Abstract
The purpose of this study was to expand upon available research which quantifies the relationship between single word characteristics and L2 listening comprehension. The effect of single word characteristics on L2 listening have been mostly studied in isolation in past research. Furthermore, little research exists on listening comprehension during the first years of L2 acquisition. To begin filling this gap, 172 English L2 novice participants were administered an isolated phrase transcription test in which participants must quickly attempt to transcribe phrases of four to five words they hear only one time. The independent variable word characteristics in this study were part of speech, phrasal position, word length, frequency, and Minkowski3 sensorimotor norms, an embodiment semantic variable. Word transcription probability (i.e., whether a word was transcribed or not) was analyzed using Rasch analysis and hierarchical linear mixed effects regression. Part of speech and phrasal position did not significantly predict word transcription probability. Word length, frequency, and Minkowski3 sensorimotor norms significantly predicted transcription probability. The findings of this study have implications for the creation of listening texts and theoretical models of L2 listening comprehension.
Test form
これから、14 個の英文を聞いてもらいます。それぞれの英文は一回ずつしか聞くことができません。それぞれの文には、4∼5 個の単語が含まれます。テスト用紙に、聞き取った英文を書き込んでください。スペルがわからない場合も、聞こえた英語の音に近いものを書いてください。記入する時間は、それぞれ 20 秒ずつあります。20 秒が終了すると、ブザー音が聞こえます。
You are now going to listen to 14 English phrases. You will hear each phrase only 1 time. Each phrase contains four or five words. Write down the English words you hear on this test form. If you do not know the spelling of a word, write down the closest equivalent to the sound you heard. You will have 20 s to write each phrase. You will hear a buzzer sound at the end of the 20 s.
References
Andringa, Sible, Nomi Olsthoorn, Catherine Van Beuningen, Rob Schoonen & Jan Hulstijn. 2012. Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning 62(Suppl. 2). 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.x.Search in Google Scholar
Artola, Alain & Wolf Singer. 1993. Long-term depression of excitatory synaptic transmission and its relationship to long-term potentiation. Trends in Neurosciences 16(11). 480–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(93)90081-v.Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald, Dustin Davidson & Douglas Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.Search in Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan & Graham Hitch. 1993. The recency effect: Implicit learning with explicit retrieval? Memory & Cognition 21(2). 146–155. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202726.Search in Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan, Neil Thomson & Mary Buchanan. 1975. Word length and structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14. 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80045-4.Search in Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence. 1999. Perceptions of perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4). 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99532147.Search in Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence, Ava Santos, Kyle Simmons & Christine Wilson. 2008. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. In Arthur Graesser, Arthur Glenburg & Manuel de Vega (eds.), Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, 245–283. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Blom, Elma, Johanne Paradis & Tamara Duncan. 2012. Effects of input properties, vocabulary size, and L1 on the development of third person singular–s in child L2 English. Language Learning 62(3). 965–994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00715.x.Search in Google Scholar
Bond, Trevor & Christine Fox. 2013. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Brunfaut, Tineke & Andrea Révész. 2015. The role of task and listener characteristics in second language listening. TESOL Quarterly 49(1). 141–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.168.Search in Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc & Boris New. 2009. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41(4). 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.977.Search in Google Scholar
Caporale, Natalia & Yang Dan. 2008. Spike timing-dependent plasticity: A Hebbian learning rule. Annual Review of Neuroscience 31. 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125639.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available at: http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Search in Google Scholar
Dudschig, Carolin, Irmgard De la Vega & Barbara Kaup. 2014. Embodiment and second-language: Automatic activation of motor responses during processing spatially associated L2 words and emotion L2 words in a vertical Stroop paradigm. Brain and Language 132. 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.02.002.Search in Google Scholar
Eckerth, Johannes & Parveneh Tavakoli. 2012. The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language Teaching Research 16(2). 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811431377.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2008. The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Peter Robinson & Nick Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 372–405. Milton Park, UK: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2009. Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In Micheal Long & Catherine Doughty (eds.), The handbook of language teaching, 139–158. Hoboken, USA: John Wiley and Sons.10.1002/9781444315783.ch9Search in Google Scholar
Farley, Andrew, Kris Ramonda & Xun Liu. 2012. The concreteness effect and the bilingual lexicon: The impact of visual stimuli attachment on meaning recall of abstract L2 words. Language Teaching Research 16(4). 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436910.Search in Google Scholar
Field, John. 2008. Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on? TESOL Quarterly 42(3). 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00139.x.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay & Mary Catherine O’Connor. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3). 501–538. https://doi.org/10.2307/414531.Search in Google Scholar
Foroni, Francesco. 2015. Do we embody second language? Evidence for ‘partial’ simulation during processing of a second language. Brain and Cognition 99. 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.06.006.Search in Google Scholar
Gallese, Vittorio & George Lakoff. 2005. The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology 22(3–4). 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310.Search in Google Scholar
Gaskins, Dorota, Maria Frick, Elina Palola & Antje Quick. 2021. Towards a usage-based model of early code-switching: Evidence from three language pairs. Applied Linguistics Review 12(2). 179–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0030.Search in Google Scholar
Gathercole, Susan & Alan Baddeley. 1993. Working memory and language. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Glenberg, Arthur. 1997. What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20(1). 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x97000010.Search in Google Scholar
Goh, Christine & Guangwei Hu. 2014. Exploring the relationship between metacognitive awareness and listening performance with questionnaire data. Language Awareness 23(3). 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.769558.Search in Google Scholar
Griffiths, Roger. 1992. Speech rate and listening comprehension: Further evidence of the relationship. TESOL Quarterly 26(2). 385–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587015.Search in Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Yusuke. 2010. Context effects on EFL vocabulary learning: Focusing on word imageability and test formats. JLTA Journal 13. 145–161. https://doi.org/10.20622/jltaj.13.0_145.Search in Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Brett. & Jesse Egbert. 2019. More than frequency? Exploring predictors of word difficulty for second language learners. Language Learning 69(4). 839–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12353.Search in Google Scholar
Hulme, Charles, Aimee Surprenant, Tamra Bireta, George Stuart & Ian Neath. 2004. Abolishing the word-length effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 30(1). 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.98.Search in Google Scholar
Katkov, Mikhail, Sandro Romani & Misha Tsodyks. 2014. Word length effect in free recall of randomly assembled word lists. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience 8. 129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2014.00129.Search in Google Scholar
Kimura, Harumi. 2008. Foreign language listening anxiety: Its dimensionality and group differences. JALT Journal 30(2). 173–196.10.37546/JALTJJ30.2-2Search in Google Scholar
Kormos, Judit & Anna Sáfár. 2008. Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism 11(2). 261. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728908003416.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson & Andrew Wilson. 2014. Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. Milton Park, UK: Routledge.10.4324/9781315840161Search in Google Scholar
Leeser, Micheal. 2004. The effects of topic familiarity, mode, and pausing on second language learners’ comprehension and focus on form. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26(4). 587–615. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263104040033.Search in Google Scholar
Lynott, Dermot, Louise Connell, Marc Brysbaert, James Brand & James Carney. 2019. The Lancaster sensorimotor norms: Multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ktjwp.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, 1. Redwood City, USA: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Linacre, John. 2021. Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com.Search in Google Scholar
McAndrews, Mark. 2019. Short periods of instruction improve learners’ phonological categories for L2 suprasegmental features. System 82. 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.04.007.Search in Google Scholar
MRC Psycholinguistic Database. n.d. Available at: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/school/MRCDatabase/uwa_mrc.htm.Search in Google Scholar
Patterson, Allie. 2019. Exploring paused transcription to assess L2 listening comprehension utilizing Rasch measurement. Shiken 23(2). 1–18.Search in Google Scholar
Patterson, Allie. 2021. Predicting second language listening functor comprehension probability with usage-based and embodiment approaches. International Journal of Bilingualism 25(3). 772–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069211000851.Search in Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, Friedemann. 1999. Words in the brain’s language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(2). 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x9900182x.Search in Google Scholar
Plonsky, Luke & Frederick Oswald. 2014. How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64(4). 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079.Search in Google Scholar
Quick, Antje & Anna Verschik. 2021. Usage-based contact linguistics: An introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics Review 12(2). 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0026.Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. Vienna, Austria.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2005. Cognitive abilities, chunk-strength, and frequency effects in implicit artificial grammar and incidental L2 learning: Replications of Reber, Walkenfeld, and Hernstadt (1991) and Knowlton and Squire (1996) and their relevance for SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 235–268. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263105050126.Search in Google Scholar
Salsbury, Tom, Scott Crossley & Danielle McNamara. 2011. Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research 27(3). 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310395851.Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert & Diane Schmitt. 2014. A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching 47(4). 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000018.Search in Google Scholar
Subtlexus Ghent University. 2015. Available at: https://www.ugent.be/pp/experimentele-psychologie/en/research/documents/subtlexus/overview.htm.Search in Google Scholar
Ulbrich, Christiane & Mikhail Ordin. 2014. Can L2-English influence L1-German? The case of post-vocalic/r. Journal of Phonetics 45. 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2014.02.008.Search in Google Scholar
Urdaniz, Raquel & Sophia Skoufaki. 2019. Spanish L1 EFL learners’ recognition knowledge of English academic vocabulary: The role of cognateness, word frequency and length. Applied Linguistics Review 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0109.Search in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry & Susan Baker. 2015. Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning 65(2). 390–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12105.Search in Google Scholar
Vandergrift, Larry & Marzieh Tafaghodtari. 2010. Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning 60(2). 470–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00559.x.Search in Google Scholar
Vermeer, Anne. 2001. Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied PsychoLinguistics 22(2). 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716401002041.Search in Google Scholar
Vukovic, Nikola & John Williams. 2014. Automatic perceptual simulation of first language meaning during second language sentence processing in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica 145. 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.002.Search in Google Scholar
Willis, Martin & Yoshie Ohashi. 2012. A model of L2 vocabulary learning and retention. Language Learning Journal 40(1). 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658232.Search in Google Scholar
Wilson, Ian, Emiko Kaneko, Paul Lyddon, Kiyomi Okamoto & Jason Ginsburg. 2011. Nonsense-syllable sound discrimination ability correlates with second language (L2) proficiency listening. 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences 495(195). 50–58.Search in Google Scholar
Yeldham, Micheal. 2016. The decoding of word classes by L2 English listeners. English Teaching & Learning 40(1). https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2016.40.1.03.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Shu, Micheal Morris, Chi-Ying Cheng & Andy Yap. 2013. Heritage-culture images disrupt immigrants’ second-language processing through triggering first-language interference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(28). 11272–11277. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1304435110.Search in Google Scholar
Zhao, Yong. 1997. The effects of listeners’ control of speech rate on second language comprehension. Applied Linguistics 18(1). 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.1.49.Search in Google Scholar
Zhao, Tianyang, Yanli Huang, Donggui Chen, Lu Jiao, Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos, Ruiming Wang & Jiushu Xie. 2020. The modality switching costs of Chinese–English bilinguals in the processing of L1 and L2. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 73(3). 396–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819878089.Search in Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf. 1999. Embodied cognition, perceptual symbols, and situation models. Discourse Processes 28(1). 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539909545070.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
