first introduction of L2 learning. The factors we
describe above indicate that both the opportunity and means for strategizing in
vocabulary acquisition may increase across development. We suggest that the differences
between child and adult learning strategies may affect the habitual strategies people use
to learn vocabulary. Learning to add a new language to an already existing language at a
younger age, when a direct-mapping approach is more probable, results in using L1
translations less when adding subsequent vocabulary, whereas learning to add a new
language at a later age, when lexical-mediation is more prevalent results in the use of
more L1 translating when adding another language.
To test these predictions, we examined the vocabulary learning of participants
who gained their first experience of adding a language at various ages. Language adding
experience was defined as experience adding new terms to already named items. Those
who learned two languages simultaneously were viewed as having experience adding two
names to an unnamed object rather than to an already named object. Members of this
group were categorized by the age they first learned to add a new language to the preexisting two languages.
Experiment 1
Participants were taught new language names for objects that were easy to
translate (familiar objects) and objects where translation was more difficult (novel
objects). Participants should perform best when learning new names for objects in a
condition that makes their more dominant strategy easier to use. If early learners are
tending to avoid L1 translations more when learning new language vocabulary, they
should perform best when a L1 translation is more difficult to find. If later learners are
depending more on making L1-translations when learning new language terms, they
should have more difficulty recalling names for objects without translations. Also, if
differences in age of first L2 learning exposure are predictive of vocabulary fluency (e.g.
monolinguals versus bilinguals), those with early L2 exposure should learn more object
names overall.
Experiment 1
Participants were taught new language names for objects that were easy to translate
(familiar objects) and objects where translation was more difficult (novel objects).
Participants should perform best when learning new names for objects in a condition that
makes their more dominant strategy easier to use. If early learners are tending to avoid
L1 translations more when learning new language vocabulary, they should perform best
when a L1 translation is more difficult to find. If later learners are depending more on
making L1-translations when learning new language terms, they should have more
difficulty recalling names for objects without translations. Also, if differences in age of
first L2 learning exposure are predictive of vocabulary fluency (e.g. monolinguals versus
bilinguals), those with early L2 exposure should learn more object names overall.
Methods
Participants
Forty-six participants were tested in this study. Their ages ranged from 17-years-old to
28-years-old. All participants received course credit, financial compensation, or a small
gift for their participation. Data from six participants was not analyzed. Three
participants reported learning another language prior to being exposed to English, one
participant’s language learning history was unclear based on the information given in the
form, and two participants did not understand that they would be quizzed over the
presented items. Of the remaining forty participants (age range 17 through 28 years;
mean age 21-years-old), all were native English speakers (English was the first language
they learned) and, with one exception, either undergraduate or graduate students at a
western university in the United States of America.
Materials
Photographs of six novel and six familiar objects were created. The novel objects were
created and selected such that they did not resemble recognizable items that had readily
identifiable names in English (or any other language). New names for each object were
based on modified forms obtained from a Finnish dictionary. The object-name pairings
did not represent the Finnish definitions of each word. Words were selected based on the
naturalness of pronunciation and dissimilarity to the English words for the objects they
represented.
A demographic information page was completed by participants to report their age
and language learning history. Participants listed each language of which they had any
learning history, their fluency in each language on a 10-point Likert scale (1 indicating
little or no knowledge of a language and 10 indicating perfect fluency), the condition in
which they learned each language (classroom setting, environmental exposure, or both),
the age they started learning the language, years of practice with the language, and
number of years since they last used each language. Unrelated filler tasks taking
approximately 3 minutes to complete were also administered.
Design and Procedure
Participants were told that they would be taught the names of a series of objects in a new
language. Upon viewing each object on a computer screen, the experimenter dictated the
new name and the participant repeated it aloud. The experimenter presented the next
item after the name was repeated. The arrangement of the objects was counterbalanced
across subjects using a 6-block design. Each blocked contained either two familiar
objects and one novel object or two novel objects and one familiar object. The position
of objects within each block was counterbalanced across subjects. After the training
phase, participants completed two unrelated questionnaires that took approximately three
minutes.
The comprehensive recall task followed the filler task. Two previously learned items
were presented on the computer screen. The experimenter verbally presented one of the
“new language” words from the training, and participants were asked to indicate which of
the two objects corresponded to the word that they heard. Objects were paired such that
novel items were paired with familiar items 33 percent of the time, novel items were
paired with other novel objects 33 percent of the time, and familiar items were paired
with other familiar items 33 percent to of the time. Of the novel/familiar pairings, the
novel item appears on the left hand side of the screen in half of the cases and on the right
hand side of the screen in the other half of the cases. Also, the position of the correct
item to be identified appeared on the left hand side of the screen in half of the trials and
on the right hand side of the screen in the remaining half. The pairings were consistent
across groups although the ordering of the pairs was counterbalanced using the same
format as the training (6-block design with the object within each block rotating across
subjects). To ensure that we weren’t simply measuring list learning, the ordering of the
objects during the comprehensive recall task did not parallel the ordering of the items
during training. The accurately identified objects were recorded and the percent of
correct responses for novel items and for familiar items was calculated.
The free recall (also referred to as production) task immediately followed the
comprehensive recall task. Items were presented in an order previously used for neither
training nor comprehensive recall. Participants were shown the items they had
previously seen and asked to produce the name of each object. The percent of accurately
recalled item names were recorded for both novel and familiar objects.
Results
In order to compare early versus late learners, a split was made between participants who
had started learning to add a new language before or at the age of 7-years-old (n = 13;
mean age = 21-years-old; mean age of first new language learning exposure = 4-yearsold) and those who had started learning to add a new language after 7-years-old (n = 27;
mean age = 21-years-old; mean age of first L2 exposure = 13-years-old). The motivation
behind splitting the data at this point was that there have been reported developmental
changes related to ability to use strategic thinking that seem to occur around this age
(Bronson, 2000).
A one-tailed t-test was run in order to measure differences between the early and late
learners in overall performance.
There was no significant difference for the
comprehensive recall portion of the task (p = .446). Early learners properly matched .86
of the new terms to their corresponding pictures and the late learners properly matched
.87 of the items. Based on a one-tailed ANOVA, there was also no significant interaction
between early and late new language learners and recognition of new terms for novel and
familiar objects (p = .365). Each group identified more novel objects than familiar
objects. However, the novel object advantage was only marginally significant for the
early learners (p = .06) and insignificant for the late learners (p = .14). Early learners
properly matched .92 of the novel objects and .81 of the familiar objects and the late
learners properly matched .90 of the novel objects and .85 of the familiar objects.
For the free recall portion of the task, a one-tailed t-test indicated that early learners
did not recall significantly more words that the later learners (mean accuracy early
learners = .39; mean accuracy late learners = .32; p = .136).
A one-tailed ANOVA indicated that there was a significant interaction between
language learning group and accurate recall for novel versus familiar objects (p = .027).
Early learners recalled more names for novel objects (mean accuracy = .47) than for
familiar objects (mean accuracy = .30), while late learners performed worse on novel
object names (mean accuracy = .28) than familiar object names (mean accuracy = .35)
(see Figure 2).
Figure 3: Accuracy between early and late learners when an object is presented with and
without the English labels for the comprehension and recall tasks.
Discussion
It was hypothesized that early L2 learners would recall more words overall. This would
indicate that the learning strategy they are more prone to using leads to more proficiency
in vocabulary learning. This was not the case in the current experiment. It may be that
both strategies are useful in basic word memorizations tasks, but the strategy of the late
learners becomes a setback when the words have to be applied in linguistic contexts.
This speculation, however, needs to be tested empirically in future work.
There was an interaction between how well early and late learners recalled novel and
familiar objects in free recall. Earlier L2 learners performed better when objects did not
have translations. Learning translatable words may have made their most dominant
strategy easier to use, helping their performance. The later learners did not seem as
influenced by the manipulation. This trend may indicate that the early and later learners
are approaching new language word learning with different levels of dependency on their
L1.
There were no clear strategy differences between the early and late L2 learners on the
comprehension task. It may be that strategy differences are only prevalent in language
production and that different learning processes are used in recognizing new language
vocabulary. However, considering that performance on the comprehension task was near
ceiling for both conditions and within both groups, it may be that our task was not
difficult enough to elicit performance differences. To pinpoint potential differences in
strategy use during comprehension, we must either make the task more difficult or
change the nature of the task.
While comparing memory for novel and familiar objects can tell us about how useful
L1 translations are for different groups, using novel objects does not adequately represent
the kinds of words taught in language learning contexts. One would expect that the
majority of new language words taught are familiar to adult learners. To examine the
same research question in a more realistic context, in Experiment 2 adults will be taught
new language names for familiar objects. We will induce a L1 translation strategy by
presenting each pictured object alongside an English (L1) translation with some
participants.
We expect that late L2 learners should perform better when we make their strategy
easier to use and the early learners should perform worse because the extra L1
information should interfere with their more practiced strategy. Since this task is more
representative of new language learning, it may be sensitive enough to detect any
differences in comprehension.
Experiment 2
Participants were taught new language names for only familiar objects with L1
translations. Half of the early learners and half of the late learners were presented with
objects on the screen accompanied by its written English translation. The remaining
participants saw the familiar objects presented alone, as in the previous experiment. If
lexical mediation is being used, participants should recall more items when the L1
translations are given. If only the late learners are using lexical mediation, there should
be an improvement in the words prompted by the L1 translations in this group. If the
early learners switched to lexical mediation during this task, they should show the same
trends as the later learners. If they are using concept mediation during new language
vocabulary learning, then the L1 word should interfere with their learning process and
decrease their performance.
Methods
Participants
Thirty-seven participants were run in this study between the ages of 17 and 23 years
(mean = 19-years-old). All participants received course credit, financial compensation,
or a small gift for their participation. Everyone tested was a native English speaker
(English was the first language he or she learned) and either an undergraduate or graduate
student at a western university in the United States of America.
Materials
Photographs of twelve familiar objects were gathered. The objects were all collected
from shared space on the Internet. New names for each object were collected and
modified from a Finnish dictionary. The object-name pairings did not represent the
Finnish definitions of each word. Words were selected based on the naturalness of
pronunciation and dissimilarity to the English words for the objects they represented.
Pictures were presented using Microsoft PowerPoint. In one condition each picture
appeared with its English name printed in large letters beneath it on the screen. In the
second condition the pictures appeared alone.
The same demographic information page as used in Experiment 1 was administered
for participants to report their age and language learning history. They listed each
language to which they had exposure learning, their fluency in each language on a 10point Likert scale (1 indicating little or no knowledge of a language and 10 indicating
perfect fluency), the condition in which they learned each language (classroom setting,
environmental exposure, or both), the age they started learning the language, years of
practice with the language, and number of years since they last used each language.
Unrelated filler tasks taking approximately 3 minutes to complete were also administered.
Design and Procedure
The design and procedure modeled that of Experiment 1. Participants were told that they
would be taught the names of a series of objects in a new language. Upon viewing each
object on a computer screen, the experimenter dictated the new name and the participant
repeated it aloud. The experimenter presented the next item after the name was repeated.
The position of objects was counterbalanced across presentations. Depending on the
condition, participants saw objects presented either with or without English labels. After
the training phase, participants completed two unrelated questionnaires that took
approximately three minutes.
The comprehensive recall task followed the filler task. Two previously learned items
were presented on the computer screen. The experimenter stated one of the “new
language” words from the training. Participants selected from the two objects, which
represented the word that was stated. The position of the correct item to be identified
appeared on the left hand side of the screen in half of the trials and on the right hand side
of the screen in the remaining half. The pairings were consistent across groups although
the ordering of the pairs was counterbalanced using the same format as the training. To
ensure that we were not simply measuring list learning, the ordering of the objects during
the comprehensive recall task did not parallel the ordering of the items during training.
The accurately identified objects were recorded and the percent of correct responses for
novel items and for familiar items was calculated.
The free recall task immediately followed the comprehensive recall task. Items were
presented in an order previously used for neither training nor comprehensive recall.
Participants were shown the items they had previously seen and asked to produce the
name of each object. The percent of accurately recalled item names were recorded for
both objects that appeared with and without their English titles.
Results
Consistent with Experiment 1, early new language learners were defined as those who
had exposure to adding a new language to an existing language(s) before the age of 7years-old. Late new language adders were defined as those who first had this experience
at 7-years-old or older (late learners).
As in Experiment 1, there were no significant differences between the two groups in
overall word memory for both the comprehension and free recall tasks. Two one-tailed
UNIANOVAs were run to test for interactions between early and late language groups
and whether an item was presented with or without its English label.
Significant
interactions were found for both the comprehension (p = .036) and free recall portions of
the task (p = .007). In comprehension, early learners recalled more new language terms
when the L1 word was not present (mean accuracy = .93; std. = .10; n = 7) than when it
was presented with the referent (mean accuracy = .77; std. = .14; n = 6). Later learners,
on the other hand, did not show this trend. They performed similarly when the object
was presented without the L1 label (mean accuracy = .83; std, = .17; n = 11) and when
the label was presented (mean accuracy = .88; std. = .12; n = 114) (see Figure 3).
There was also an interaction in performance with the novel and familiar objects for
the free recall task. The early new language adders performed similarly when the English
word was not presented (mean accuracy = .37; std. = .22; n = 7) and when it was (mean
accuracy = .25; std. = .13; n = 5). The later learners, on the other hand, performed worse
when the English word was present (mean accuracy = .18; std. = .09; n = 11) than with it
was presented (mean accuracy = .42; std. = .21; n = 14) (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Accuracy between early and late learners when an object is presented with and
without the English labels for the comprehension and recall tasks.
General Discussion
For free recall in both experiments, early L2 language learners performed best when
using L1 translations was easiest to avoid. They performed better in learning new
language terms for objects that did not have clear English translations than for objects
that had pre-existing English labels, and they performed better when an object was
pictured alone rather than paired with its corresponding L1 term. Later learners showed
an opposite pattern.
When translating was made more difficult their performance
declined and when translating was easiest, their performance increased. The trend was
also true for comprehension in Experiment 2, suggesting that strategy differences are also
prevalent during comprehension, provided the words being learned are more
representative of actual language learning.
Overall, it can be concluded that the age at which one is first exposed to L2 learning is
related to how much they use L1 translations in learning future languages. Our findings
show that strategy use differences exist in vocabulary comprehension and production, but
more research must be done to better understand the consequences of different strategies
in vocabulary acquisition.
In both experiments, there were no differences in overall vocabulary learning between
the early and late L2 learners. While we can conclude that the two language learning
groups make use of different learning strategies, our data does not allow us to conclude
that either of these strategies influences language learning success outside of basic
vocabulary memorization. Our next step is to examine how learning vocabulary using
each strategy can have an impact on other components involved becoming familiar with a
new language.
For example, what consequences can learning words through L1
translations have on how well a person makes further generalizations about that word in
the new language context? This question and others will be explored in future studies.