Morphology Is a Valid Strategy for High School Students to Improve Vocabulary.
Using Morphological Analysis to Teach Vocabulary In English and French Classes
By Constance O’Sullivan and Charlotte Ebel
Teachers as Scholars Institute Princeton University July, 2004 Marguerite Browning, Professor
Foreword Vocabulary instruction via morphological analysis requires syntactic knowledge and an awareness of the multiple levels of cognitive ability whether the target vocabulary is in English or in a second language. In this project, we will posit several strategies for accomplishing this task in order to facilitate the acquisition and maintenance of new vocabulary for our high school students in English and in French.
English Vocabulary Acquisition through Morphological Analysis
Constance O’Sullivan According to the research of Baker, Simmons and Kameenui of the University of Oregon on “Vocabulary Acquisition: Synthesis of Research” new learning builds on what the learner already knows. Critical factors that contribute to vocabulary development include generalized linguistic differences, memory deficit, differences in strategies for learning new words, differential instructional procedures and depth of word knowledge. Through depth of word knowledge is association, comprehension and generation. Research suggests that after the age of seven the ease in which a student gains vocabulary levels off. Thus vocabulary growth varies among students and as a result the vocabulary gap grows increasingly larger over time. The question that comes to mind is “What happens at the high school level when the study of vocabulary is part of the curriculum?” High School students, (a group I call the “entertain me generation”) today have had access to computers and the Internet since they were in first or second grade. Because of this the study of vocabulary is considered boring if it is not accompanied by an activity. There are two ways to pursue this; the first is through an interactive student/computer program complete with bells and whistles. The second
By Constance O’Sullivan and Charlotte Ebel
Teachers as Scholars Institute Princeton University July, 2004 Marguerite Browning, Professor
Foreword Vocabulary instruction via morphological analysis requires syntactic knowledge and an awareness of the multiple levels of cognitive ability whether the target vocabulary is in English or in a second language. In this project, we will posit several strategies for accomplishing this task in order to facilitate the acquisition and maintenance of new vocabulary for our high school students in English and in French.
English Vocabulary Acquisition through Morphological Analysis
Constance O’Sullivan According to the research of Baker, Simmons and Kameenui of the University of Oregon on “Vocabulary Acquisition: Synthesis of Research” new learning builds on what the learner already knows. Critical factors that contribute to vocabulary development include generalized linguistic differences, memory deficit, differences in strategies for learning new words, differential instructional procedures and depth of word knowledge. Through depth of word knowledge is association, comprehension and generation. Research suggests that after the age of seven the ease in which a student gains vocabulary levels off. Thus vocabulary growth varies among students and as a result the vocabulary gap grows increasingly larger over time. The question that comes to mind is “What happens at the high school level when the study of vocabulary is part of the curriculum?” High School students, (a group I call the “entertain me generation”) today have had access to computers and the Internet since they were in first or second grade. Because of this the study of vocabulary is considered boring if it is not accompanied by an activity. There are two ways to pursue this; the first is through an interactive student/computer program complete with bells and whistles. The second
Bibliography: Aliquot-Suengas, Sophie. 2003. The Actual Productivity of the French Suffix –ade. Langue française, 140, Dec., 38-55. Austin, Jennifer R.; Engelberg, Stefan; & Rauh, Gisa, eds. (Forthcoming in 2004). Adverbials: The Interplay of Meaning, Context, and Syntactic Structure. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Bayley, Robert & Preston, Dennis R. 1996. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Beaulieu, Louise & Balcom, Patricia. 2002. The Structure of French Adverbial Clauses : Sociolinguistic Arguments. Journal of French Language Studies, 12, 3, 241-262. Bogaards, Paul and Laufer, Batia, eds. 2004. Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Chomsky, Noam. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Dirvin, René & Verspoor, Marjolijn H. 2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Dryer, Matthew S. 1998. Aspects of Word Order in the Languages of Europe in Siewierska, Anna, ed. Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyler. Gardner, R.C. et al. 2004. Integrative Motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learnin, 54, 1, 1-34. Ann Arbor: Blackwell. Goodfellow, Robin et. al. 2002. Assesssing Learners’ Writing Using Lexical Frequency. ReCALL, 14, 1, 133-145. Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London ; New York : Oxford University Press. Huot, Hélène. 1999. Constructions infinitives de français: le subordonnant DE. Génève : Librairie Droz. Huot, Hélène. 2001. Morphologie: forme et sens des mots du français. Paris : Colin. Karafuji, Takeo. 2004. Plural Morphemes, Definiteness, and the Notion of Semantic Parameter. Language and Linguistics, 5, 1, 211-242. Kriel, Mariana. 2003. Approaches to Multilingualism in Language, Place, and Identity Politics. A Critique. Society in Transition, 34, 1, 159-177. McBride, Nicole. 2002. Web Enhanced Approaches to the Teaching of Linguistic Variation in French. ReCALL, 14, 1, 96-108. McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGroarty, Mary E. & Faltis, Christian J., eds. 1991. Languages in School and Society: Policy and Pedagogy. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Guyler. Nagata, Noriko. 2001. An Application of Natural Language Processing to Web-Based Language Learning. CALICO Journal, 29, 3, 583-599. Pirvulescu, Mihaela. 2002. Morphological Paradigms and the Role of Tense. Révue québecoise de linguistique, 31, 2, 77-81. Prandi, Michele. 2004. The Building Blocks of Meaing: Ideas for a Philosophical Grammar. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Sauzet, Patrick. 2004. La Singularité phonologique du français. Langue française, 3, 1850, Mar., 14. Schmitt, Norbert & Zimmerman, Cheryl Boyd. 2002. Derivative Word Forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly, 36, 2, 145-171. Sharvit, Yael. 2003. Embedded Tense and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 4, Fall, 669-681. Swisher, Karen E. 1989. Systematic Vocabulary Instruction through Morphological Analysis with Post-Secondary Students. Dissertation Abstracts International, A. The Humanities and Social Sciences, 49, 9, Mar., 2514-A. Wildgen, Wolfgang. 2004. The Evolution of Human Language : Scenarios, Principles, and Cultural Dynamics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.