Lexicon System on the Aspect of Vocabulary - Report Example

Lexicon System on the aspect of Vocabulary By Lexicon System on the aspect of Vocabulary Lexicon system is a technique of where language and brain are studied to find their relationships. These characteristics are correlated with certain parts of the brain to identify whether the different components of language are handled by different parts of the brain. The different components of language range from tenses, articles, pronouns among others. This analysis enable researchers to know which part of the brains is used to process the meaning of word, form of word and the morphological structure of words. According to Lexicon system development of vocabulary is highly dependent on factors like the context and duration which one studies a given vocabulary (Cenoz, 2013). Number of times the given word is mentioned and finally the ability of to learn and to understand and use the learned vocabulary. This research paper aims at analyzing the L2 lexicon system. How different components interact with others within this complex system. In order to understand the power of lexicon system, this research paper is going to analyze case studies of the academic English (L2) vocabulary. It has taken a lot of studies to study the development of vocabulary. Main emphasis has been on the active and passive setting of vocabularies, how people learn and acquire vocabularies. Over the several years, the Dynamic Systems Theory has been used to study the development of L2 vocabulary. This method focuses son the process itself rather than the end product of the process. In order to understand how DST model influences development of L2 vocabulary, certain aspects have to be considered. This are, the ability to remember words that were said in the past and use them in the current environment (Schreuder & Weltens, 2003). This paper will prove that the two environment are related and that patterns of variation between them are in accordance to the lexicon development system. Language and vocabulary exists in many spheres of life, ranging from medical, biology, geography among others. It is true to assert that language is dynamic and this dynamism gives birth to vocabularies. Be it to and individual or to a given community. Vocabulary development is not linear and is adversely affected by the interactions within the system. This is because factors that affect the ability of one to learn like memory capacity vary from one person to another (Read, 2000). Secondly some factors like motivation, give to people so that they can learn something, is affected by the sociolinguistic environment from where this language is developed. Language growth is thus affected and limited to its resources as written off in L2. Traditional accounts of mental lexicon refers to vocabulary as a single entity in the dictionary that occurs self-sufficiently of its use. However, as in most L2 findings, lexical studies normally center on pre- and post-treatment group effects and not on process that affect the development of an individual hence removing variation by using regression analysis to data. The dynamic approach regards the mental lexicon as a composition of word exemplifications which are “highly context-sensitive, continuously-varied, and probabilistic”. These illustrations are “trajectories through mental space” as opposed to stationary constructions. With regards to this perspective, word acknowledgement, ability to remember and production are graded progressions affected by interactions that govern the swiftness of word retrieval in a given framework. This is to say that, the meaning of word stored in the lexicon varies. Although there has not been application of DTS on empirical L2 vocabulary data, present lexical representations are fundamentally harmonious with dynamic observations (Panther, 2011). A mockup model of the bilingual lexicon has revealed that it unveils cooperative associations and iterative progress characteristic of dynamic systems. The intermingling L1 and L2 dictionaries characteristically settle in a fixed attractor state, in which L1 words are prevailing while those of L2 are inactive. The prevailing L1 lexicon remained reasonably stable, while the L2 lexicon was unbalanced and sensitive to worry. Thus, activating L1 lexical items failed to give large or permanent outcomes, though small sample size of L2 items sometimes produced iterative activation patterns which were analogous with the “butterfly effect”, a occurrence portraying unstable dynamic system in which, through succession of iterations, little alteration parameters have weighty effects on the all-inclusive system. In Meara’s simulation, the experiment led to large vocabulary attainment rendering the L2 lexicon momentarily leading within the bilingual system. Stoppage of L2 activation state, the system resumed its L1 dominance-L2 dormancy stability. Meara established that his simulation emulated the Boulogne Ferry Effect, in which inactive French vocabulary of British passengers is triggered by an impulsive disclosure to a small sample size of vocabulary items (Meara, 2005). This mockup magnificently models the ever-changing nature of the lexicon, it does not slot in the dynamic, shared and categorized nature of word know-how, whose simple definition is knowing a word and being in a position to use the word (Watkins & William, 2001). In the same way, a lot of research have put their attention on single words instead of the entire mental lexicon state. Furthermore, it has been resolved that findings pertaining to cross-sectional and group-trend be complemented with research that centers on the development of vocabularies. It is good to note that this study is a longitudinal one that focus on the how two levels of lexical knowledge develop and interact within an individual learner: free vs. controlled and recall vs. recognition. Free production is random and impulsive usage of aimed words in writing. Using the first letter as prompts. On the other hand, controlled production is caused by a framework from which the aimed word is omitted. In recall one is expected to supply the meaning of the word based on the definitions of the dictionary and finally recognition by providing the meaning as one choice out of four. Up to this moment, DST had not been openly applied to lexical data that is empirical in nature, yet studies involving vocabulary usually state that the lexicon as an archive of kept lexical items, that have associations with activation models. Yet the outcomes of several researches advocate that development of L2 lexical is well-matched with the features of a dynamic structure. While in L1 there is slight variance between passive and active vocabulary, in L2 these vocabulary have distinctly diverse rates (Ruhland, 2001). These rates are demonstrated in the number of vocabulary items that can be reclaimed or put into operation. In addition to that, these vocabulary differ across pupil competences, learning settings and intervals and word rate of recurrence. For example, it was established that if one stayed 2 years in a L2 environment, the timespan was adequate for passive knowledge to be transmitted. However, accumulation in passive vocabulary knowledge within and individual is not taken to mean free production, and it heavily relies on the learning setting which in this case are (EFL or ESL), the competence of the pupil (demonstrated by the number of passive vocabulary accumulated), and word rate of recurrence. This is to say that, correlations between understanding levels were neither constant nor steady, and varied as a function of word rate of recurrence and pupil expertise even though interactions between passive vocabulary familiarity and controlled or free production were foreseeable. Stats reveals that while more recurrent words had the possibility to go into production in general, the rate of development of controlled production varied as compared to that of passive vocabulary in any learning setting or time frame. As a result, it was stipulated that there may never be a transmission of passive vocabulary items into production. Progress of free production only occurred when categorization of passive vocabulary know-how was done and a starting point between intermediate and advanced was established (Schmitt & Meara, 2007). In an ESL setting, there was a substantial connection between passive vocabulary knowledge and free production across pupils, irrespective of expertise. On the other hand, this relationship was not found within level of expertise as a single entity. This proved that development of passive vocabulary knowledge, controlled production and free production do not occur at the same time at any given level of expertise or phase of learning. Free production was specifically found to develop at a slower pace and randomly than passive vocabulary knowledge. It was also found that the rate at which a word occurs influences the correlation between passive knowledge and controlled production. Nevertheless, the resilient influence was accredited to the duration in which one dwelt in the ESL settings. A duration of approximately two years was required to bring effect on the relationship between controlled active and passive vocabulary. In the end however, no substantial effect on free active vocabulary was shown. They explained the latter finding by a plateau reached by free active vocabulary. In the same way, in a research to identify how much one has gained after staying one year in L2, it was realized that there was an overall increase in vocabulary size. However, this increase in vocabulary size did not show up in specific word occurrences. In addition, in certain pupils, instead of the entire group. The research also revealed that some group of words on the pupils decreased as time progressed. It was earlier mentioned that one of the characteristics of any dynamic system is the ability of one of its component to change over a given time frame. These fluctuations in turn affect the extent environmental input affects the system. Conclusions from the above experiments, for instance, the fluctuating relations between passive and productive lexical knowledge levels within a given time frame and across learning settings, can be seen as well-matched with DST. Using the above results, one can therefore conclude that the study was aimed at understanding the L2 lexicon from a dynamic viewpoint by putting emphasis on how passive and productive lexical knowledge levels interact and develop (Newsome & Matthew, 2007). In order to practically understand how the DTS lexical development, the following case study together with its analysis will reveal this. It is going to analyze development and interaction of vocabulary level based on how it is easy to recognize a word, the ability to remember the word in passive dimensions, and finally in the active dimension, free and controlled production will be discussed. Vocabulary of target is the ESL as defined by the University and Academic Word Lists respectively, that is, UWL and AWL. The reason of choosing this is because ESL is limited in vocabularies and therefore it would be easier to calculate the percentage of know vocabulary by a given person. Statistically, the UWL and AWL contains 808 and 570 common word used in English, respectively. As female student taking, Masters in English speaking program, was picked at random. Her past indicate that she had done English related course and she had been an English tutor in a Chinese university. Her vocabulary level was tested at the beginning of the semester and at the end. Within the semester, she did English oriented assignments and submitted them within a period of ten days. At the end of the case study, she had done 300 assignments. This were enough to approximate the vocabulary size she had accumulate during her study time and on the environment she was in. Given that this female student had to write assignments of her choice and the environment she was in facilitated growth of vocabulary size, it was expected that she would have increased in level of recognizing vocabularies in each assignment delivered. Also it was expected that she would demonstrate the ability to recall vocabularies used in the previous assignments. The aspect of free production was based on the ratio of the total number of word types to the maximum number of words available in the academic dictionary. On the other hand, controlled production, the ability to remember words and recognizes word were based on a sample of words extracted from the UWL and AWL. At this point it is good to clarify the words used. The word “passive”, as in the case of passive word recognition, is used to mean having a clear understanding of the meaning of the word. On the other hand, “active” is used to mean having a clear understanding of the word itself and not its usage (Singleton, 2003). The following operationalization were used to passive and active recognition, passive and active recall respectively. One, choosing the best definition of a word out of four possible choices, secondly, ability to identify a word together with its meaning, the ability to remember a given word if meaning of the same is given and lastly ability to remember a word together with its meaning when given the first letter of the word. Analysis showed that she increased in productive knowledge dimensions while on the other hand she show little development in the passive vocabulary knowledge. On the other hand there was substantial increase in active and passive knowledge levels within the time frame she was under study. On the other hand, growth of free and controlled production were not hand-in-hand and they showed massive fluctuations. It can therefore concluded that, the component of language, in this case vocabulary development, compete for the available resources, time of study. The massive fluctuations and variations observed solidify the claim that growing components of language vary with time in a competitive way as in accordance to any language system. As to conclusion, dynamic systems undergo changes that are very unpredictable because of their nonlinearity nature. Component within a given system interact and compete with one another. As a result of this interaction and competition, they influence the external environment in as much as they are influenced by the environment itself. The study of the nonnative female speaker, who was exposed to an environment that, was meant to investigate development of English lexicon passive and active lexical knowledge and establish a correlation between them and the dynamic characteristics of the environment she was in. Findings of the study show that the lexicon L2 model is very dynamic where components interact leading to theoretical and pedagogical implications which are compatible and nonlinear nature of L2 lexicon system. The assumption of this system is that the passive vocabulary knowledge that a person has would be immediately transferred into production. References Cenoz, J. (2003). The multilingual lexicon. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Meara, P. (2005). Reactivating a dormant vocabulary. EUROSLA Yearbook, 5, 269-280. Schreuder, R., & Weltens, B.,(2003). The Bilingual Lexicon. John Benjamin Pub. Co. Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Panther, K.(2011). Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. John Benjamin Pub. Co. Watkins, R. H., & William, R. W., (2001). UTPS Lexicon. New York: The Office. Ruhland, H. G. (2001). Going the distance: A non-linear approach to change in language development. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (2007). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 17-36. Newsome, B., & Matthew, W. L., (2007). Speaking with a commonality language: a lexicon for system and component development. Cambridge: RAND Arroyo centre. Singleton, D. M. (2003). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More