The Contribution of Working Memory and Language Proficiency to Lexical Gain: Insights from the Involvement Load Hypothesis | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| دوره 42، شماره 3، آذر 2023، صفحه 117-146 اصل مقاله (1.24 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/tesl.2023.48255.3220 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Hossein Kargar Behbahani* ؛ Seyyed Ayatollah Razmjoo | ||
| Shiraz University | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study investigated the interplay of working memory capacity and language proficiency in the context of vocabulary acquisition through word-focused tasks. The involvement load hypothesis served as a theoretical framework, positing that the degree of cognitive engagement influences lexical learning outcomes. A total of 100 EFL learners participated in this study. They were divided into distinct groups based on varying levels of working memory capacity, language proficiency, and aspects of working memory (phonological short-term memory and executive working memory). The participants engaged in receptive and productive vocabulary tasks under different experimental conditions, including reading-only, reading plus blank-fill, and reading-plus production. The results revealed intricate relationships between working memory capacity, language proficiency, and vocabulary acquisition. While the efficacy of the hypothesis varied across conditions, its predictions were influenced by the nuances of individual cognitive capabilities and language competence. Learners with higher proficiency levels acquired more lexical items, both receptively and productively. Although the difference with the phonological short-term memory was not significant, executive working memory was more facilitative of lexical gain. Additionally, the role of input modality in shaping vocabulary learning outcomes was highlighted. That is, reading plus production and blank-fill tasks resulted in more lexical gain than reading-only tasks. The study contributes to the theoretical understanding of vocabulary acquisition by underscoring the complex interplay of cognitive processes and language factors. These insights hold implications for foreign language pedagogy, guiding educators in crafting more effective interventions for enhancing both receptive and productive lexical knowledge. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Language Proficiency؛ Involvement Load Hypothesis؛ Receptive and Productive Lexical Gain؛ Working Memory | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Ansarin, A. A., & Kazemipour Khabbazi, S. (2021). Task-induced involvement load and working memory: Effects on active and passive vocabulary knowledge of EFL learners in a multimedia learning environment. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 277-302. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911288
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 36(3), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4
Baddeley, A. (2017). Modularity, working memory and language acquisition. Second Language Research, 33, 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317709852
Crossley, S. A., & Kim, Y. (2019). Text integration and speaking proficiency: Linguistic, individual differences and strategy use considerations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(2), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2019.1628239
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Fazilatfar, A. M., Ghorbani, S., & Samavarchi, L. (2011). The effect of standard and reversed subtitling versus no subtitling mode on L2 vocabulary learning. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 30(1), 43-64. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.393
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson.
Hazrat, M., & Read, J. (2022). Enhancing the involvement load hypothesis as a tool for classroom vocabulary research. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 387-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3051
Jafari Gohar, M., Rahmanian, M., & Soleimani, H. (2018). Technique feature analysis or involvement load hypothesis: Estimating their predictive power in vocabulary learning. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 47(4), 859-869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9568-5
Hayati, M., & Shahriari, A. (2012). The impact of L1 equivalents versus context on vocabulary recall of pre-university EFL students. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 29(3), 27-51. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.414
Kaivanpanah, S., Alavi, S. M., & Ravandpour, A. (2020). The effect of input-based and output-based tasks with different and identical involvement loads on Iranian EFL learners’ incidental vocabulary learning. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1731223. http://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1731223
Kivrak, C., & Gökmen, D. U. (2019). The effects of task-induced involvement load and input modality on incidental vocabulary learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(4), 1355-1375. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.668478
Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 567-587. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.4.567
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied linguistics, 22(1), 1-26. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.1
Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency:
Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Foreign language learning (pp. 339–364). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Namaziandost, E., Hosseini, E., & Utomo, D. W. (2020). A comparative effect of high involvement load versus lack of involvement load on vocabulary learning among Iranian sophomore EFL learners. Cogent Arts & Humanities, 7(1), 1715525. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2020.1715525
Nassaji, H., & Hu, H. C. M. (2012). The relationship between task-induced involvement load and learning new words from context. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 50(1), 69-86. http://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2012-0003
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. A. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Cengage Learning.
Nizonkiza, D. (2011). The relationship between lexical competence, collocational competence, and second language proficiency. English Text Construction, 4(1), 113-145. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.4.1.06niz
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. McGraw-Hill Education.
Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1996). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp.174-200). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524643.013
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Shahnazari, M. (2013). The development of a Persian reading span test for the measure of L1 Persian EFL learners’ working memory capacity. Applied Research on English Language, 2(2), 107-116. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2013.15473
Teng, M. F. (2022). The Roles of Second-Language Proficiency Level and Working Memory on Vocabulary Learning from Word-Focused Exercises. RELC Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221102228
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, D. (2021). Task-induced involvement load, vocabulary learning in a foreign language, and their association with metacognition. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211008798
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Pearson Education Limited.
Tilfarlioglu, F. Y., & Bozgeyik, Y. (2012). The relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency of English language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 1(2), 91-100. http://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.2p.91
Wen, Z. E. (2016). Working memory and second language learning: Toward an integrated approach. Multilingual Matters.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. Edward Arnold.
Yaqubi, B., Rayati, R. A., & Allemzade Gorgi, N. (2012). The involvement load hypothesis and vocabulary learning: The effect of task types and involvement index on L2 vocabulary acquisition. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 29(1), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.404
Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., & Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(4), 567-595. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050254 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 558 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 381 |
||