Using Morphological Analysis to Teach Vocabulary In English and French Classes By Constance O’Sullivan and Charlotte Ebel
Teachers as Scholars Institute Princeton University July, 2004 Marguerite Browning, Professor
Foreword Vocabulary instruction via morphological analysis requires syntactic knowledge and an awareness of the multiple levels of cognitive ability whether the target vocabulary is in English or in a second language. In this project, we will posit several strategies for accomplishing this task in order to facilitate the acquisition and maintenance of new vocabulary for our high school students in English and in French.
English Vocabulary Acquisition through Morphological Analysis Constance O’Sullivan According to the research of Baker, Simmons and Kameenui of the University of Oregon on “Vocabulary Acquisition: Synthesis of Research” new learning builds on what the learner already knows. Critical factors that contribute to vocabulary development include generalized linguistic differences, memory deficit, differences in strategies for learning new words, differential instructional procedures and depth of word knowledge. Through depth of word knowledge is association, comprehension and generation. Research suggests that after the age of seven the ease in which a student gains vocabulary levels off. Thus vocabulary growth varies among students and as a result the vocabulary gap grows increasingly larger over time. The question that comes to mind is “What happens at the high school level when the study of vocabulary is part of the curriculum?” High School students, (a group I call the “entertain me generation”) today have had access to computers and the Internet since they were in first or second grade. Because of this the study of vocabulary is considered boring if it is not accompanied by an activity. There are two ways to pursue this; the first is through an interactive student/computer program complete with bells and whistles. The second is through student group participation in the classroom. The Program The purpose of both programs is to develop and enhance vocabulary by using morphological analysis. In order to do this the student, the student must be armed with the knowledge that a morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of grammar (Glossary of Linguistic Terms.) In addition the student must know the differences between a root word, suffix and prefix. In order for a computer based or classroom-based program to be successful it is important to keep in mind that learning does not occur in a vacuum, (Baker, Simmons and Kameenui). Therefore just listing words for a student to analyze may not be interesting. Computer Based Activity ( activity time approximately 20 minutes) As this is a student – computer based activity the student loads the vocabulary program and is welcomed to the program with music. The computer displays a series of sentences highlighting the word to be analyzed and defined. Example: The young girl’s behavior was unladylike. Un lady like Un – not (prefix) Lady – well behaved female (root word)
Like – having the characteristics of (suffix) Should the student be unfamiliar with either a prefix or suffix they would be able to obtain the meaning by striking the appropriate box on the screen. If the answer is correct the computer would give the student a point and a puppy might bark, “you’re right” to the student. Classroom Based Activity (activity time approximately 20 minutes) The classroom setting offers students an opportunity to work in groups with immediate human feedback. Taking the same example of “unladylike” the activity would play as follows. 1. Each student in the class would represent a root word, prefix or suffix 2. Each student would have a listing of prefixes and suffixes to use as a reference. 3. The sentence is written on the board by a teacher or student Example: The Young girl’s behavior was unladylike. 4. A student would write the word on the board in...
Bibliography: Aliquot-Suengas, Sophie. 2003. The Actual Productivity of the French Suffix –ade. Langue française, 140, Dec., 38-55. Austin, Jennifer R.; Engelberg, Stefan; & Rauh, Gisa, eds. (Forthcoming in 2004). Adverbials: The Interplay of Meaning, Context, and Syntactic Structure. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Bayley, Robert & Preston, Dennis R. 1996. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Beaulieu, Louise & Balcom, Patricia. 2002. The Structure of French Adverbial Clauses : Sociolinguistic Arguments. Journal of French Language Studies, 12, 3, 241-262. Bogaards, Paul and Laufer, Batia, eds. 2004. Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Chomsky, Noam. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Dirvin, René & Verspoor, Marjolijn H. 2004. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Dryer, Matthew S. 1998. Aspects of Word Order in the Languages of Europe in Siewierska, Anna, ed. Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyler. Gardner, R.C. et al. 2004. Integrative Motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course. Language Learnin, 54, 1, 1-34. Ann Arbor: Blackwell. Goodfellow, Robin et. al. 2002. Assesssing Learners’ Writing Using Lexical Frequency. ReCALL, 14, 1, 133-145. Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding Morphology. London ; New York : Oxford University Press. Huot, Hélène. 1999. Constructions infinitives de français: le subordonnant DE. Génève : Librairie Droz. Huot, Hélène. 2001. Morphologie: forme et sens des mots du français. Paris : Colin. Karafuji, Takeo. 2004. Plural Morphemes, Definiteness, and the Notion of Semantic Parameter. Language and Linguistics, 5, 1, 211-242. Kriel, Mariana. 2003. Approaches to Multilingualism in Language, Place, and Identity Politics. A Critique. Society in Transition, 34, 1, 159-177. McBride, Nicole. 2002. Web Enhanced Approaches to the Teaching of Linguistic Variation in French. ReCALL, 14, 1, 96-108. McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGroarty, Mary E. & Faltis, Christian J., eds. 1991. Languages in School and Society: Policy and Pedagogy. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Guyler. Nagata, Noriko. 2001. An Application of Natural Language Processing to Web-Based Language Learning. CALICO Journal, 29, 3, 583-599. Pirvulescu, Mihaela. 2002. Morphological Paradigms and the Role of Tense. Révue québecoise de linguistique, 31, 2, 77-81.
Prandi, Michele. 2004. The Building Blocks of Meaing: Ideas for a Philosophical Grammar. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co. Sauzet, Patrick. 2004. La Singularité phonologique du français. Langue française, 3, 1850, Mar., 14. Schmitt, Norbert & Zimmerman, Cheryl Boyd. 2002. Derivative Word Forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly, 36, 2, 145-171. Sharvit, Yael. 2003. Embedded Tense and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 4, Fall, 669-681. Swisher, Karen E. 1989. Systematic Vocabulary Instruction through Morphological Analysis with Post-Secondary Students. Dissertation Abstracts International, A. The Humanities and Social Sciences, 49, 9, Mar., 2514-A. Wildgen, Wolfgang. 2004. The Evolution of Human Language : Scenarios, Principles, and Cultural Dynamics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document