A STUDY ON THE KNOWLEDGE A STUDY ON THE KNOWLEDGE SOURCES OF TURKISH EFL SOURCES OF TURKISH EFL

LEARNERS IN LEXICAL LEARNERS IN LEXICAL INFERENCINGINFERENCING

İlknur İSTİFÇİİlknur İSTİFÇİ

Anadolu UniversityAnadolu University Eskişehir, TURKEYEskişehir, TURKEY

OUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATIONOUTLINE OF THE PRESENTATION

A. IntroductionA. Introduction

B. MethodologyB. Methodology

C. ResultsC. Results

D. ConclusionsD. Conclusions

E. ImplicationsE. Implications

???

Inferencing or guessing is a Inferencing or guessing is a compensation strategy which enables compensation strategy which enables learners to use the new language for learners to use the new language for either comprehension or production either comprehension or production despite limitations in knowledge. This despite limitations in knowledge. This strategy involves using a wide variety strategy involves using a wide variety of clues – linguistic or nonlinguistic – to of clues – linguistic or nonlinguistic – to guess the meaning (Oxford, 1990).guess the meaning (Oxford, 1990).

Guessing vocabulary from context is Guessing vocabulary from context is the most frequently used strategy in the most frequently used strategy in discovering the meaning of words. discovering the meaning of words. New words can best be learned when New words can best be learned when presented in texts and when their presented in texts and when their meaning is inferred from context by meaning is inferred from context by learners (Lawson & Hogben, 1996).learners (Lawson & Hogben, 1996).

Good language learners, when Good language learners, when confronted with unknown expressions, confronted with unknown expressions, make educated guesses. On the other make educated guesses. On the other hand, less adept language learners hand, less adept language learners often panic, tune out or grab the often panic, tune out or grab the dictionary (Oxford, 1990).dictionary (Oxford, 1990).

The more advanced learners use The more advanced learners use context in order to decide the meaning context in order to decide the meaning of an unknown word, try to make of an unknown word, try to make guesses on the basis of what is guesses on the basis of what is familiar to them and they are more familiar to them and they are more successful than low-ability learners successful than low-ability learners (Carter, 1987; Kern, 1989).(Carter, 1987; Kern, 1989).

AIM OF THE STUDYAIM OF THE STUDY

to find the type of knowledge sources to find the type of knowledge sources Lower Intermediate and Intermediate Lower Intermediate and Intermediate Level EFL students use in inferencingLevel EFL students use in inferencing

to find similarities or differences to find similarities or differences between the students in two levels in between the students in two levels in terms of the use of knowledge sourcesterms of the use of knowledge sources

RESEARCH QUESTIONSRESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What type of knowledge sources do 1. What type of knowledge sources do the learners in intermediate and low-the learners in intermediate and low-intermediate levels use when they try intermediate levels use when they try to infer the meanings of unknown to infer the meanings of unknown words?words?

2. Are there any similarities and 2. Are there any similarities and differences between the students in differences between the students in these two levels in terms of correct these two levels in terms of correct guessing and the knowledge sources? guessing and the knowledge sources?

METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY

2001-2002 Academic Year Fall Term2001-2002 Academic Year Fall Term

Foreign Language School, Anadolu Foreign Language School, Anadolu UniversityUniversity

ParticipantsParticipants 26 intermediate level students26 intermediate level students 25 low-intermediate level students25 low-intermediate level students

(age range 18-22) (age range 18-22)

MATERIALSMATERIALS

Four authentic reading passagesFour authentic reading passages two of them were jokestwo of them were jokes two of them were advertisements two of them were advertisements

DATA COLLECTIONDATA COLLECTION

The students were given the passages one at a The students were given the passages one at a time in a four-week period. The students:time in a four-week period. The students:

• scanned the passages and underlined scanned the passages and underlined unknown words.unknown words.

• tried to guess the meaning of unknown tried to guess the meaning of unknown words.words.

• wrote how they guessed the meanings of wrote how they guessed the meanings of unknown words and what helped them to unknown words and what helped them to guess.guess.

DATA ANALYSIS 1DATA ANALYSIS 1

Analysing the data according to the Analysing the data according to the classification of Paribakht and Wesche classification of Paribakht and Wesche (1999)(1999)

Calculating all the responses and Calculating all the responses and finding their frequencyfinding their frequency

DATA ANALYSIS 2DATA ANALYSIS 2

Knowledge sources used in Knowledge sources used in inferencinginferencing (Paribahkt and (Paribahkt and Wesche,1999:2)Wesche,1999:2)

1. Homonymy: sound relationships of 1. Homonymy: sound relationships of phonetic similarity between the target phonetic similarity between the target word and another word in the learner’s word and another word in the learner’s mental lexicon.mental lexicon.

2. Morphology: knowledge of derivations 2. Morphology: knowledge of derivations and grammatical inflections.and grammatical inflections.

DATA ANALYSIS 3DATA ANALYSIS 3

3. Word associations: paradigmatic relations 3. Word associations: paradigmatic relations (synonyms or antonyms), syntagmatic (synonyms or antonyms), syntagmatic relations (words in the same category), relations (words in the same category), members of the same taxonomy members of the same taxonomy (superordinates, subordinates, coordinates).(superordinates, subordinates, coordinates).

4. Sentence-level grammatical knowledge: 4. Sentence-level grammatical knowledge: word-class information and syntactic category word-class information and syntactic category of the word.of the word.

5. Discourse knowledge: knowledge of cohesive 5. Discourse knowledge: knowledge of cohesive devices and establishing semantic links.devices and establishing semantic links.

6. Cognates: “words in one language 6. Cognates: “words in one language which is similar in form and meaning which is similar in form and meaning to a word in another language” to a word in another language” (Richards et.al, 1985:43).(Richards et.al, 1985:43).

7. World knowledge: familiarity of theme 7. World knowledge: familiarity of theme and topic of the text.and topic of the text.

8. Punctuation: knowledge of 8. Punctuation: knowledge of punctuation and capitalization.punctuation and capitalization.

Table 1. Inferences used by low-intermediate and intermediate level students for passage 1.

morphology word assoc. sent.lev.gram.knowdiscourse k.cognates world knowl. TOTALn % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

all inferences LI 2 2 8 9 5 5 18 20 43 47 0 0 16 17 92 100correct inferences LI 0 0 3 5 1 2 8 13 38 62 0 0 11 18 61 100all inferences I 0 0 1 2 0 0 16 25 38 60 0 0 8 13 63 100correct inferences I 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 35 76 0 0 5 11 46 100

Table 2. Inferences used by low-intermediate and intermediate level students for passage 2.

morphology word assoc. sent.lev.gram.knowdiscourse k.cognates world knowl. TOTALn % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

all inferences LI 1 0 14 13 12 11 12 11 48 43 2 2 22 20 111 100correct inferences LI 0 0 13 19 1 1 4 6 35 52 2 3 13 19 68 100all inferences I 1 1 11 11 14 14 5 5 45 45 2 2 22 22 100 100correct inferences I 0 0 7 10 10 15 4 6 32 47 0 0 15 22 68 100

Table 3. Inferences used by low-intermediate and intermediate level students for passage 3.

morphology word assoc. sent.lev.gram.knowdiscourse k.cognates world knowl. TOTALn % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

all inferences LI 1 1 4 6 2 3 3 4 35 49 16 22 11 15 72 100correct inferences LI 0 0 3 7 2 5 1 2 18 41 16 36 4 9 44 100all inferences I 0 0 3 12 0 0 2 8 12 46 5 19 4 15 26 100correct inferences I 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 11 52 5 24 3 14 21 100

Table 4. Inferences used by low-intermediate and intermediate level students for passage 4.

morphology word assoc. sent.lev.gram.knowdiscourse k.cognates world knowl. TOTALn % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

all inferences LI 3 4 1 1 4 6 3 4 37 56 7 11 11 18 66 100correct inferences LI 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 0 5 25 6 30 7 35 20 100all inferences I 0 0 1 1 8 10 2 2 52 66 2 2 15 19 79 100correct inferences I 0 0 1 2 7 11 2 3 35 58 2 3 14 23 61 100

homonymy

homonymy

homonymy

homonymy

RESULTS 1RESULTS 1

In terms of homonymy category, low-In terms of homonymy category, low-intermediate level students tried to use intermediate level students tried to use more sound relations in L2 and all their more sound relations in L2 and all their guesses were incorrect (premise-promise, guesses were incorrect (premise-promise, fruit-furious).fruit-furious).

In terms of word association category, In terms of word association category, intermediate level students tried to establish intermediate level students tried to establish associations of the words by using associations of the words by using synonyms and antonyms more than low-synonyms and antonyms more than low-intermediate level students.intermediate level students.

RESULTS 2RESULTS 2

The students in both levels employed The students in both levels employed discourse knowledge category more than discourse knowledge category more than the other categories. However, intermediate the other categories. However, intermediate level students were more successful in using level students were more successful in using their knowledge of discourse.their knowledge of discourse.

Low-intermediate level students seemed to Low-intermediate level students seemed to find the cognates of unknown words in their find the cognates of unknown words in their own language more than intermediate level own language more than intermediate level students (e.g. grease, menthol, barrier).students (e.g. grease, menthol, barrier).

CONCLUSIONS 1CONCLUSIONS 1

Students in intermediate level seem to be Students in intermediate level seem to be more successful than the students in low-more successful than the students in low-intermediate level in their guesses of the intermediate level in their guesses of the meaning of unknown words. This can be due meaning of unknown words. This can be due to the level of students and the degree of to the level of students and the degree of risk-taking. Beebe (1983) states that risk-taking. Beebe (1983) states that guessing is part of risk-taking and effective guessing is part of risk-taking and effective readers test out hypotheses when the readers test out hypotheses when the outcome is uncertain. Intermediate level outcome is uncertain. Intermediate level students might be said to be high risk-takers.students might be said to be high risk-takers.

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS 22

Low-intermediate level students tried to Low-intermediate level students tried to associate the unknown words with the words associate the unknown words with the words they already know and some of their they already know and some of their guesses were wrong.guesses were wrong.

Foreign language learners who are quite Foreign language learners who are quite early in their foreign language studies early in their foreign language studies acquire vocabulary using mnemonic acquire vocabulary using mnemonic techniques, or strategies which involve techniques, or strategies which involve cognates and phoneme correspondences cognates and phoneme correspondences (Lawson & Hogben, 1996).(Lawson & Hogben, 1996).

IMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONS

Students can be exposed to explicit strategy Students can be exposed to explicit strategy training in terms of guessing.training in terms of guessing.

Students may be exposed to different types Students may be exposed to different types of authentic reading materials and they may of authentic reading materials and they may be encouraged to guess the meanings of be encouraged to guess the meanings of unknown words in these texts.unknown words in these texts.

Students can be trained to make word Students can be trained to make word derivations and word associations.derivations and word associations.

Students, especially low level learners, can Students, especially low level learners, can be encouraged to read without dictionary.be encouraged to read without dictionary.

DATABASES - 1DATABASES - 1

EAT - The Edinburgh Associative EAT - The Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus (EAT) is a set of word Thesaurus (EAT) is a set of word association norms showing the counts association norms showing the counts of word association as collected from of word association as collected from subjects. subjects. http://www.http://www.ciscis..rlrl..acac..ukuk//projproj//psychpsych//eateat//eateat//

DATABASES - 2DATABASES - 2

WordNet® is an online lexical reference WordNet® is an online lexical reference system whose design is inspired by current system whose design is inspired by current psycholinguistic theories of human lexical psycholinguistic theories of human lexical memory. English nouns, verbs, adjectives memory. English nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs are organised into synonym and adverbs are organised into synonym sets, each representing one underlying sets, each representing one underlying lexical concept. Different relations link the lexical concept. Different relations link the synonym sets. synonym sets. http://http://cogscicogsci..princetonprinceton.edu/.edu/