Headnote
Abstract
This study aimed to explore if learners of a second language (L2) transfer second language (L2) lexical components onto the present semantic content of their first language (L1) interpretations, as well as the role of context in this transfer. Forty-five native Turkish-speaking first-year students from an English Language Teaching (ELT) Department with a B2 level of English at a Turkish foundation university participated in this study. Data were collected through the Semantic Transfer Test designed by Sönmez-Boran (2018). The study's findings showed that Turkish EFL adult learners tend to transfer semantic information from their L1s to L2s when learning L2 vocabulary. This was evident in the participants' responses to the vocabulary test, where they tended to choose L2 words that shared semantic relations with their L1 counterparts. On the other hand, the transfer is weaker when context support is given. These results have important pedagogical implications for teaching L2 vocabulary to Turkish EFL adults. Teachers should focus on providing contextual information to help reduce the degree of semantic transfer from the learners' L1s to their L2s. Overall, the study contributes to the understanding of the function of context in L2 vocabulary acquisition and the impact of L1 on L2 vocabulary learning.
Keywords: semantic transfer, second language acquisition, English language teaching
Öz
Bu çalışmanın amacı, ikinci dil öğrenenlerin ikinci dil sözcük bileşenlerini birinci dil yorumlarının mevcut anlamsal içeriğine aktarıp aktarmadıklarını ve bu aktarıma bağlamın etkisini araştırmaktır. Bu çalışmaya bir Türk vakıf üniversitesinde İngilizce Öğretmenliği Lisans eğitimi alan ve B2 İngilizce dil seviyesine sahip, ana dili Türkçe olan kırk beş birinci sınıf öğrencisi katılmıştır. Veriler, Semantik Aktarım Testi ile toplanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenen yetişkin Türk öğrencilerinin, ikinci dil kelime dağarcığını öğrenirken semantik bilgiyi birinci dillerinden aktarma eğiliminde olduklarını gösterdi. Bununla birlikte, bağlam mevcut olduğunda bu aktarımın azaldığı görüldü. Çalışmanın sonuçları ışığında yabancı dilde kelime öğretimi için pedagojik çıkarımlar vurgulanmıştır. İngiliz dili eğitimi öğretmenleri öğrencilerinin yabancı dil kelime dağarcıklarını geliştirmeye çalışırken öğrencilerin birinci dillerinden ikinci dillerine semantik aktarım derecesini azaltmaya yardımcı olmak için bağlamsal bilgi sağlamaya odaklanmalıdır. Genel olarak bu çalışma, ikinci dil kelime ediniminde bağlamın işlevinin ve ikinci dil kelime öğrenimi üzerindeki ana dilin etkisinin anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunmaktadır.
Anahtar kelimeler: semantik aktarım, ikinci dil edinimi, İngiliz dili eǧitimi
INTRODUCTION
Psycholinguistics is the language processing and acquisition field focusing on language production. It has been regarded as an essential component of the multidisciplinary area of cognitive science, which combines study in linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience to help understand how humans think, interact, and process during language usage. The relationship between the two lexicons of bilingual people, which has been questioned and is a contentious issue in psycholinguistics, has been extensively studied and documented in the literature. Bilingualism as an issue in psycholinguistics is highly debated. Bilinguals have to deal with two languages, leading to a question about the relation between the two linguistic systems. Since the beginning of research into bilingualism, many analyses have been done to examine this issue and comprehend how multilinguals access their lexicons and what kind of relationship exists between their two languages. According to Coady (1997), the interrelation between the languages of the bilingual individual is a very complex issue affected by different factors such as context, language ability, and cognitive control.
The study of bilingual lexicons is inextricably linked to the concept of code-switching, in which bilingual individuals transition between languages within a single utterance. In this regard, most researchers have relied on the Code-Switching Theory to investigate the cognitive and social implications of altering bilingual languages. In line with this theory, code-switching does not occur randomly but follows some grammatical and pragmatic principles, as noted by Cantone (2007). Psycholinguists research the cognitive consequences of code-switching and the mechanisms bilingual speakers employ in controlling their lexicon to produce speech. Even if many early studies within psycholinguistics were conducted in terms of sentence production level, due mostly to assumptions regarding behaviorism, research is now organized around word and discourse levels, according to Bock (1990), because of the integration of interactionist view and social constructivist model as shown by Boran-Sónmez (2018).
The Functionalist Perspective, which leads language transfer research, maintains that language transfer is a natural result of second language (1.2) learners' efforts to apply their understanding of their mother tongue while learning a new language. This provides a key component of the psycholinguistic study of language transfer, examining how one's realization of one language influences his or her use of another language (Van Valin Jr, 2003). Language transfer has emerged as a significant concern within the field, with scholarly investigation centering on the function of transfer in semantics, syntax, phonology, and discourse (Yuan, 2013). Language transfer effectively represents the typical inclination of second-language students to use what they know about their mother language while attempting to acquire another language (Lado, 1957; Zobl, 1980). Much research on L1 influence claimed that this effect existed at all linguistic levels, including syntactic, lexical, syntactic, and phonological (Oldin,1989). Regarding semantics, Jiang (2002) claimed that some L2 lexical components get fossilized at a particular degree of vocabulary due to the already -established LI lexicon. He also proposed that lexical judgment tasks may be used to investigate such fossilization. Jiang (2002) created a lexical choice task to investigate how L1 structures transfer semantically. The Turkish first-year ELT students study followed Jiang's design with a sample of Turkish native speakers with upper-intermediate English levels using the semantic transfer test designed by Sónmez-Boran (2018). Jiang (2004) stressed the significance of gathering further evidence for the semantic transfer theory, concluding that additional research is needed to determine if the extended L1 semantic mediation found in this research is a general phenomenon or unique to particular groups of language learners.
Literature Review
From a functional view, language is used to communicate meanings; hence, a language learner must master the lexicon. Unlike young learners studying their mother tongue, second language learners bring pre-existing semantic and conceptual frameworks connected to their L1 (Ellis, 1997). According to [jaz (1986), 1.2 learners relied mainly on the semantic equivalence hypothesis. This theory simplifies lexical meaning acquisition in the 1.2 by reducing it to the relabeling of ideas previously learned in the first language. She also states that this hypothesis "confounds and complicates vocabulary acquisition in L2 by ignoring cross-linguistic differences in conceptual classification and differences in the semantic boundaries of seemingly corresponding words in the L1 and 1.2" (р. 443). It is the responsibility of foreign language learners to ascertain how a new label should be used in the context in which it was initially encountered. Thus, it is accurate to say that the most essential aspect of learning vocabulary in a second language is context (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992).
Jiang (2000) suggested a psycholinguistic adult second language vocabulary learning model based on the lexical entry model developed by Levelt (1989), which suggests two levels of information: (1) lemma, semantic and syntactic information, and (2) lexeme, morphological, and phonological/orthographic information served as the foundation for the model. Lexical meaning extraction and integration present challenges for adult second language students because, in the early phases of the vocabulary learning model, they often receive less contextualized input than children. As a result, especially in the beginning, they do not have to pick up new meanings or concepts when learning 1.2 words. In other words, they comprehend the term's meaning within an existing semantic framework tightly related to their L1. Learners correlate this L2 term with its L1 translation to help them recall it. In the second phase, the L2 word takes on both the Ll word's lemma information (i.e., dictionary information) and the 1.2 lexeme information (i.e., lexical meaning unit underlying a group of words The L1 continues to considerably influence the L2 word use, just as it does in the first stage as lexical processing and production are still mediated by the lemma information of its L1 interpretation. The 1.2 lexeme is finally paired with its lemma information. However, the model (Jiang, 2000) implies that multiple words may fall short of the third phase, and thus, L1 lemma mediation may produce a consistent state of lexical processing in 1.2 learners. The semantic transfer hypothesis, derived from Jiang's (2000) model, states that a second language novice will rate a word pair's semantic similarity higher when it has only one equivalent in the source language than when it has a variant translation (Alkhathlan, 2007). In other words, the semantic transfer is "the concept onto which an 1,2 word is mapped is an LI concept" (Jiang, 2004, р. 419). Similarly, Martins (1984) study revealed that 1.2 learners prefer to employ 1.2 terms based on their L1 meanings, resulting in lexical errors. According to the results of [jaz's (1986) study, mother tongue conceptual patterns appear to be important drivers of the meaning given to L2 terms. According to Kroll and Stewart's (1994) Revised Hierarchical Model, this model can also be considered logical. According to this paradigm, there is a developmental shift from reliance on L 1 lexical mediation to more direct linkages between L2 words. This psycholinguistic model represents the bilingual lexical representation in memory.
Alkhathlan (2007) employed research to examine the position of the first language's semantic structures in L2 form-meaning mapping for Arabic EFL learners and native English speakers using a design similar to Jiang's (2002, 2004) studies. The study's findings were parallel with Jiang's (2002, 2004) findings, in which there appears to be a disparity between native and non-native speakers in accomplishing a lexical-decision task. The study's findings similarly matched the same-translation effect discovered by Jiang (2002, 2004), demonstrating the function of L1 semantic information in lexical processing and 1.2 word representation. Tolentino and Tokowicz (2011) published a review investigating if the similarity between the Ll and L2 affects the processing of (morpho)syntactic structures in the 1.2, utilizing both neural location and temporal processing data. Studies employing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and event-related potential (ERP) techniques reveal that non-native speakers can exhibit native-like online processing behavior and neural activation patterns when processing L2 (morpho)syntactic structures. They suggested that cross-language similarity has a substantial role in influencing 1.2 (morpho)syntactic processing.
Yuan (2013) investigated language transfer in-depth, examining its role in discourse, semantics, syntax, and phonology. The study included several language pairs, revealing similar and divergent semantic transmission trends across diverse language combinations. These cross-linguistic investigations are critical in determining whether semantic transfer is universal or peculiar to distinct languages. Nasiri (2013) specifically explored how semantic transfer from the Ll (Persian) impacts Iranian EFL learners' processing and representation of 1.2 vocabulary. Employing experimental methods, Nasiri investigated how Persian semantic structures influence learners' ability to understand and use English words accurately. The results showed the presence of L1 influence in processing L2 words and great difficulties for the learner in using lexis because of semantic transfer, which is always from 1.1. Nasiri's research has shown that EFL learners in Iran rely on the conceptual structures of the mother tongue to come up with English vocabulary; this brings both clichés and wrong usage of English vocabulary. This study 1s beneficial for perfecting the understanding of the details of semantic transfer in other languages and practice-oriented problems of pedagogical subdisciplines. In addition, Mede et al., (2014) examined the transfer of language use among Turkish EFL students and the syntactic transfer concerning verb placement. During this study, 19 beginner-level Turkish EFL students studying at a private university in Istanbul were tested using grammaticality judgment and picture description tasks. Apart from the verbs being repositioned, the findings showed considerable signs of the transfer of syntax, that 1s, in the positioning of the verbs in sentences. These results support the idea developed out of the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) on the acquisition of a Second Language, which states that structures from the First Language (in this case, Turkish) do affect the learning of the Second Language (English). This study, therefore, contributes to existing literature showing that the 1.1 impact 1s not Just restricted to the lexicon or the meaning of words. Similarly, González Alonso et al. (2021) conducted a study addressing the effect of prior language knowledge that 1s relevant to a specific domain on the acquisition and development of new mental representations that can be uncovered through careful examination.
Although various research studies on EFL. vocabulary learning/teaching have been undertaken in Turkey, there are an inadequate number of studies focusing on the Turkish EFL context. One of the earliest studies was conducted by Oztuna (2009) in which she tried to determine how well negative evidence and input flood work when handling make/do collocations. According to Oztuna (2009), most Turkish EFL learners employ the verbs "make" and "do" interchangeably because they have the same dictionary meaning in Turkish or they have problems selecting which one to choose. Another study by Sônmez-Boran (2018) aimed to explore the level of native language (Turkish) transfer in identifying English verbs with only one Turkish translation as distinct. The results demonstrated that more experienced learners of foreign languages bring their fully formed semantic and conceptual frameworks, demonstrating that the participants were heavily impacted by their mother tongue. It was also stated that context undeniably influenced students' word choice.
Building on these insights, Uzun (2020) carried out a study looking into negative collocation transfer among Turkish undergraduates who were learners of English. An analysis of 160 literary review essays written by ELT second-year students revealed that about a quarter of lexical collocations picked up from these writing exercises were negative transfers from L1 (Turkish). The study used the Detection, Explanation, and Evaluation model for collocation analysis and pointed out that more inappropriate collocations were due to direct translations of Turkish expressions into English. These results imply that the first language considerably influences how written texts in the second language are produced. This underlines the need for teaching explicitly targeted at poor writing performance through improper collocations in EFL contexts to reduce cases of negative transfer. Similarly, Jomaa (2021) researched to investigate how Turkish influences English learning in EFL students at Karabuk University. It was observed that negative transfer from Turkish into English is much more common than positive transfer concerning grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. This is consistent with the semantic transfer hypothesis and emphasizes the limitations Turkish EFL learners experience because of the structural and phonological dissimilarity of the two languages.
On the other hand, in probing the context effect on language learning concerning lexicon vocabulary by Turkish EFL learners, Zarfsaz and Yeganehpour (2021) explored how Turkish EFL learners' vocabulary learning and retention are impacted by three different context levels: zero, decreased, and high. In their study, three cohorts of sixty students were tested on several variables to determine how much context they were asked to remember. The study used pre-tests, immediate post-tests, and delayed post-tests to evaluate vocabulary retention and acquisition. Their results demonstrate the value of rich contextual settings by showing that, in comparison to context high-context conditions considerably enhance both productive and receptive vocabulary knowledge.
The study by Nguyen (2022) investigated the ways context affecting language learning. It compared vocabulary retention among students taught under rich and meaningful contexts with those in permissible and decontextualized settings. The findings indicated that those exposed to contextual environments had a better vocabulary than non-contextual ones, primarily when based on real-life events and narratives. The study emphasizes that context is of importance for EFL students' successful long-term vocabulary retention. Yilmaz and Cókers (2023) research further explore this concept by comparing how vocabulary learning techniques are utilized in EFL environments. Their findings indicate that EFL students tend to employ acquisition strategies more frequently than ESL learners due to the limited immersive environment in EFL contexts, which may hinder the use of diverse strategies. To improve vocabulary retention and strategy use, both research highlights the critical role that contextual circumstances play in influencing vocabulary acquisition methodologies and the necessity of introducing contextual components into language teaching.
Considering the literature above, the present study aims to investigate whether Turkish first-year ELT students engage in semantic transfer from their L1 to their L2, as well as the role of context in this transfer. It also aims to provide implications for understanding the function of context in L2 vocabulary acquisition and the impact of Ll on L2 vocabulary learning. While global research provides theoretical underpinnings and cross-cultural insights, domestic research can provide complex perspectives, particularly within the Turkish-English bilingual setting. The current study combines these viewpoints by drawing on international theories and local empirical findings, extending the understanding of semantic transfer in bilingual language development.
The study aims to investigate the following research questions:
1. To what extent do the participants consider the English word pairs with the same Turkish translation interchangeable?
2. To what extent do the participants differentiate these word pairs accurately when provided context?
3. To what extent do the participants use the correct word from these word pairs while translating when provided with the context?
METHOD
Research Design
This empirical research collects data directly from participants to investigate semantic transfer in second-language vocabulary acquisition. The quantitative study methodology allows for the collection of numerical data to analyze the extent of semantic transfer among Turkish first-year ELT students and the role of context in this transfer. Using a quantitative approach enables the statistical data analysis to draw valid and reliable conclusions regarding the research questions (Bryman, 2001).
Participants and Setting
This study involved 45 native Turkish-speaking freshman students at a Turkish foundation university's English Language Teaching (ELT) Department. All participants are currently in their second semester and are being trained to become English language teachers upon completing their 4-year education. To ensure the participants' language proficiency level, they have all passed the proficiency exam administered by the School of Foreign Languages of the same institution, which required at least a B2 level of English.
Due to practical considerations, the researcher utilized an intact class approach to choose the participants. The test was administered over three lesson hours, focusing on all students in the classroom enrolled in the Structure of English course. Hence, all students enrolled in the ELT Department of the institution in the second semester were included in the study.
Data Collection Tool and Process
A Semantic Transfer Test developed by Sonmez-Boran (2018) was used to determine whether participants engaged in semantic transfer. The designer stated that to ensure the instrument's validity, three other professors with PhD degrees in the relevant field contributed to the development of test items. After a review, test items that were frequently used were chosen to be included in the final version. To ascertain the intelligibility of the test items, ten intermediate-level EFL students enrolled in a different university preparation program took a pilot test prior to the central test administration.
The test consisted of ten pairs of English, and it consisted of 3 parts. The students were required to evaluate if these words could be used interchangeably or not in the first phase of the test. In the second phase, the learners were asked to complete the sentences using the words from the first part of the test to examine the function of context in the students" selection of interchangeable usage. Finally, they were asked to complete a forward translation assignment from Turkish to English to determine how well the participants could construct these words. They were required to employ the identical pairings from the first section of the test.
In three lessons, the Semantic Transfer Test was given to avoid any potential impact on the participants' semantic decisions. Only the first half of the first purpose, which 1s to investigate 1f the participants are conducting semantic transfer, was used initially. The second component was provided in another class hour to investigate the influence of context on semantic transmission. Finally, the forward translation portion was delivered in the third hour.
Data Analysis
The tests were evaluated by three experts: the researcher, who is a PhD candidate in ELT; one who holds a PhD in ELT; and another who is a PhD candidate in ELT. Following establishing a consensus on the correct answers for the remaining items, descriptive statistics were employed to examine the data obtained during the semantic transfer test. SPPS 22 was used to analyze statistical data. The accurate response percentages for each word in three sections and the total accuracy rates of each group were assessed distinctly. This analytical approach enabled the research team to summarize and present the key features of the data collected from the participants concisely and meaningfully. Finally, to be able to see whether there is a statistically significant difference among the results of the parts of the test, one-way ANOVA was applied. Tukey 's HSD test was used for post-hoc multiple comparisons between sections, as ANOVA indicated significant differences between at least two groups.
Research Ethics
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee at Biruni University (Protocol Number: 2022/70-18) prior to data collection. Those who participated were notified of the study's objective, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty. All participants provided informed consent. Throughout the research process, all data were anonymized and maintained in strict confidence.
FINDINGS
According to the data collection instrument results, the right response for each word in each section was determined. The participants anticipated having trouble distinguishing the words in the first phase, reflecting a reliance on L1 lexical structures during L2 vocabulary acquisition. The mean accuracy rate for the first part of the test was 57,5%, demonstrating a notable degree of semantic transfer from 1.1 to L2, as can be seen in Table 1. The most misunderstood word pair was participate-attend (20%). This finding implies that learners frequently confuse these two words because of their semantic similarity in Turkish, where a single word "katılmak" conveys both meanings. The word pair "bakery-oven" had the highest accuracy rate (78%), indicating that participants had more success in differentiating these words. This could be because there were more distinct conceptual and linguistic representations of the two terms in both 1.1 and 1.2. The higher accuracy may have resulted from the significant differences in these words' functions and usage. No pair of words, on the other hand, yielded an inaccuracy rate of more than 78%, through which the reliance on L1 semantic structures in the absence of context is evident.
The accuracy rates for the second section of the Semantic Transfer Test can be seen in Table 2. It is shown that the average correctness percentage in the second section, where the participants were given contexts, is 80.9%, which is higher than the average accuracy rate in the first section, indicating noticeable improvements in the participants' ability to discriminate between word pairs. The important role that context plays in assisting learners in navigating semantic differences between closely related L2 vocabulary is highlighted by this notable improvement.
The second part also has some eye-catching findings. The word pair ranked as the least correct in the first section was evaluated as the most accurate (participate -attend) in the second part (96%). This unexpected change demonstrates how context helps students recognize distinctions in meaning and usage between these two words, Which are frequently confused 1n L1. By giving students more context, 1t seems that they can comprehend the English meaning of these words on a deeper level, which lessens their reliance on 1.1 translation. Not all word pairs, though, showed such striking improvements. For instance, the pair "bakery -oven" accuracy rate in the second section was 64%, a little lower than in the first (78%). This surprising finding suggests that some word pairs continue to be difficult for learners to understand despite contextualization because of deeply embedded semantic associations in their first language. In this instance, "oven" and "bakery" might elicit similar ideas in Turkish "fırın", where it is less obvious to distinguish between an oven and a place.
Overall, this section's findings highlight how crucial context is in reducing semantic transfer from L 1 to 1.2. When learners are exposed to rich, contextualized input, their reliance on L1-based interpretations appears to decrease, as evidenced by the increase in accuracy rates across the majority of word pairs.
As can be seen in Table 3, the respondents had the most correct responses, with an average of 90.2% in the last section, where the participants were required to translate Turkish sentences into English. Table 4 can be used to see more clearly the differences in the accuracy rates of word pairs in the three sections as well as the comparison of the average rates.
It is also noteworthy that the accuracy of the pair "participate-attend," which had significantly improved in Section II with the provision of contextualized sentences, slightly decreased in Section III (89%). This could imply that even though the second section's context was helpful to the participants, there were still issues with translating abstract ideas like attendance and participation from Turkish to English.
ANOVA was applied to determine if there was a statistically significant difference among the results of the parts of the test. A one-way ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference between at least two groups (F(2, 37) = [11,5], p = [0,0001]), as can be seen in Table 5.
Following this, Tukey's HSD test was applied to conduct post-hoc multiple comparisons between the sections since the ANOVA revealed significant differences between at least two groups. The results of this test are displayed in Table 6 and reveal critical insights into the specific sections that contributed to the overall significant result observed in the ANOVA. It was found that the mean value of correctness was significantly different between Part I and Part IT (p = [0,0017], 95% C.I. = [3,65; 17,24]). Besides, the mean value of correctness was significantly different between Part I and Part III (p = [0,00013], 95% C.I. = (6,95; 22,65]). However, there was no statistically significant difference between Part II and Part III (p= [0,274]). This suggests that both types of tasks were highly effective in reducing semantic transfer errors when compared to the isolated word pair recognition task in Part I, even though translation tasks did not result in statistically significant improvements in accuracy compared to contextualized sentence recognition tasks.
DISCUSSION £ CONCLUSION
The first part of the test's findings is similar to those in Sénmez-Boran's (2018) study, which demonstrated that the participants are heavily influenced by their L1 semantic frameworks. The accuracy percentage of the participants' replies (57.5%) to the first section of the test corroborated Ellis" (1997) claim that second language learners bring their previously formed semantic and conceptual frameworks. The results of the first part are also in line with Jiang's (2000) stages of 1.2 vocabulary learning, in which the L2 learners only grasp the word's meaning because of prior knowledge and usually match it with its L1 translation in the word association stage.
In the second part of the test, a notable increase in the accuracy rate of students' responses demonstrated that context had an indisputable influence on students' performance. This result could be said to be in line with the second stage of Jiang's (2000) Adult 1.2 Vocabulary Acquisition Model. It was asserted in the model that new, L2-specific meaning may emerge with continued exposure to contextualized input, and the L2 lemma may incorporate both 1.1 and 1.2 specifications. From the outcomes of the current study, it could be concluded that the L2 learners of English who are native speakers of Turkish are prone to differentiate between the word pairs that have the exact Turkish translation when provided with the context. However, they have difficulty doing so when the word pairs are in isolation. Studies like Zarfsaz and Yeganehpour (2021) and Nguyen (2022), which highlighted the importance of rich contexts in promoting both vocabulary acquisition and retention, provide more evidence for the impact of context on vocabulary learning. Consistent with these investigations, the current results imply that context helps Turkish learners reduce the semantic interference from their Ll by helping them differentiate between English word pairs that otherwise have the exact Turkish translation.
As for the last section of the semantic transfer test, the students were asked to do a forward translation task. The students' accuracy rate was highest in the third section, although the researcher assumed it was the reverse. This result also contradicts Sénmez-Boran's (2018) study, in which the lowest accuracy score was obtained in the forward translation section. She stated that the learners knew the terms in their declarative memories but could not transfer them to their procedural memory. The participants of that study were in an intermediate-preparatory program, whereas the current study participants are ELT first-year students with upper-intermediate levels of English. This shows that the first-year ELT students in this study could transfer their knowledge more successfully in a productive task because they had developed declarative and procedural knowledge of 1.2 vocabulary. This result also supported Kroll and Stewart's (1994) findings, suggesting that there is a developmental change from reliance on Ll lexical mediation to more direct connections between L2 words and the shared conceptual framework, and the improvement of L2 competency impacts the expansion of the bilingual lexicon.
The significant statistical difference between Parts I and II and Parts I and III supports the hypothesis that contextual information is essential for reducing the possibility of errors in 1.2 due to semantic transfer from LI. A very good example in this regard was the statistical outcome, which showed the inability of the participants to repeat the sentences without the availability of the contextual cue and how they improved substantially when a contextual cue was available. This aligns with research findings from studies like Mede et al. (2014) and Uzun (2020), which highlight the value of contextualized learning in lowering errors brought on by negative L 1 transfer.
It is crucial to notice that there was no statistical significance between the final two parts, both of which had context, highlighting the critical role context plays in aiding the transfer of meaning. This means that the presence of context had a noteworthy impact on the participants' performance, although the precise type or characteristics of the environment had no significant effect. This is consistent with the findings of Uzun (2020), who discovered that the context itself was essential in reducing negative transfer from L1, independent of the particular contextual features. This suggests that the main advantage of context is not the specificity of the contextual information offered but rather its capacity to facilitate meaning transfer.
To conclude, this current study on semantic transfer explores whether students of EFL. do semantic transfer. This research also attempts to investigate the function of context in semantic transfer. In other words, this study looked at Turkish EFL students' understanding and production of L2 vocabulary. When the findings and the discussion are taken into consideration, it could not be wrong to say that Turkish EFL adult learners tend to do semantic transfer from their L 1s to their L2s. However, when they are provided with context, the level of this semantic transfer is lower. This study not only improves our understanding of semantic transfer in the acquisition of foreign language vocabulary but also stresses the relevance of context in the learning process. The statistical examination reinforces the observed variability in performance across examination sections, highlighting the dynamic feature of vocabulary acquisition among first-year ELT students with upper-intermediate English competence.
This study highlights the significance of semantic transfer and the function of context in 1,2 vocabulary acquisition. It has various implications for English as a foreign language teachers by showing how contextual information promotes more accurate vocabulary use and lessens the impact of L1 transfer.
To begin with, the current study validated previous findings about the favorable benefits of context on foreign language vocabulary acquisition. As demonstrated, vocabulary acquisition is greatly enhanced when learners are exposed to words in varied, contextually rich settings. As a result, rather than being taught in isolation, L2 vocabulary must be taught in context. To promote greater comprehension and retention, EFL teachers should incorporate vocabulary into real-world scenarios using exercises like role-plays, storytelling, and authentic simulations. It will also allow the educator to help learners to establish more effective semantic links and avoid dependence upon direct L 1 translation by encouraging students not to memorize.
Similarly, interlingual techniques make use of the L1 translation equivalents, which are frequently linked to word lists. Whereas L 1 equivalents can provide easy comprehension at the beginning, reliance on them may result in semantic transfer errors. EFL teachers should reconsider using interlingual techniques to teach 1.2 vocabulary. Any reliance on direct translation and bilingual dictionaries should be carefully used. Instead, the teacher should strongly emphasize the nuances of L2-specific meanings when new vocabulary is presented in numerous contexts. Rather than mere L 1 concept translation, this can affect the students' creation of new semantic structures. Teachers can also design training materials emphasizing the semantic differences between problematic words. Therefore, the teacher can design activities that enable students to find and use vocabulary in context in various situations so that they move from L 1 -based meanings toward L2-related meanings.
Additionally, teachers should give students a variety of strategies to improve vocabulary acquisition, drawing on insights from vocabulary learning strategies. This covers memory strategies such as applying semantic mapping, using imagery, and creating mental connections. Instructors should also help students become aware of and practice various vocabulary learning strategies and address individual differences in preferred strategies. By doing this, teachers can assist students in creating more individualized, successful vocabulary learning strategies. Moreover, the curriculum developers and the language testers should keep semantic transfer and contextual learning in mind when preparing instructional material and tests respectively. Tests should be constructed to assess language knowledge in various contexts, and textbooks should provide vocabulary within contexts that represent those in which it would happen. This would ensure the assessments check actual vocabulary competence, with minimal negative transfer from L 1.
Last but not least, continuing professional development 1s necessary to implement these suggestions successfully. Training programs should concentrate on innovative approaches for integrating L2 vocabulary, efficient context-based instruction, and contemporary vocabulary teaching strategies. Teachers can improve their instructional effectiveness and help their students acquire vocabulary by participating in continuous professional development to stay up to date on the most recent practices and research.
Limitations
This study also has some limitations. The first limitation is the sample size. Only 45 ELT freshman students with a B2 level of English participated in the study. The results cannot be generalizable, yet this study revealed some in-depth and critical findings about vocabulary acquisition in foreign languages. Therefore, although the results cannot be generalized, teachers and teacher educators may benefit from these results. Nevertheless, further study could be implemented with a higher number of participants with different levels of English. By doing so, the effects of improving L2 competency on semantic transfer could be seen more clearly, which can adequately test Jiang's (2000) model.
The second limitation is the instrument's coverage because it focuses on certain words. It is critical to investigate whether L 1 semantic transfer can explain advanced 1.2 speakers' lexical representation and processing for different word classes. This might be accomplished by utilizing a bigger set of word pairings than was employed in this study. The results of each word class should then be subjected to separate data analysis.
The effect of vocabulary teaching and learning could be further studied. Examining the influence of vocabulary education by presenting the same assignment to EFL learners who have been exposed to different forms of vocabulary instruction is critical. By doing so, the effects of these instructions on semantic transfer can be analyzed.
Statements of Publication Ethics
The ethical principles of the publication process were strictly followed throughout the study, in line with the guidelines stated by Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education. All stages of the research were conducted with academic integrity, transparency, and respect for participant rights.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this study.
Sidebar
References
REFERENCES
Alkhathlan, L.. S. (2007). The Effects of the Native Semantic Structures on the Representation and Processing of L2 Vocabulary for Arabic Speakers of English. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). University of Oxford, Oxford.
Bock, I. K. (1990). Creating form in talk. American Psychologist, 45(11), 1221-1236.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Cantone, K. F. (2007). Code-switching in bilingual children. Dordrecht: Springer.
Coady, I. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition. Second language vocabulary acquisition, 273-290.
Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: word structure, collocation, word class and meaning. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary; description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
González Alonso J, Puig-Mayenco E, Fábregas A, Chaouch-Orozco A, Rothman J. (2021) On the status of transfer in adult third language acquisition of early bilinguals. PLoS ONE 16(3): 0247976. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal pone.0247976
Ijaz, I. H. (1986). Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 36, 401-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/.1467-1770.1986.tb01034 x
Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied linguistics, 21(1), 47-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/21.1.47
Jiang, N. (2002). Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. SSLA, 24, 617-637. http://dx.do1.org/10.1017/50272263 102004047
Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic Transfer and Its Implications for Vocabulary Teaching in a Second Language. The Modern Language Journal, 8S(iii), 416-432. http://dx.do1.org/10.1111/.0026-7902.2004.00238.x
Jomaa, N. (2021). The Perspectives of Turkish EFL Learners on the Differences and Similarities between Turkish (L1) and English (L2) Languages. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 4(2), 148-160. https://do1.org/10.35207/1ater. 1011507
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category Interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174. http://dx.do1.org/10.1006/7mla. 1994. 1008
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
Martin, M. (1984). Advanced Vocabulary Teaching: The Problem of Synonyms. The Modern Language Journal, 68(2), 130-137. http://dx.do1.org/10.2307/327139
Mede, E., Tutal, C., Ayaz, D, Çalışır, K., Akin, Ş. (2014). The effects of language transfer in Turkish EFL learners. ELT Research Journal, 3(2), 70-83.
Nasiri, Y. (2013). The Effect of Semantic Transfer on Iranian EFL Learners' Lexical Representation and Processing. Journal of Teaching English Language Studies, 1(4), 22-37.
Nguyen, T. (2022). The Impact of Context on EFL Learners' Vocabulary Retention. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(2). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejfl.v612.4295
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Öztuna, S. (2009). Effects of input flood and negative evidence on learning of make/do collocations: a study with seventh grade Turkish EFL students. (Unpublished Master's Thesis). Anadolu University, Eskisehir.
Sónmez-Boran, G. (2018). A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Semantic Transfer by Turkish Learners of English. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 12(1), 16-26.
Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1992). Studying the consequences of literacy withina literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20, 51-68.
Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2011). Across languages, space, and time: A review of the role of cross-language similarity in L2 (morpho) syntactic processing as revealed by fMRI and ERP methods. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(1), 91-125. ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000549
Uzun, K. (2020). Tracing Negative Transfer in the Lexical Collocations used by Turkish Learners of English in Written Texts. Abant Izzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eǧitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2002), 1024-1037. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020..-608006
Van Valin Jr, R. D. (2003). Functional linguistics. The handbook of linguistics, 319-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470756409.ch13
Yilmaz, v. G., & Coker, B. (2023). Does Context Matter? Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use in Second and Foreign Language Contexts. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (32), 1446-1459.
Yuan, B. (2013). Is Chinese 'daodi' the hell in English speakers" L2 acquisition of Chinese daodi...wh... questions? Effects and recoverability of L1 transfer at L2 interfaces. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(4), 1-28. http://dx.do1.org/10.1177/1367006911435486
Zarfsaz, E., & Yeganehpour, P. (2021). The Impact of Different Context Levels on Vocabulary Learning and Retention. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(4), 24-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.34293/education.v914.4049
Zobl, H. (1980). Developmental and transfer errors: Their common bases and (possibly) differential effects on subsequent learning. Tesol Quarterly, 469-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3586235
