The Effect of Number and Presentation Order of High-Constraint Sentences on Second Language Word Learning.
This paper presents the results of an experiment that investigated the effects of number and presentation order of high-constraint sentences on semantic processing of unknown second language (L2) words (pseudowords) through reading. All participants were Chinese native speakers who learned English as a foreign language. In the experiment, sentence constraint and order of different constraint sentences were manipulated in English sentences, as well as L2 proficiency level of participants. We found that the number of high-constraint sentences was supportive for L2 word learning except in the condition in which high-constraint exposure was presented first. Moreover, when the number of high-constraint sentences was the same, learning was significantly better when the first exposure was a high-constraint exposure. And no proficiency level effects were found. Our results provided direct evidence that L2 word learning benefited from high quality language input and first presentations of high quality language input.
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, School of Psychology, Beijing Normal UniversityBeijing, China; State Key Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal UniversityBeijing, China; Department of Education Management, School of Education, The Open University of ChinaBeijing, China.
Tengfei
T
Ma
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University Beijing, China.
Ran
R
Chen
Children's Learning Institute, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Houston, TX, USA.
Susan
S
Dunlap
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, School of Psychology, Beijing Normal UniversityBeijing, China; State Key Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal UniversityBeijing, China.
Baoguo
B
Chen
presentation order; reading; second language; sentence constraint; word learning
Neuroimage. 2010 Feb 1;49(3):2826-35
19837174
J Cogn Neurosci. 2008 Dec;20(12):2153-66
18457509
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006 Dec;49(6):1175-92
17197489
Memory. 2005 Apr-May;13(3-4):422-9
15948628
Behav Res Methods. 2007 Aug;39(3):445-59
17958156
Behav Res Methods. 2010 Aug;42(3):627-33
20805584
Cereb Cortex. 2007 Aug;17(8):1858-66
17056648
Dev Neuropsychol. 2010;35(4):376-403
20614356
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015 Jul;159:116-22
26094128
Front Psychol. 2011 Nov 21;2:340
22125543
Cogn Psychol. 2013 Feb;66(1):126-56
23142693
Biom J. 2008 Jun;50(3):346-63
18481363
J Neurosci. 2010 Dec 15;30(50):16864-7
21159957
Brain. 2005 Mar;128(Pt 3):615-27
15548554
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 Jan;27(1):225-35
11204099
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Jul;62(7):1420-9
19048451
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 9;110(28):11278-83
23798423
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006 Oct;49(5):955-69
17077208
J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Aug;17(8):1212-28
16197679
Lang Learn Dev. 2012 Jul;8(3):278-302
23125559
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 31;108(22):9014-9
21576483
Mem Cognit. 2007 Jul;35(5):1122-35
17910194
Cognition. 2013 Feb;126(2):268-84
23200510
Psychol Sci. 2013 Jun;24(6):1017-23
23610135
J Neurolinguistics. 2008 Nov;21(6):509-521
19079740
Cognition. 2010 Aug;116(2):289-96
20621846
Front Psychol. 2012 Feb 29;3:41
22393326
J Cogn Neurosci. 2006 Dec;18(12):2030-48
17129189
Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Feb;17(2):89-98
23313359
J Mem Lang. 2008 Nov;59(4):434-446
19884961