This study aims at investigating the potential differences in employing different linguistic knowledge sources by adult male Jordanian English speakers. To this end, a lexical inferring test was used to instigate any previously acquired knowledge in morphology, phonology, syntax and semantics by 16 Jordanians. Data was then analyzed statistically and categorized according to the employed linguistic knowledge sources. Results showed that participants generally tended to use a single linguistic knowledge source at a time.
They relied more heavily and successfully on their previous knowledge in semantics followed by morphological analysis, whereas reliance on syntax was least used, followed by dependence on phonological relationships which was the most misleading. Differences appeared in terms of the frequency of using each linguistic knowledge source as well as the success of making use of each source.
Differences can be ascribed to variance in length of individual's previous English learning experience and time given to formal instruction on applying their knowledge to reading-based lexical learning tasks. The study highlights the importance of knowledge in linguistics as a prerequisite to support cognitive processing, to overcome limited lexical knowledge and to facilitate lexical acquisition. The study has implications for lexical studies and second language acquisition.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Research Questions
3. Literature Review
3.1 Deep lexical knowledge
3.2 Linguistic knowledge-based processes leading into incidental lexical acquisition
3.3 Linguistics knowledge source-clues
3.4 Morphology knowledge-based incidental lexical acquisition: Morphological analysis of word structure
3.5 Phonological knowledge-based incidental lexical acquisition
3.6 Syntactical knowledge-based incidental lexical acquisition
3.7 Semantic field knowledge-based incidental lexical acquisition
4. Methodology
4.1 Data collection procedures and instrument
4.2 Data Categorization
5. Results and Discussion
5.1 Results
5.1.1 The used LKSs and their frequency
5.2 Discussion
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This study investigates the usage and effectiveness of various linguistic knowledge sources (LKSs)—specifically morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics—employed by adult male Jordanian English learners to infer the meanings of unfamiliar lexical items during unassisted reading.
- Identification of primary and secondary linguistic knowledge sources used by learners.
- Analysis of common combinations of linguistic knowledge sources.
- Evaluation of the success rates of different knowledge sources in lexical inferencing.
- Examination of the most misleading linguistic knowledge sources encountered by learners.
Excerpt from the Book
Linguistics knowledge source-clues
For readers to look for linguistic clues to reach a judgment about the meaning of the unfamiliar lexical item, in this sense, their journey of lexical acquisition seems similar to other inference processes carried out by detectives who examine clues in a crime scene. Linguistic clues can be a helpful tool for learners to make informed inferring of the meaning, and at the same time a highlighter of what sources of linguistic knowledge that are used in the lexical acquisition process. Based on the previous accumulated knowledge in linguistics, readers can extract and acquire unfamiliar lexical items (Deschambault, 2012) by referring to linguistic clues and the context in which lexical items appear (Frantzen, 2003). Nevertheless, readers should bear in mind that the outcome of this compensatory process is uncertain and the possibility of failure is there (Rubin cited in Beebe, 1983:46).
According to McKoon and Ratcliff (1992), a clue is a piece of information that is embedded in the construction of a lexical item itself or appears near a lexical item, and offers direct or indirect suggestions about its meaning. Added to that, pieces of evidence/linguistic clues may imply that the more sources of linguistic information you have, the more able you become to activate clues. This might be true in light of Haastrup’s (1991) argument that over-reliance on one type (one linguistic knowledge-based type) of clues by readers means that other types of clues are not being activated, which would result in ineffective inferring and thus ineffective lexical acquisition process.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the significance of incidental lexical acquisition and sets the research focus on adult male Jordanian English speakers' use of linguistic knowledge.
Research Questions: Defines the specific inquiries regarding the primary, secondary, and combined usage of linguistic knowledge sources and their potential to be misleading.
Literature Review: Discusses theoretical foundations regarding deep lexical knowledge, linguistic processes in acquisition, and the roles of morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics as knowledge sources.
Methodology: Describes the sample group of 16 Jordanian army officers, the lexical inferring task design, and the procedures for data collection and categorization.
Results and Discussion: Presents the quantitative findings regarding the frequency and success rates of different linguistic strategies and discusses the pedagogical implications.
Conclusion: Synthesizes the study's findings, highlighting the preference for semantic knowledge and the necessity for more learner-centered training in reading courses.
Keywords
linguistic knowledge source, linguistic clue, incidental lexical acquisition, cognition, morphology, phonology, syntax, semantics, lexical inferring, reading comprehension, Jordanian learners, word-formation, L2 learners, lexical item, deep lexical knowledge
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The study focuses on how advanced adult male Jordanian English learners use their prior linguistic knowledge to incidentally acquire the meaning of unfamiliar words during reading.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in this work?
The work explores four main linguistic knowledge sources: morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics, analyzing their individual roles and success in lexical inferencing.
What is the main goal or research question of this study?
The primary goal is to identify which linguistic knowledge sources are utilized, which are most effective, and which are the most misleading for Jordanian learners when they encounter unknown words.
Which scientific methodology is employed in this research?
The researcher used a lexical inferring task consisting of eight sentences, where participants were asked to identify the meaning of underlined words and report the linguistic clues they used to derive those meanings.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the work?
The main body covers the theoretical review of linguistic knowledge sources, the specific data collection procedure using WhatsApp-based tasks, and the statistical analysis of participants' performance categorized by the linguistic strategy used.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
Key terms include linguistic knowledge source, incidental lexical acquisition, lexical inferring, morphology, syntax, and deep lexical knowledge.
Did participants receive formal training in these strategies?
No, all participants reported that they had received no formal training or instruction on how to employ linguistic knowledge sources to deduce the meanings of unfamiliar lexical items.
Which linguistic source was found to be the most misleading?
The study concluded that the 'phonology' category was the most misleading, leading to incorrect inferences in 81% of the cases where it was applied.
What was the most successful source of knowledge for the participants?
Both syntax and semantics were identified as the most helpful categories, leading to successful deduction in 86% and 84% of occurrences, respectively.
- Arbeit zitieren
- AWNI ETAYWE (Autor:in), 2016, Potential Differences in Adult Male Jordanians’ Employment of Morphology, Phonology, Syntax and Semantics-Knowledge in Incidental English Lexical Acquisition, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/353469
