ofEnglish Language Education - JST

Japan Society of English Language Education

NII-Electronic Library Service

JapanSociety ofEnglish Language Education

Do Listening and Oral Reading ofVisually Presented English

Words Affect Implicit Lexical Recognition Memory?: An

Empirical Study With Japanese Learners ofEnglish

YuKANAZAWAGraduate SbhooL Kwansei ([ftikuin lhivensity

Abstract

The present study investigated the effect of oral reading, listening and repetition on

incidental L2 word-level memory trace fomiation of Japanese learners of English. The study

adopted an expeimenta1 procedure under the incidenta1 leaming pai;adigm, Thirty-two

participants with high proficiency in English, mostly consisdng of graduate students, were tested

individually, A thyme decision task was utilized in the study session and a recognition test was

implemented in the test session. The data gained from the recognition test were collected and

analyzed to measure the memory perfbrmance. [Ihe results revealed that the words which were

instmcted to be read aloud in the study session scored significantly higher in the memory test. Onthe other hand, the words which were presented both visually and auditorily at the same time borea significantly lower score in the memory test. It was concluded that oral reading strengthens the

L2 word-level incidenta1 memory trace. The negative result observed fbr the conditions featuringlistening was discussed further and two possible factors affecting the result are explained.

1. Introduction

1.I Quality of Processing

Vocabulary acquisition is one of the most important topics of EFL (English as a Foreign

Language) learning. Even though there have been many studies on this field from multiple

approaches such as strategy and teaching methods, it is also important to investigate the cognitivemechanism of human memory, which is a fundamental issue to discuss successfu1 vocahulary

learning. There have been many experimental psychological studies on the memory formation of1inguistic stimuli (e.g, Tulving, 1985) and it has been reported that different conditions of

processing stimuli result in different strengh in the forrnation ofmemory trace, which is measured

by memory tests such as recall tests and recognition tests, Then what is the factor facilhating the

formation of stronger memory trace? One common answer is that quantity of processing has theimpact; when a target items are repeatedly presented, memory trace is less slow to fade than when

141




the item is presented only once (e.g, Madigan, 1969; Melton, 1963; Neimatk & Saltzman, 1953;

Pimsleur, 1967). On the other hand, it has also been proposed and verified that not only quantity

but also quality ofprocessing affects memory performance (e.g. Hulstijn, 2013). One ofthe most

infhJential theories about the quality of pTocessing is the levels of processing (LoP; or "depth

of

processing") model proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). According to the LoP model, there is

a qualitative difference in the processing, Those items which have qualitatively mere "deeplY'

processed result in better performance ofmemory test because qualitatively deeper processing is

better in order to transfer inforrnation to long-terrn memory. ConcretelM a processing is deeper in

the foIlowing order: structural processing, phonological processing and sernantic processing

(Figure 1).

vov-=gv888s'co

z aElboration(strengthofmemorytrace)

ngure 1. The levels ofprocessing (LoP) model, drawn by the author refening to Craik and

Tulving (1975).

One ofthe important factors in the LoP model is the concept of elahoration; how elal)orately and

richly an item was encoded within a single encounter (Craik & Tulving, 1975). The concept of

elaboration takes into consideration the difference of processing occurring within one processing.

The extent of such elaborateness can vary within one level ofprocessing. For instance, in the view

of vocabulary leaming, all the fo11owing tasks are located in the same level (semantic level):

dictionary usage, searching of synonym, output activity and guessing the meaning from the

context. These tasks are more 1ikely to prodnce different results of memory perfbrmance because

each task reqpires diffbrent extent of elaboration (Laufer & Hulstljn, 2001).

1.2 Variety ofPhonological Processing

ln this section, the re1ationship between phonological processing and memory is discussed,

fbllowed by short discussion on the relationship between phonological processing and Ll

language leaming. rlhere

have been indications made al)out the relationship between phonological

processing and memory. Here are some representative findmgs:

142



JapanSociety ofEnglishLanguage Education

(A) The items encoded phonologically are better remembered than those encoded stmcturally

whereas less remembered than those encoded semantically in both incidental and

intentional learning situation (Craik & Tulving, 1975).

(B) The maintenance rehearsal, in which phonetical, not semantic, output is condncted,

contributes to short-terrn memoTy perfbrrnance but not to long-term memory

perfbrrr)ance (Craik & Watkins, 1973),

(C) Even when phonological processing was conducted, when it was repeated several times,

the memory perfbrmance can be higher than the semantic processing done only one time

(Nelson, 1977).

(D) Memory perfbmiance is the highest when the condition of encoding corresponds with the

condition of retrieval. Therefbre, if the memory test (the stage of retrieval) featured

phonological pro¢ essing rather than sematic processing, it is possible that the items

encoded phonologically are better recalledlrecognized than those encoded semantically

(Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977; Tajika, 2000).

(A) shows phonological processing is less effective than semantic processing and the result of(B)

is consistent with the notion. However, as the results of(C) and (D) show, there is a potential fbr

phonological processing to exceed semantic processing in terrns of memory trace formation,

Therefbre, it is worthwhile to investigate the effect ofphonological processing in detail instead ofdisregarding it as an ineffective processing.

As one approach to the investigation, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a variety in the

phonological level ofprocessing, the same as in the semantic level. Then, what variations could

there be in the processing of phonological level? Craik and Tulving (1975), the benclmark

research ahout the LoP model, regarded thyme decision task as the task requiring phonological

processing, Rhyme decision task is a task in which the participants judge whether two presentedwords rhyme with each other. Tlius, in fact, the rhyme decision task does not utilize overt!explicit

sound either in the form of listening nor speaking out. in other words, the phonological coding

used in the experiments ofCraik and Tulving (1975) are only covert in terms of sound.

IIhen, what would the memory perfbrrnance be if a rhyme decision task is condncted indifferent phonological conditions? To be specific, if the words being presented visually were

accompanied by the instruction that the words must be read aloud or were accompanied with

auditory presentation of the same words, could there be a different effect on memory

perfbrrnance? This study investigates this issue.

143




1.3 Vocabulary Acquisition and Phonological Processing

Before explaining the present study, the relevance of the study and vocatbulary acquisition is

briefly discussed.

From the perspective of Ll acquisition, Gathercole and Baddeley (1993) point out the

irnportance ofphonological processing ability en leaming new vocabulary. According to them,

phonological workmg memory directly contributes to the learning of new words. A person with

more adequate phonological memory ski11 is more efficient in learning new words, Phonological

processing does not only have a strong relationship with memory but also plays a crucial role in

Ll acquisition.

Even thougli there are many studies investigating the effect of L2 vocabulary acquisition

both in explicit and implicit conditions, most of them utilize only visual modes when presenting

the items to be leamed or encoded, However, as Laufer (1997) demonstrates, one of the most

crucial factors that promotes L2 vocabulary acquisition is the usage ofphonological knowledge.

Furthermore, Ellis (1994) emphasizes the importance ofphonological memory systems on FL

(Foreign Language) vocabulary leaming by pointing out the fact that the knowledge of the target

word fbrm (which supposedly includes the phonological aspects) must be constructed befbre

semantic aspects are paid attention. He also states that explicit leaming tends to occur on semantic

aspects of words while the aspects of form (which supposedly include the phonological aspects)

are 1ikely to be acquired implicitly. Therefore, incidental leaming is more likely to happen when

phonological, not semaniio, aspects are at stake.

1.4 Purpose, Research Questions of the Study

The purpose ofthis study is to inyestigate if and how different phonological conditions of

processing English words affect incidental memory trace fbrmation of Japanese learners of

English. A research question (RQ) was proposed as fo11ows:

RQ: Do oral reading (OR) and simultaneous listening

processing of visually presented English words

incidental L2 word-level memory perfomiance?

(SL) which accompany phonologicalhEwe positive or negative effect on

Different 4 (2 x 2) conditions were established to investigate the issue further (Figure 2):

(a) Oral readmg ofwords presented visually and auditerily (OR' SL' condition)

(b) Silent reading ofwords presented visually and auditorily (OR' SV condition)

(c) Oral reading ofvisually presented words (OR' SL' condition)

(d) Silent reading ofvisually presented words (OR- SL' condition)

144




-

Flgure 2. 0ral reading (OR'") and simultaneous listening (SL') in phonological encoding,

2. Method

2.1 Partieipants

32 Japanese people with high proficiency in English participated in this expeiiment (14males and l8 females; mean age

= 33.34; so

==11.56; mean score ofTOEIC test = 759.33; SD

=

184.35). They mostly consisted of graduate students who meq-or in Lingujstics.

2.2 Materials

The experimental words were selected from the farniliarity list ofYokokawa (2006). The 96

target words were subdivided into fbur groups to which different conditions were allocated. Strict

control was ensured so that there is no significant difference in the groups regarding form (lettercount), sound (syllable count), and meaning (BNC frequency and familiarity). All the words

chosen are either three, fbur, or five letter nouns with one-syllal)le and the ratio of these three

types of werds was balanced. The statistical analysis detected no significant difference between

the four groups conceming familiarity, F (3, 92) =.047,p =.986,

partial n ]=

.OO, and frequencM F

(3, 92) = .036,p =.991, partial n 2-

.OO,

Each target stimulus was paired with one prime word, The reason priming method was

adopted vvas that it was necessary in order to carry out the thyme decision task. The rhyme

decision task met the need of this study because it ensured fbr the target words to be processed

phonologically Because prime words were used in rhyme decision purpose onlM they were not

included in the words presented in the recognition test. The prime words were selected in the

criteria that all the words are highly frequent verbs and half of them thyme with the target word

and the other halfdo not (see Appendix fbr partial examples of stimuli),

96 extra nouns were also selected to serve as distractors of the test session, The distraetors

were selected from the criteria of (a) avoiding those words used in the study session footh the

target word in the study session and the words used in the practice trials) and (b) controllingstrictly under the same rule applied in the process of selecting the target encoding words, An

145




unpaired t-test was implemented to confirm that there is no significant difference in farniliarity or

in frequency between target words and distractors. The analysis deteeted no sighficant difference

between the groups about familiarity, t (190) = -.077,p

=.939, r =.O1,

and frequency, t (190) =,082,

p =.935,

r =.Ol.

Stimulus presentation software SuperLab@ 4.5 on lap-top personal computer was used to

present stimuli both at the study session and at the test session.

2.3 Procedure

The experiment was conducted individually. The experiment consisted of two sessions:

study session and test session, The rhyme decision task was utilized in the study session to ensure

phonological processing. There were 144 trials in the task, which are subdivided into 36 trials per

presentation mode. The order the words presented during the study session was randomized

within each phonological condition. The order of the fbur study conditions (la, lb, 2a, and 2b)

varied across the participants. In a trial, the prime word was visually presented fbr 1600 ms.

(millisecond) and then the target word was visually presented for 3000 ms. The dnration the primewords and target words were presented was determined based on Kadota et aL (201O). The flow

ofa trial is shown in Figure 3,

e

a respon$e

4 different modes ef evert

phonelegical processing

Iilgure 3. The flow ofa study uial. Each rectangle represents the infbrmation on the computer

screen.

146




In the two conditions in which oral reading was included (OR' conditions), a beep soundwas played. The timing beep sound was played was (1) at the same time the target word was

visually presented on the screen (OFV' SL- condition) or (2) 1OOO seconds after the onset ofvisual

preserrtation of the target word (OIV SI]' condition). Followed by the presentation of the target

word, participants judged whether the prime word and the target word thymed with each other or

not by pressing B key (Yes, they thyme) or N key (No, they don't rhyme). in order fbr the

participants to understand better ahout the procedure, stickers saying Yes and No are pasted on the

B key and N key respectively, Participants were instmcted that they should not think al)out the

meaning of the words presented and te focus on the decision whether two words rbymed with

each other or not. Tb familiarize participants with the procedure, practice trials (5 trials percondition) were implemenied, These practice trials were omitted from the data analysis.

After the study session, three minutes break, which supposedly eliminate the recency effect,

was set fbllowed by the study session. The visual recognition test was implemented in the study

sessien without previous notice to the participants (incidental learning paradigrn), The recogriition

task consisted of 192 trials, in which a word was visually presented on the sereen. Half of the

words presented (96 target words) were the words which appeared in the encoding task in the

study session while the other 96 words were newly presented words (distractors). Participants

were instructed to judge whether each word was the fbrmer (old) or the latter (new) by pressing Bkey or N key respectively.

2.4 Data Analysis

Dependent varial)les were the rate ofcorrect responses fbr each condition in the recogriition

test. The mean reaction times were also collected and analyzed in order to obtain data measuring

on-1ine cognitive processing (e,g. Jiang, 2012). Independent varial)les were the fbur diffbrent

phonological modes of encoding at the study session. There were two factors (OR and SL) and

each factor included two levels either "with

(+ [1 or a])" or "without

(- [2 or b])," The

experimental design was two factors (2 x 2 levels) within-subject experirnent, Analysis of

Variance (ANOXA) with repeated measures was used to analyze the collccted data,

3. Results

The result of different phonological conditions on correct recognition scores is shown in

[fable 1. Figure 4 is a grqphical presentation of [Rible 1 (in tahles hereinafter, n represents the

number ofparticipants and SD represents standard deviations),

147




Table177ie

Mlean Cbn'ect Response Rate (96? ofthe Recognition TcLsk: C7assijication According to

Phonolqgz'cal thnditions

Condition n Mean sw1 (OR+)

2 (OR-)

a(SL')b

(SL-)a (S L')b (SL-)

32323232 66,1679,4750,1359.4417.0213.4916.1216.79

IVbte, 1a = OR' (with OR) and SL' (with SL), 1b =

OR' (with OR) and SL- (without SL), 2a =

OR- (without OR) and SL' (with SL), 2b = OR' (without OR) and SL' (without SL); OR = OralReading. SL

- Simultaneous Listening.

l"""-""''''

l ll

i- c,

l, ra :o

l. I, ! lo,gl- E･

l .. :U

l fi) . g.

'L

i' e

;U

i･ =

l re :wIE

llllliii

{i

l

ngnre

9en8S%SCP)675%T{])6S5%60)6ss%50%4S%40%

With

Oral Reading

Without

.-.--･'l,

l l }, l ±

l･ i i l l l l lN ith

l-...ewithout l iSim"ltaneous iListening

I t i l l { s l t l l t-tHttttttlt

4. The mean correct response rates of the recognition task classified according to

phonological conditions. Each point represents the result fbr each condition. The error nmge lines

rqpresent the standard deviations ofeach condition.

A 2 (OR: + , -)

x 2 (SL: + , -)

ANOVA with repeated measures was perfbrmed. It revealed a

sigriificant main effect of OR, I7 (1, 31) ; 70,82, p < .Ol, panial ny 2 - ,70, and SL, F (1, 31) =

43,85,p < .Ol, panial n 2 !: .59. There was no interaction between OR and SL, F(1, 31) = 1.29,p

= .27, panial n2= .04.

148

NII-Electionic Libiaiy




ln addition to the correct response data, the reaction time (hereinafter, RT represents

reaction time) data were also analyzed. The effect ofdifferent phonological conclitions on RT isshown in Table 2. Figure 5 is a graphical presentation ofthe Table 2.

Table 277ie

dean Reaction Zfme (iniUisecon`V of([loniect Raponses in the Recognition 1insk:Clcitgsij7cation Aceording to Phonoibgieal Condltions

Condition n Mean sw1 (OR')

2 (OR-)

a (sLt)b (sL-)a (SL')b (SL-)

32323232 1464,16

1293.48

1537.00

134256

463,81403.42694.32395.17

2Vbte, 1a -=

OR' (with OR) and SL' (with SL), lb - OR' (with OR) and SL' (without SL), 2a =:

OR' (without OR) and SL' (with SL), 2b = OR- (without OR) and SL- (without SL); OR == OralReading. SL = Simultaneous Listening.

r'

i

:l

cg/

---;t ptIEl-l-i=l..o.-tUI

2.i=I st,IEIi!llIIiltsl

1900

lsao

1700

1600

IS(M)

1400

1300

1200

1100

loeo

t-t-N--t-ttttHtv/.t---wwTww-ww-nv-t---t--tt-pFttwwwhN-N--1

With

Ora} Reading

Without

ewith

-...rwithout

#l:iiI

{llIll

Simultaneous :Listening : l

i l I l

FVgure 5,

to phonological conditions. Each point represents

1ines represent the staridard deviation ofeach

The mean reaction times ofcorrect responses in the recognition task classifi

the result for each condition.

condition.

tHttttmket-rwwtttt-wwtrvH-twttt-Ht-ttt/tl

ed according

The error range

149




The RT data of recognition test were also submitted to a 2 x 2 repeated measures ANOVA with

the same independent variahles uti1ized in the analysis of correct responses. Sigriificant main

effect of SL was revealed, F (1, 3 1) = 7.61, p < .Ol, partial if 2 = .20. 0n the other hand the main

effect of OR was not significant, F (1, 31) =- O.80, p = ,38, partial q2 = .03, and there was no

interaction found between the IU of OR and SL, F (1 , 3 1) =: O.03, p = .87, partial ff 2 = .OO.

4. Discussion

4.1 Positive EfTect of Oral Reading

The efficacy of oral reading detected in the study is exarnined in this section. It was clearly

shown from the results of correct response rate that in order to make stronger incidental memory

trace ofwords presented visually, it is higlily beneficial (as significant as the p < ,Ol sigriificance

level) to read the word aloud.

The following rationales can explain this result. Iri the context of memory research,

"generation eflect" is reported, which suggests that stronger memory trace is fomied when

leamers engage in a cognitively demanding task which requires active and effbrtfu1 participation

(e,g. McNarnara & Healy, 2000). Even though mere oral reading of a visually presented word

may not be regarded as a generation activity which requires learners' active cogmtive processing,

it can at least be said that overt verbalization can contribute to monitoring the phonologieal

representation which was formed when visually presented words were phonologically encoded

and it Ieads to raising the awareness ofthe sound corrrprising covert rehearsal.

The theory of cogriitive load can provide another rationale, lt can be said that vocaVovert

rehearsal requires more attentional resource to spare, According to Kadota (2012, p. 160) overt

rehearsal is qualitatively different from inner rehearsal and requires different cerebral domains to

be activated. As these examples show, oral reading of visually presented words is a higher

processing aotivity regarding cognitive load, more elaborate processing is included, and more

1ikely that more elal)orate mental representation ofthe word is formed.

4.2 Negatiye Effect of Listening?

The effect oflistening is exarnined in this section, The correct response data clearly showed

that SL' conditions are actually more inethcient in recognitive memory perfbrrriance than SL-

conditions. The RT data is congruerrt to the result; repetition priming effect was weakened or lost

at the stage of recognition task when listening accompanies phonological processing of target

words in the study session. The results seem to imply that listening inhibits incidenta1 lexical

memory trace formation. However, as phonetic input is an essential aspect of teaching and

learning vocahularies (e.g. Schnitt, 2000), it is not wise to accept it literally and conclude that

listening is harTnfu1 to collecting lexical items in incidenta1 leaming. The possible rationales

behind the unexpected result are discussed in the subsequent subsections.

150




4.2.1 Sound as a distracting factor

The first answer to the seemingly negative eflect of listening toward memory trace

formation deals with the issue at the stage of encodmg. It was plausible to expect that visual and

auditory simultaneous input would induce cognitively demanding dual-eneoding and results inmore certain formation ofphonological rqpresentation ofthe stirnuli, On the contrary, however, itis possible that presentation with twe simultaneous modes actually distracted participants'attentional resource. Human beings haye a menta1 mechanism called

"selective

attention," which

means that when exposed to plural sensory stimuli, one can effortlessly and unintentionally

control the attention and direct attention to certain infbrmation while ignoring others (e.g. Layie,Hirst, de Fockert, & Viding, 2004). One of the simations where selective attemion is induced iswhen plural 1inguistic stirnuli are encoded simultaneously, as is known as the cocktail partyphenomenon. Therefore, it is 1ikely that either of the two modes of input was neglectea or even

interfbred with the processing of the other stimuli, leading to negative effect on memory in therecognition test.

At the same time, there could also have been a specific issue for Japanese EFL learners. It is

possible that the auditory input the participants heard was diffbrent, not to say distant, frorn theirL2 phonological knowledge. It is widely acknowledged as one ofthe weaknesses ofJapanese EFLlearners that their phonological knowledge ofEnglish is highly influenced by mora-thned thytkm

(so-called katahana pronunciation) which is not compatible with authentic spoken English (Otaka,1998). Even though the participants were high-leveled learners of English, this dissociation of

phonological knowledge peculiar to Japanese people may have contr:ibuted to the result that they

did not fu11y utilize the authentic English sound as an aid to remember the lexical items.

4.22 Transfer appropriateness

[Ilhe second possible answer to the seemingly negative effect of listening toward memory

trace forrnation deals with the issue in the stage of retrieval. As was explained in 1.2, TransferAppropriate Processing (TAP) is reported as one of the contradictions to the LeP framewoTk

(Morris, et aL, 1977). Accordmg to TAP, the rnernory perfbrmance is higher when the conditionof retrieving a word corresponds to the condition of encoding a word. ln the test session of theexperiment, the participants were made to judge whether the words presented on the computerscreen appeared in the preceding rhyme decision task or not, The mode ofpresentation at the testsession was visual and there were no phonological conditions included in the test session. Becauseofthis, it is possible that the auditory memory traces which the participants implicitly acquired inthe study session, if any, were not given a chance to be utilized fu11y in the test session.

TAP can also explain the fact that the reaction time was longer in the SL' conditions.

According to Franks, Bilbrey, Lien and McNamara (2000), the strongest repetition priming effectis detected when TAP is ensured, in which the condition where a word was presented at first is

151




identical to the condition where the word was presented at the second time. in the present

experiment, the words were presented in visual mode at the second time (i.e. test session), Judging

from the theory, the repetition priniing effect was strongcst when the first presentation was also in

visual mode. Therefbre, it is reasonal)le to conclude that SL- items, which met TAP requirement,

produced strongest repetition priming effect and shortened reaction time.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Summary of Key Findings

It has been known that different modes ofprocessing words results in different strength of

the memory trace, This study focused on the diversity in the phonological level ofprocessing and

examined whether oral readmg andror simultaneous listening, which accompany phonologiqal

processing of visually presented L2 words, can have different impacts on incidental mernory

perfbrmance. It was revealed that there surely exist differences of elaboration within the level of

phonological processing. The findings can be listed as fbllows:

(a) Oral reading of visually presented words contributes to the fbrmation of stronger

incidental lexical memory trace.

(b) Reading and listening to words simultaneously is not effective in the fbrmation of stronger

lexical incidenta1 memory trace.

(c) Oral reading rnore strongly contributes to the stronger incidental lexical memory than

listening to written words,

5.2 Pedagogical Implications

Although the present study did not direotly examine L2 vocabulary acquisition, the results

revealed here imply the fo11owing points in L2 vocal)ulary learning,

FirstlM oral reading is eertainly a beneficial activity in incidental memory trace formation.

This is likely to imply that oral reading is also beneficial in implicit vocal)ulary learning and thus

oral readmg should be recommended by teachers. Through ora1 reading, there are more chances to

relate the input with one's long-term memory either consciously or unconsciouslM enabling more

elaborate processing with relatively lighter cognitive load. Although oral reading (e.g. chorus

reading) has basically been an essential activity introdnced in English reading classes in schools in

Japan, there also is a tendency to underrate the importance oforal reading and to transfer the time

fbr oral reading to other activities. Judging from the findings of the present studM oral reading

should not be skipped, especially for important words to be memorized, even when there is a

severe restriction of time, as is the case in English classes in high schools. Because the benefit of

oral reading is present when one do not pay much attention to the meanings of the words, it is also

recomrnended that important words be read aloud extensively Oral readmg should not be

152




restricted to introductory activity in the classroom, but should also be introduced in privatepractlce.

SecondlM ifthe goal ofan activity is to make students remember vocabulary items, it might

be a better idea for teachers to abstain from presenting them visually and auditorily at the same

tirne when presenting English words to students. It can be interpreted that multi-moda1

simultaneous presentation can distract students' attention and result in less fixity in memory

ThirdlM instruction ofaccurate pronunciation nies is needed. As was mentioned in 4.2, it is

possible to interpret that the dissociation of L2 phonological knowledge prevented the ethcient

use of auditory input. [[b minirnize the gap, it may be better fbr Japanese EFL learners to befamiliarized more with authentic spoken English.

5.3 Further Study

The present study investigated the effect of overt phonological conditions on processingEnglish words. Although phonological aspects are essential component of L2 lexical processing,

they contribute to comprehensive understanding of L2 lexical processing and memory only when

they are related with and integrated into other depth ofprocessing. In order to accomplish the goar,it is required to investigate the deeper level ofprocessing (i.e. semantic precessing) and investigate

the relationship between phonological representation and deeper features of the words more

elaborately: Further study is expected to relate the findings of tlie present study to degper

understanding ofthe mechanism of L2 lexical processing and acquisition.

Acknowledgment

I would 1ike to thank Professer Shnhei KADOTA and my colleagues in his seminar fbr theirhelpfu1 support and comments. I also would like to extend my gratitude to the teachers at

Graduate School of Language, Communioation and Culture at Kwansei Gakuin University fbr

their constmctive suggestions both on contents and on forms.

References

Craik, F. I, M, & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels ofprocessing: A framewotk fbr memory research.

.Journal of VerbalLearning andBehavio4 Il, 671-681. doi:

10.1016fSO022-5371(72)80001-X

Craik, F. I, M, & Turving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retemion ofwords in episodic

memory. Jbuxnal ofExperimental Rsychology, 104 268-294. doi:

10.1037100963445.104.3.268

Craik, F. I. M. & Watkins, M. J, (1 973). The role ofrehearsal in short-term memory. fournal of VbrbatLearning and VbrbalBehavio4 i2, 599-607. doi: 10.1016fSO022-5371(73)80039-8

153




Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in lariguage processing: A review with implications fbr

theories ofimplicit and explicit lariguage acquisition. SZudies in SlecondLanguage Aceuisition,

24) 143-188, doi: 10,1017/S0272263102002024

Franks, J, J., Bilbrey, C. W., Lien, K. G. & McNamara, T. P. (2000), Transfer-appropriate

processing (TAP) and repetition priming, Mbmo,:y and Ct)gnition, 28 (7), 1 140-1 151. doi:

10.3758!BF03211815

Gathercole, S. E. & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Pforkiug memoi:y and language, Hove: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Ltd,

Hulstijn, J. H, (20I3). Incidental leaming in second language acquisition, ln C. A,Chapelle (Ed,), 77ie encyclopedia ofapplied lingnistics (pp. 2565-2569). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell,

Jiang, N. (2012). Conducting reaction time researeh in second language st"dies. New Yotk:

Routledge.

Kadota, S, et aL (201O). [[he intedece between lexical and sentence processing in L2: dn

empirical study ofJapanese EFL leamers, KAKENseika report IReport oj'tite Grant-in=Aid

for Scientij7cResearch (7Vo, 1952053ny bji Ministry ofEducation, Culture, fiPorts, Science

and 7lachnology in .lapawf.

Kadota, S. (2012). S]iadbwing ondoku to eigoshuutoktt no hagaktt (77;e science ofshadowing oral reading and Iinglish acquisitionj. Tokyo: Cosmopier.

Lanfer, B. (1997). wnat's in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that

affect the learning ofwords. in N. Schrnitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), PbcabulaTJ,: Deycription,

acquisition andpedagogy (pp. 140-155), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. H. (200t), lncidental vocabulary acquisition in a second laiiguage: The

construct oftask-induced involvement. AppliedLinguistic g, 22 (1), 1-26. doi:

10.1093!applin122.1,1

Layie, N,, Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W, & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory ofselective attention and

cogr}itive control, Jlbuxnal qfTIixperimental Ils:rchology: GenenaL 133 (3), 339-354. doi:

10,103710096-3445.133.3.339

Madigan, S, A. (1969). intraserial repetition and coding processes in free recall. Jburnal ofPlerbal Leaming and VerbalBehavio4 8 (6), 828-835. doi: 1O.1Ol61SO022-5371(69)80050-2

McNarnara, D, S. & Healy, A. F. (2000). A procedural explanation ofthe generation effect for

simple and diMcult multiplication problems and answers. Jbumat ojTMemoiy andLanguage,

43 (4), 652-679. doi: 10,1006ljmla.2000.2720

Melton, A. W, (1963). lmplications of short-temi memory for a general theory ofmemory.

Jbumal of PlerbalLearniug and forbal BehavioL 2, 1-21. doi:

10.1016!SO022-5371(63)80063-8

Monis, C. D., BransfoTd, J. D, & FTanks, J, J. (1977). Levels ofprocessing versus transfer

appropriate processing. .lburnal of Vlenbal Leanzing and Vlerbal Behavioag 16, 5 1 9-533, doi:

10.1016!SO022-5371(77)80016-9

154




Neirriaik, E. & Saltzrrian, I. J, (1953), lntentional and incidental learning with different rates of

stimulus presentation. Amen'can .lburnal of1!tsycholbgy 66, 618-621. Retrieved from

http:llwwwjstor,orgfstablel1418960

Nelson, T, O. (1977), Repetition and depth of processing. fournal qf' 7erbal Learning and 7erbal

BehavioL Ia l51-171. doi: 10.1016fSO022-5371(77)80044-3Otaka, H. (1998). Eigo onsei kyouiku no tameno ktso riron l]Basic theoryfor Englishphonetic

educationj, Tokyo: Seimidou.

Pimsleur, P. (1967). A mcmory schedule. 77ie Mbdenn Langunge JburnaL 5i, 73-75. Retrieved

fromhttp:!!wwwjstor.orglstal)le!321812

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vbcabula,:y in language teachiug Cambridge University Press.

Tajika, H, (2000). Episode memory, ln N, Ota & H. Taga (Eds.), Kioku kenkyuu no saizensen

[77ie.17'ont ofmemor:v stu`igl (pp. 45-66). Kyoto: Kitaojishobou.Tulving, E, (translated by Ota, N) (1985). 7letlving no ldoku riron: lipisotie keoku noyouso

l]Episodic memo,:)tl. Tokyo: Kyoikushuppankabushikigaisha.

Yokokawa, H. (2006), IVihonjin eigo gakushutcsp7a no eitango shinmitsudo: Mbjihent]English

familiarity of'.lapanase Ehglish leamens: PP}'itten word vensionj, Tokyo: Kuroshioshuppan.

155




Appendix

Examples of the stimuli used for the study sessien and their conditienal attributes.

Tlarget Farnlliarity Frequency Numberof OR

words (Ybkokaw42oo6) eNC) letters

SLRhyme decision

correctanswerPrirnewords

bedboxgapguylifedeorpdrwinggroupdreamshapeknifebusredimPltsizejunenngpacehousenightbeachbleckeggcatgasleghairsidelistnecksoundstoleski1!binhpenatpmcoWsnowdateseedleafworldprideitutmarch2223251305132113135710Sl150518626392512271ag272640201919937792S185936l195617372723097841478294294946127116921165697042951420192048418514170320046seo5426051698411384439g4996623732759982285137610798328100243301673514905499128651445014512119803941623323762747198160602153988146ll15014108388291813156802269Sg99112515583127Sl18676259525913736210373407511658S033030S0231742133334444s5s533334444555533334444s555333344445555++++++++++++

++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++yesNoNoyesNoyesyesNoNoYbsyesNoyesNoNoyesyesNoyesNoNoyesyesNoyesNoyesNoyesNoyesNeNeyesNkesNoNoyesNoyesNoyesksNoNeyesyesNospreadstopslipdyglveexploresharegamtellseemescapehuntfocushavesatisfyPerMltadviseworksmgscanhitwriteteachdemandbegmeetpasschatcornparevisitexistrcformknowexplorefi11standlikewearrunallowfinishwaitbreedcarryarrivediviclesheotscrearn

156

Documents

ofEnglish Language Education - JST