Vocabulary Acquisition Quotes

My only defense is the acquisition of vocabulary.

Learn Languages the Right Way. Language acquisition games and abstract communicative method are bullshit. The second-best way to learn a foreign language is alone in a room doing skull-numbing rote memorization of vocabulary, grammar, key phrases, and colloquialisms. The best way is in bed.

The cause of the onset of overgeneralization [of regular past tense forms to irregular verbs] is not a change in vocabulary statistics, but some endogenous change in the child's language mechanisms.

The human child's use of words looks entirely different from Kanzi's because it is equipotential. There is apparently no limit to the child's rapid acquisition of new words and to their very wide application, and the child is constantly using words of everything and everybody she encounters. Kanzi, however, is stuck with few words and with limited application, and apparently has no impulse to develop them on his own or to use them except for limited purposes like making a request. We suggest that Kanzi's "vocabulary" relates to a finite number of frames of limited application and that because there is no higher-level blending capacity, those frames cannot be integrated fluidly, which is the power of blending and the sine qua non of language. The Eliza fallacy here consists in taking word combinations by Kanzi and assuming that Kanzi is doing mentally what the child would be doing with those same word combinations. We have no dispute in principle with the proposal that Kanzi or Sarah might know meanings, might associate symbols with those meanings, and might put some of those symbols together in ways connected with juxtaposition of corresponding meanings. We are making a different observation: This kind of symbol-meaning correlation need not be equipotential. For the limited frames Kanzi is using, his behavior and the child's might be quite similar, even though the underlying mental processes are different. It is a fallacy to assume that Kanzi is doing essentially the same mental work as the child. This is like assuming that because a chess-playing machine can play chess, it is doing all the fabulous double-scope blending that a human being does while playing chess. We suggest that our account is corroborated by the fact that Kanzi's vocabulary tops out at fewer than 200 words of limited application, while the six-year-old child uses 13,000 words with very wide application. The actual wide-ranging human use of even a rudimentary word turns out to be a major imaginative achievement.

Long and Porter examined the number of grammatical and vocabulary errors and false starts and found that learner speech showed no differences across contexts. That is, intermediate-level learners did not make any more errors with another intermediate-level speaker than they did with an advanced or native speaker. This was an interesting result because it called into question the argument that learners need to be exposed to a native-speaking model (i.e. teacher) at all times to ensure that they produce fewer errors. Overall, Long and Porter concluded that although learners cannot always provide each other with the accurate grammatical input, they can offer each other genuine communicative practice that includes negotiation for meaning. Supporters of the ‘Let’s talk’ proposal argue that it is precisely this negotiation for meaning that is essential for language acquisition.

certain other aspects of language—for example, individual vocabulary items—can be taught at any time. Learners’ acquisition of these variational features appears to depend on factors such as motivation, the learners’ sense of identity, language aptitude, and the quality of instruction, including how learners’ identities and cultures are acknowledged in the classroom.

Setting the bar at even 2,000 word families means learning 20 word families a week over two years, starting from zero: a daunting task, but not an impossible one. Nor a thankless one. There are grounds for believing that vocabulary size may be a reliable predictor, not just of reading proficiency, but of linguistic competence overall. Certainly, in first language acquisition, the processes of vocabulary development and grammar emergence are closely intertwined, with the former possibly driving the latter. Tomasello (2003: 93), for example, cites research that shows that ‘only after children have vocabularies of several hundred words [do] they begin to produce in earnest grammatical speech’, which suggests to him ‘that learning words and learning grammatical constructions

The annual rate of vocabulary growth is high to early school age English children. From Anglin (1993, 62) data we may appraise that first to third grade English children acquire 3,000 words per year, and that fourth to fifth grade English children acquire 10,000 words per year. We may assess that the early school years mark a rapid development in English children’s vocabulary. There is word-formation knowledge which assists early school age English children in such rapid enlargement of their vocabulary (Fowler, et. al., 2003; Nagy & Anderson 1984; Nagy, 1984; White, et. al., 1989; Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Calculating the number of members for each word family present in the textbooks used in elementary schools, Nagy & Anderson (1984, 20) expose that there are 6.88 members for each word family. Reasonably, Nagy (1988, 46) concludes that “there is no doubt that skilled word learners use context and their knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes to deal effectively with new words”. Certainly such high vocabulary growth is of great interest in L2 acquisition, though, it has been estimated that only the most advanced L2 learners acquire 3,000 words a year. The fourth chapter offers suggestion over the way advanced L2 learners’ acquisition of word-formation devices of their target language may be improved. Doing so, the chapter uses inferences drawn from both L1 and L2 acquisition.

L2 learners do not naturally acquire L2 productivity. Perhaps - in addition to their incapability to unconsciously acquire their L2 linguistic rules - there is their arbitrary, or rather their nonnative-like acquisition of L2 productive morphemes and productive word-formation rules, which impede them from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language, even if they may possess a larger vocabulary compared to pre school age native children. In other words, there is native children’s’ sensitivity for their L1 productivity, and, L2 learners’ reliance on Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and Morphological Translation Equivalence, resulting in L2 learners’ divergence from the natural order of acquiring L2 productivity, which makes native children look native-like, and impedes intermediate L2 learners from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language.

A five years old child may be aware of only 2 members for each word family he knows; perhaps one is the root word (i. e., mono-morphemic words) and the other is the complex one. Accordingly, Anglin (1993, 69-72) sustains that root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, whereas compound and derived words together constitute 41% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary.

Affected by their L1 Productivity, preschool age English children show a preference for productive word-formation rules (e. g. noun plus noun compounds) of their L1 (Haman et al. 2010, 178). As preschool age English children enlarge their lexicon, they show growing sensitivity for productive word-formation patterns (i. e. compounding) of their L1 (Clark & Berman 1984, 584; Haman et al, 2010, 186). Berko (1958) and Anglin (1993) proved that preschool age English children acquire mostly complex words formed according to productive word-formation patterns (i. e., compound words) of their L1. Early school age English children continue acquiring mostly complex words formed according to less productive patterns of their L1 (i. e., derived words) during their early school years. Estimating daily vocabulary growth for each word type to first, third, and fifth grade English children, Anglin (1993, 71-72) maintains that in a day early school age English children acquire 9.67 derived words, 3.86 literal compounds, 3.00 root words (i. e., mono-morphemic words), 1.92 inflected words, and 1.57 idioms. Guided by the same sensitivity for productive word-formation patterns of their L1, preschool age Polish children (whose L1 favors derivation over compounding), show a preference for derivation (i. e. derived words) over compounding during their early acquisition of word-formation devices (Haman et al, 2010, 186). By the way of analogical reasoning we may assume that, different from early school age English children, early school age Polish children continue acquiring mostly complex words formed according to less productive patterns of their L1 (i. e., compound words) during their early school years. Even, Polish children are presumed to have acquired most of their L1 derivatives during their preschool age, and, by the fifth grade to have acquired most of their L1 derivatives.

Examining early acquisition of word-formation devices, we noticed that preschool age English children acquire mostly root words. Root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary. Literal compounds constitute 25% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, and derived words solely 16% (Anglin 1993, 69-72). Imitating L1 acquisition we may uphold that pre intermediate L2 learners first have to acquire mostly root words during their early stages of L2 acquisition. It is well recognized among the scholars that knowledge of the root word and of affix/es facilitates acquisition of the derivative’s meaning in L2 acquisition. Knowledge of the root and of the affix/es enhances the semantic transparency of the L2 complex word in the eyes of L2 learners: chances for such complex words to be acquired analytically by L2 learners are also increased. On the other hand, L2 complex words - whose roots and affixes L2 learners are not aware of - do not possess semantic transparency in the eyes of L2 learners. Even, L2 learners may be disposed to acquire such L2 complex words as a unit rather than analytically.

Yet, L2 acquisition of word-formation devices differs from L1 acquisition. As suggested by the ‘Dual Semantic Transparency’, the Semantic Transparency of L2 word-formation morphemes is further enhanced by Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or by Morphological Translation Equivalence they share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. Therefore, L2 word-formation morphemes and complex words that have to be present in elementary books should be those which share Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and/or Morphological Translation Equivalence with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. In their article, Bauer & Nation (1993) should have considered the influence pupils’ L1 has on L2 acquisition of L2 affixes. Affixes’ order, suggested by Bauer & Nation (1993), has to be reordered according to the Orthographic & Phonological Overlap and Morphological Translation Equivalence L2 affixes share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1. When teaching vocabulary, teachers have to provide the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1. Presenting the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1 assists L2 learners in transferring the decomposition capability of L1 complex words to L2 complex words. Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair complex words share with each other assist L2 learners in transferring the information of the L1 complex word to its counterpart in pupils’ L2 (e. g., transitive verbs read, lees plus suffix –able/-baar resulting in adjectives readable leesbaar).

English children’s vocabulary increases rapidly during the early school years. Anglin (1993, 62) estimated that first grade English children know approximately 10,000 words, third grade pupils know 19,000 words, and fifth grade pupils know 39,000 words. The annual increase in vocabulary is estimated to be 3,000 words from the first to third grade and 10,000 words from the fourth to the fifth grade. Nagy & Anderson (1984, 20) uphold that there is “the ability to utilize morphological relatedness among words (which) puts a student at a distinct advantage in dealing with unfamiliar words”. In a later work, Nagy (1988, 46) acknowledges that: “there is no doubt that skilled word learners use context and their knowledge of prefixes, roots, and suffixes to deal effectively with new words”. In short, in addition to context, there is awareness of word-formation devices which accounts for such rapid increase in early school age English children’s vocabulary. Such high vocabulary growth would certainly be of great interest in L2 acquisition. Nakayama, N. (2008) tested the role that explicit teaching of affixes (prefixes) plays in vocabulary learning to pre- and upper-intermediate L2 learners. The participants received instructions over the contribution prefixes played in the meaning of the complex word during an academic year. L2 learners’ vocabulary was measured in the beginning and in the end of the academic year. Assisted by the instructions, L2 learners learned easier the new derived words, but, in the end of the academic year they had forgotten the derived words whose meaning they acquired through instructions over the contribution prefixes played in the meaning of the complex word (2008, 70). In the end, Nakayama, N. (2008, 68) concludes that systematic teaching of prefixes does lead to better retention of the derived word, but only with regard to short-term memory. On the other hand, it has been estimated that the only the most advanced L2 learners can acquire 3000 words a year (Bauer, L. & Nation, P. 1993); a figure comparable to that of early school age native children acquiring their L1. Hence, word-formation knowledge leads to high vocabulary growth to L2 learners, but solely to the most advanced L2 learners. We may uphold that word formation devices have to be acquired rather than learned through explixit instructions.

Another aspect noticed in L1 acquisition is the low acquisition of multi- morphemic words (i. e., complex words composed of three or more morphemes) by preschool age English children. Preschool age English children acquire solely 0.5 multi-morphemic words per day and multi-morphemic words constitute 8% of the vocabulary first grade English children own (Anglin, 1993, 71-79). First to third grade English children acquire 2 multi-morphemic words per day. Multi-morphemic words constitute 12 % of the third grade English children’s vocabulary. Fourth to fifth grade English children acquire 7.1 multi-morphemic words per day and multi-morphemic words constitute 19% of the fifth grade English children’s vocabulary (1993, 71-79). The low acquisition rate of multi-morphemic words by preschool age English children can be explained in terms of lack of parsability of multi-morphemic words. In his ‘Complexity-Based Ordering’ Model, Hay (2000, 2002) upholds that Level 1 suffixes (usually being Non-neutral suffixes), which occur inside other suffixes, are not parsed out during the processing of a multi-suffixed word by native speakers. Level 2 suffixes (usually being Neutral suffixes), which occur outside another suffix, are parsed out during the processing of multi-suffixes words. Level 1 suffixes: -al, -an, -ant, -ance, -ary, -ate, -ic, -ify, -ion, -ity, -ive, -ory, -ous, -y, -ity, -ation. Level 1 prefixes: sub-, de-, in-. Level 2 suffixes: -able, -age, -en, -er, -ful, -hood, -ish, -ism, -ist, -ize, -ly, -ment, -ness. (Fab, 1988, 531). Level 2 prefixes: re-, un-, non-. Obviously, such lack of parsability obscures the semantic transparency of multi-morphemic words and impedes the analytical acquisition of multi-morphemic words by preschool age English children. A strenuous effort to acquire multi-morphemic words would result in acquisition of such words as a unit (as the Lexeme-Based Model suggests, see Aronoff, 1994), rather than analytically (as argued by Morpheme-Based Model). Such lack of parsability also obscures the semantic transparency of multi-morphemic words and impedes the analytical acquisition of multi-morphemic words by pre intermediate L2 learners. The degree of Morphological Translation Equivalence that L2 multi-morphemic words share with their counterparts in pupils’ L1 is also lower compared to bi-morphemic words. Consequently, multi-morphemic words will be acquired as a unit rather than analytically by pre intermediate L2 learners. Elementary books designed for pre intermediate L2 learners - in addition to the insertion of root words - should also comprise less multi-morphemic words; perhaps solely or less than 8% of their vocabulary.

the term “merger” should be eliminated from the business vocabulary. There is no such thing. There are only acquisitions.

Language acquisition can be daunting, but with rapid learning, the journey becomes more efficient. Overcoming vocabulary challenges, reducing anxiety, and maintaining language proficiency become achievable goals through rapid learning principles.

The brain is more like a muscle and less like a storage area. If you really want to be a writer, you should want to write a lot. If you want to write a lot, then you need to be in training. You are preparing to run marathons, not emptying a suitcase. Learning new languages, acquiring new vocabulary, keeping yourself in various forms of constant logocentric discipline is one of the best things you can do. And language acquisition is nothing if not logocentric discipline.

Preschool age children successfully acquire their L2 productivity. Perhaps - in addition to their capability to unconsciously acquire their L1 linguistic rules - there is their effective acquisition of productive morphemes and productive word-formation rules and patterns of their L1 (i. e. morphemes and complex words most frequently used in everyday life) which grants them an early native-like look, even if they possess a small vocabulary (10,000 words) compared to adults.

L2 learners do not naturally acquire L2 productivity. Perhaps - in addition to their incapability to unconsciously acquire their L2 linguistic rules - there is their arbitrary, or rather their nonnative-like acquisition of L2 productive morphemes and productive word-formation rules, which impede them from attaining an early native-like manifestation of their target language, even if they may possess a larger vocabulary compared to pre school age native children.

Examining early acquisition of word-formation devices, we noticed that preschool age English children acquire mostly root words. Root words constitute 31% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary. Literal compounds constitute 25% of the first grade English children’s vocabulary, and derived words solely 16% (Anglin 1993, 69-72). Imitating L1 acquisition we may uphold that pre intermediate L2 learners first have to acquire mostly root words during their early stages of L2 acquisition. It is well recognized among the scholars that knowledge of the root word and of affix/es facilitates acquisition of the derivative’s meaning in L2 acquisition.

When teaching vocabulary, teachers have to provide the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1. Presenting the counterparts that L2 complex words have in pupils’ L1 assists L2 learners in transferring the decomposition capability of L1 complex words to L2 complex words. Morphological Translation Equivalence that pair complex words share with each other assist L2 learners in transferring the information of the L1 complex word to its counterpart in pupils’ L2 (e. g., transitive verbs read, lees plus suffix –able/-baar resulting in adjectives readable leesbaar).