Apples and oranges: How does learning context affect novel word learning?

被引:7
作者
Korochkina, Maria [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Buerki, Audrey [2 ]
Nickels, Lyndsey [1 ]
机构
[1] Macquarie Univ, Dept Cognit Sci, 16 Univ Ave, N Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
[2] Univ Potsdam, Dept Linguist, Cognit Sci, Karl Liebknecht Str 24-25, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany
[3] Univ Potsdam, Int Doctorate Expt Approaches Language & Brain ID, Potsdam, Germany
[4] Macquarie Univ, Sydney, NSW, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Word learning; Learning context; Episodic memory; Semantic memory; Integration; Word production; COMPLEMENTARY SYSTEMS ACCOUNT; SEMANTIC MEMORY NETWORKS; LEXICAL CONSOLIDATION; SPEECH PRODUCTION; INTERFERENCE; VOCABULARY; INTEGRATION; COMPETITION; SLEEP; HIPPOCAMPUS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jml.2021.104246
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
Despite scarce empirical evidence, introducing new vocabulary in semantic categories has long been standard in second language teaching. We examined the effect of learning context on encoding, immediate recall and integration of new vocabulary into semantic memory by contrasting categorically related (novel names for familiar concepts blocked by semantic category) and unrelated (mixed semantic categories) learning contexts. Two learning sessions were conducted 24 hours apart, with each participant exposed to both contexts. Subsequently, a test phase examined picture naming, translation and picture-word interference tasks. Compared to the unrelated context, the categorically related context resulted in poorer naming accuracy in the learning phase, slower response latencies at the immediate recall tasks and greater semantic interference in the picture-word interference task (picture naming in L1 with semantically related novel word distractors). We develop a theoretical account of word learning that attributes observed differences to episodic rather than semantic memory.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 123 条
[21]  
Boersma P., 2014, PRAAT DOING PHONETIC
[22]   Getting it right: Word learning across the hemispheres [J].
Borovsky, Arielle ;
Kutas, Marta ;
Elman, Jeffrey L. .
NEUROPSYCHOLOGIA, 2013, 51 (05) :825-837
[23]   Interfering neighbours: The impact of novel word learning on the identification of visually similar words [J].
Bowers, JS ;
Davis, CJ ;
Hanley, DA .
COGNITION, 2005, 97 (03) :B45-B54
[24]   AN ANALYSIS OF TRANSFORMATIONS [J].
BOX, GEP ;
COX, DR .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 1964, 26 (02) :211-252
[25]  
Breitenstein C, 2007, RESTOR NEUROL NEUROS, V25, P493
[26]   How Many Words Do We Know? Practical Estimates of Vocabulary Size Dependent on Word Definition, the Degree of Language Input and the Participant's Age [J].
Brysbaert, Marc ;
Stevens, Michael ;
Mandera, Pawel ;
Keuleers, Emmanuel .
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 7
[27]   What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis [J].
Burki, Audrey ;
Elbuy, Shereen ;
Madec, Sylvain ;
Vasishth, Shravan .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2020, 114
[28]   How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? [J].
Caramazza, A .
COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 14 (01) :177-208
[29]  
Channell J., 1981, ELT J, V35, P115
[30]   Teaching adults new words: The role of practice and consolidation [J].
Clay, Felix ;
Bowers, Jeffrey S. ;
Davis, Colin J. ;
Hanley, Derek A. .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 2007, 33 (05) :970-976