“Un-/dis-connected” Aren’t They Interchangeable?: Investigating L2 English Learners’ Sensitivity to the Form-Meaning Link of Words with Negative Prefix Rivalry
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This mixed-method study investigates L2 acquisition of English negative prefix rivalry, a topic still underexplored. The central question is whether L1 Thai learners realize that English un-dis word pairs (e.g., unconnected versus disconnected) have different meanings. English has many negative prefixes, so such word pairs are prevalent, causing critical challenges. Despite both being negative, they differ in nuances, and are mostly not interchangeable. Un- and dis- are the most polysemous prefixes whose meanings also overlap, adding further confusion. Under the joint framework of cognitive semantics and the interlanguage hypothesis, we designed two form-meaning link tasks (i.e., without and with contexts) with follow-up interviews. Results indicated deeper problems at the prefix level. The flawed knowledge of negative prefixes caused them to have low sensitivity to each word’s meaning. L1 interference and ineffective instruction tended to be the main causes. However, with contexts, their sensitivity significantly improved (p < .001), indicating the necessity that contexts be present for the inference of this kind of word. The findings could reflect similar yet unnoticed problems in other L2 or even L1 contexts, as negative prefixation is filled with inherent complexities. The implications for material developers and teachers are therefore broadly applicable.
Article Details
References
Amirjalili, F., & Jabbari, A. A. (2018). The impact of morphological instruction on morphological awareness and reading comprehension of EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2018.1523975
Anthony, L. (n.d.). WordFamilyFinder. https://laurenceanthony.net/software/wordfamilyfinder/
Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/6.4.253
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford University Press.
Bielak, J., & Pawlak, M. (2011). Teaching English tense and aspect with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 365–400. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.4
Bielak, J., Pawlak, M., & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2013). Teaching the English active and passive voice with the help of cognitive grammar: An empirical study. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 581–619. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.4.7
Briceño, A. (2017). Language transfer in a dual immersion program: Cognates, morphology and language contrasts. NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 8(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/26390043.2017.12067799
Cartoni, B., & Lefer, M. (2011). Negation and lexical morphology across languages: Insights from a trilingual translation corpus. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47(4), 795–843. https://doi.org/10.2478/psicl-2011-0039
Charoenroop, P. (2021). Local perspectives on English language teaching in private tutoring in Thailand: Re-examining roles and implications. rEFLections, 28(3), 419–440. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v28i3.256348
Council of Europe. (n.d.). Global scale-table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common reference levels. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Retrieved January 15, 2024, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.
EF Education First. (2014). EF SET academic and technical development report. Retrieved January 21, 2024, from https://a.storyblok.com/f/79503/x/6c8302dc10/ef-set-academic-development-report.pdf.
Enconcept academic team. (2021). Junior grammar & error (ม.ต้น) 2. Enconcept.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (2021). Cognitive semantics. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 19–29). Routledge.
Hamawand, Z. (2009). The semantics of English negative prefixes. Equinox.
Hassanzadeh, Z., Tamjid, N. H., & Ahangari, S. (2019). The effect of lexical inference strategy instruction on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary depth and breadth. Cogent Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2019.1614750
Iwaizumi, E., & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does productive derivational knowledge of adult L1 speakers and L2 learners at two educational levels differ? TESOL Journal, 12(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.640
Iwasaki, S., & Ingkaphirom, P. (2005). A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge University Press.
Joshi, S. (2012). Affixal negation – direct, indirect and their subtypes. Syntaxe et Sémantique, 13, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.3917/ss.013.0049
Joshi, S. (2020). Affixal negation. In V. Déprez & M. T. Espinal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of negation (pp. 75–88). Oxford University Press.
Kallayanamit, S. (2019). Thai learners’ morphological awareness of English complex words and its effects on vocabulary-in-context usage. Journal of Humanities Naresuan University, 16(2), 1–22. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jhnu/article/view/249310
Kim, C. (2013). Vocabulary acquisition with affixation: Learning English words based on prefixes & suffixes. Second Language Studies, 31(2), 43–80. https://www.hawaii.edu/sls/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Kim-Cholo.pdf
Kjellmer, G. (2005). Negated adjectives in modern English. Studia Neophilologica, 77(2), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393270500355130
Kwon, H. (2001). Using corpora for the study of word-formation: A case study in English negative prefixation. Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 1(3), 369–386. https://www.koreascience.kr/article/JAKO200111922008604.pdf
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1997). The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 229–252). Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2015). Construal. In E. Dąbrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 120–143). De Gruyter Mouton.
Laws, J., & Ryder, C. (2014). Getting the measure of derivational morphology in adult speech: A corpus analysis using MorphoQuantics. Language Studies Working Papers, 6, 3–17. https://morphoquantics.co.uk/Resources/Laws%20&%20Ryder%20(2014).pdf
Luo, H. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 556–567). Routledge.
Mochizuki, M., & Aizawa, K. (2000). An affix acquisition order for EFL learners: An exploratory study. System, 28(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00013-0
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical inferencing strategy use and success. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(1), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.1.107
Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting two and two together: Middle school students’ morphological problem-solving strategies for unknown words. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.181
Puchta, H., & Stranks, J. (2015). English in mind: Textbook for fundamental English subject for Mattayom Suksa Year 3 (MGM reprint ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave McMillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230293977
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2012). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000018
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209
Smyth, D. (2014). Thai: An essential grammar. Routledge.
Sukying, A., & Matwangsaeng, R. (2022). Exploring primary school students’ morphological awareness in Thailand. World Journal of English Language, 12(6), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n6p388
Suteerapongsit, R. (2020). Systematicity of L1 Thai learners’ L2 English interlanguage of ‘wish-clauses’. [Master’s independent study, Chulalongkorn University]. Chulalongkorn University Theses and Dissertations (Chula ETD).
Tarone, E. (2018). Interlanguage. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0561.pub2
Thonglor, K. (2021). Lak phasa Thai [Principles of the Thai language] (55th ed.). Ruamsarn (1977) Press.
Tyler, A. (2017). Second language acquisition. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 73–90). Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English to, for and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–205. https://revistas.uvigo.es/index.php/vial/article/view/45/45
Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2013). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension in a foreign language: A study of young Chinese EFL learners. System, 41(4), 901–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.09.009
