Search

Aims and objectives: This study contributes to understanding L2 word learning and why "semantic accent" persists. It examines the impact of L1–L2 semantic relations, input conditions, and L1–L2 dissimilarity on learning outcomes. Methodology: Mandarin-speaking learners of English labeled actions in 26 brief videos, typically called carrying or holding by native speakers. The labeling pattern is simpler in English than in Mandarin but requires a shift to different semantic dimensions. Further, hold is a higher frequency term than carry. The learners were resident in either China (N = 34) or the United States (N = 25), with somewhat higher proficiency in the US sample. Twenty native English speakers in the United States also responded. Data and analysis: Learner groups' name choices were compared to each other and those of native speakers. Findings/conclusions: The dissimilarity between Mandarin and English did not block importing L1 meanings to L2, but progress was seen across sub-groups. Input variables did impact progress: immersion (mediated by proficiency) was better than classroom learning, and use of the higher frequency term was greater than of the lower. Notably, however, many learners narrowed to domain-relevant vocabulary without using the words in native-like ways despite the simplicity of the target L2 system. They appeared to update knowledge at the level of word form-to-domain mappings without updating word form-to-meaning associations. Originality: Semantic accent has been documented previously, but the L2 word learning trajectory and factors that contribute to semantic accent have not been well understood. This study advances that understanding. Significance/implications: Imported meanings are difficult to reshape even for dissimilar languages and even with immersion. Enhanced learning may require sensitizing learners to L2 semantic content via either explicit instruction or intensive exposure to discrepancies between L1 and L2 meanings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: We examined the bi-directional interaction of first language (L1) and second language (L2) word use patterns by asking whether L2 patterns of word use can be acquired with intensive exposure in a laboratory setting, and whether this early stage of L2 learning would impact L1 performance. Methodology: In two experiments, native speakers of English first labeled drinking vessels in English, then received intensive training on L2 Russian naming patterns for the objects, and, lastly, labeled the objects in English again. Data and analysis: Data were collected from eight different training groups with 14–15 participants each plus a control group with 14 participants who did not learn L2 Russian. Findings/conclusions: Trained participants successfully acquired L2 Russian patterns of word use regardless of specific training condition. However, they showed significantly less consistency in L1 English post-test labeling than the control group. Originality: Neither full acquisition of L2 patterns nor their simultaneous impact on L1 choices has been previously demonstrated. Significance/implications: These outcomes suggest that acquisition of target-like L2 word use can be facilitated by intensive exposure to word-referent mappings. However, even in the early stages of L2 learning, a L2 influence may be manifested in the L1 as a destabilization of word-to-referent mappings, suggesting continuous dynamic interaction between the two languages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]