Form-focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Case for Contrastive Analysis and Translation Present by: Alfasy-Vaxcman Sara & Juma’a Tufool Course: Vocabulary Teaching Teacher: Pro. Penny Ur Date: November, 25th, 2009 Laufer, B. & Girsai, N. (2008). Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694-716.

Introduction PART I - A Summary 2 types of FFI: Focus on form- drawing attention to lexical item within a communicative task environment. Focus on forms- practicing vocabulary in isolation or in minimal context. Both forms have been proven as beneficial to lexical learning.

Contrastive FFI of vocabulary: Leading to learners’ understanding of the differences and similarities between the words and the lexical system of their L1 and L2. Researchers’ preliminary hypothesis: Cross-linguistic FFI will benefit L2 vocabulary teaching.

3 hypotheses explaining the effectiveness in L2 learning: ‘noticing’ ‘pushed out’ ‘task-induced involvement load’ should be ‘pushed output’ not ‘pushed out’

The ‘noticing’ Hypothesis Learning language forms is achieved by consciously noticing forms and their meaning in input. For example, by a contrastive L2-L1 association. ‘noticing’ – upper-case N you should give the reference here (Schmidt), because the name is closely associated with the theory. Note that the original theory did not relate to use of L1: this is Laufer’s suggestion, so it’s not really ‘for example’, it’s more something like: By extension, this hypothesis could be applied to …etc

The ‘pushed output’ Hypothesis Language production and language development are improved by producing it and stretching the linguistic resources. For example, by translation into L2. Pushed Output (upper case first letter) Again, refer to Swain. And she, again, was not thinking of L1 use in her original theory, make it clear that this is Laufer’s extension of her ideas.

The ‘task-induced involvement load’ Hypothesis Learning lexical items by performing tasks with a high involvement load. Such tasks combine three elements: a ‘need’ motivational dimension of involvement a ‘search’ cognitive dimension of involvement an ‘evaluation’ For example, by translation tasks. You’ll need to explain to your audience what is meant by ‘motivational dimension’ and ‘cognitive dimension’ in practical terms. And show how Laufer applies these (at least the second two elements) to her ideas on L1 use.

Research in contrastive semantics, error analysis and psycholinguistics justifies the effectiveness of cross- linguistic FFI. For example, the case of collocational errors. Problem: relying too heavily on L1 collocational knowledge. Solution: raising learners’ awareness of the L1-L2 differences and practicing them through contrastive FFI would: reduce interference errors of L1 have a more effective influence on vocabulary learning. yes, you need to mention the key finding at the top of p.699, the sentence beginning ‘Dagut…’ You need to mention the two aspects of lexical items as such, and collocational connections – Laufer treats them as two separate aspects.

The study The researches’ additional hypothesis: Contrastive FFI will be as beneficial as (if not more) other types of FFI for the learning of new vocabulary. A comparison between 3 learning conditions: MFI- meaning focused instruction FFI- non-contrastive form-focused instruction CAT- contrastive analysis and translation

Research questions Will CAT lead to a larger number of acquired lexical items as opposed to the other two learning conditions? CAT’s effectiveness in lexical acquisition and learning of single words & collocations Will the differences appear on a delayed test, a week after performing the first test?

The tests examined knowledge of form- meaning relations of two kinds: Passive recall- the ability to retrieve and provide the meaning (in L1) of the target words (in L2). Active recall- the ability to retrieve and provide the form of the target words (L2) in response to their L1 translations.

Participants 75 10th graders, learners of EFL L1- Hebrew ‘5 point (advanced) stream’ of English Teaching stresses communication, but also occasional FonF Teachers do not practice translation The participants were divided into 3 classes. Each class, randomly assigned to one learning condition: The MFI group, the FFI group and the CAT group. were divided – the implication is that they were divided for the purposes of this study. Not so. They were already in three ‘intact’ (not tampered with or changed in any way) classes of roughly equal level.

Target Items 10 single, unfamiliar words and 10 verb-noun collocation in L2, chosen after conducting a pre-test and embedded in a reading passage. The pre-tests examined knowledge of: 50 words in English (L2) and 41 collocations in Hebrew (L1) which they had to translate from one language to the other. The purpose of the pre-test was to make sure that all the items to be used in the study were previously unknown.

Procedure An incidental acquisition design- investigating the acquisition of the target words and collocations without learners’ deliberate attempt to remember them. Treatment stages: The 1st stage- the same in all 3 classes. Read a passage and answer 13 true-false statements. and without learners knowing that they were going to be tested

The 2nd stage- 3 different treatments given, on the following day. Each one consisted of 2 tasks: one was with the text and the other without it. In both cases: no dictionaries were allowed. meaning of unknown words was inferred from context or provided by the teacher. Teacher went over all the answers and verified the target words.

The MFI group - 2 communicative tasks: a reading comprehension and a pair/group discussion. Both (content-oriented) tasks did not require attention to the target items. The FFI group - 2 form-focused tasks: meaning recognition of the target vocabulary (multiple choice exercise) and a text fill-in with a ‘word bank’. Both (text-based lexis) tasks focused on the target items. The CAT group – 2 translation tasks and a brief contrastive instruction: During Both (text-based translation) the teacher provided a contrastive analysis+L1 traslation of the target items. Go into more detail about the translation task: one was from hebrew into English, the other was the other way round.

Testing 2 unexpected tests (on target vocabulary) given a day after the treatment: Test 1- active recall: providing English words in response to their Hebrew translation. Test 2- passive recall: providing the meaning of L2 words in English or in Hebrew. A week later the same tests again.

Results - no decrease of scores on the delayed test. A comparison between tests: - no decrease of scores on the delayed test. - the passive recall in all tests- higher scores than the active recall tests. CAT group-highest scores. CAT: learning 72% of new passive vocabulary, 51%- active FFI: 50%- passive vocabulary, 27%- active MFI: lowest scores, almost no new learnt vocabulary The most difficult aspects of form-meaning knowledge were acquired by the CAT group.

The effectiveness of CAT can be explained by 3 L2 learning hypotheses: ‘Noticing’- according to James (2005) CA raises cross-language awareness assists in learning L2. ‘Pushed out’- L1-L2 translation task cognitively demanding task helps in remembering and producing correct words and collocations. ‘Involvement load’- translation tasks a search for meaning (L2 to L1) and form (L1 to L2), choice of a translation acquired new vocabulary. pushed output

Teaching Implications Becoming familiar with learners’ L1 and its linguistic structure. Raising students’ awareness of interlingual differences. Devoting teaching & practice time for lexical items which embody differences.

Conclusion Contrastive analysis and error analysis- vital components of language teaching. in other words Contrastive FFI in selected L2 areas is a way to achieve meaningful communication. This page does not represent Laufer’s position very accurately: think again.

PART II - Reflection Having read the article, we now realize that: L2 instruction seeks for meaningful communication, But the means for achieving it are not necessarily through communicative methods, this means that, a certain amount of contrastive analysis and translation activities should be incorporated in L2 vocabulary teaching. A strategy which was proved to be good for promoting vocabulary learning and ultimately for active recall (production) is best achieved when learners’ are asked to translate from L2 into L1 and later on from L1 into L2. requires search for meaning requires search for form The last sentence a bit odd: ‘a strategy … is best achieved?’ And I don’t like the use of ‘proved’ (Laufer doesn’t use it herself): better ‘indicate’ or ‘show’, or ‘support the hypothesis that…’

Some points to think about… Will different L1’s in class lead to different assumptions? Perhaps a longer gap (more than a week) between learning the target items and taking the delayed test, would lead to other results… Not clear what you mean by the first sentence: if students have lots of different L1s? or if the L1 isn’t Hebrew?