`Sequence` and `order` in the development of L2 lexis.

'Sequence' and 'Order' in the Development ofL2 Lexis: Some Evidence from Lexical

Confusions

BATIA LAUFERUniversity of Haifa

The study compared native speaking learners of English with foreign learners,with regard to confusions of 'synforms' (similar lexical forms). Tests weredesigned in which the learners were required to distinguish between synformsoften categories (ten types ofsynformic similarity).

Hierarchies of difficulty (i.e. the extent to which synforms induced errors)were produced for the ten categories of synforms for the two groups of learners.The orders of difficulty for the two groups (native and foreign) correlated at 0.83at the 0.01 probability level. A hierarchy of difficulty was also produced for four'super-categories'. The analysis showed that native speaking learners andforeign learners shared an order of difficulty: suffix synforms created the mostdifficult synformic distinctions, followed by the vocalic, and then the prefix andconsonantal.

Adopting the distinction between 'sequence'and 'order'in language acquisi-tion it can be argued that, in learning to distinguish between synforms, alllearners, native and foreign, follow a similar sequence, an overall develop-mental route, although the order within each super-category may differ foreach group of learners.

INTRODUCTION

In the late sixties and the seventies, the behaviouristic accounts of languageacquisition were submitted to empirical investigation and consequently tocriticism (Dulay and Burt 1973,1974; Richards 1974;Corder 1967). The viewthat learners with different native languages learnt a foreign language in entirelydifferent ways was challenged by researchers, who suggested an alternativehypothesis according to which L2 learning followed a fixed route of develop-ment irrespective of the learners LI.

Following studies in LI acquisition which showed that there was a predict-able route of development in the learning of some structures and morphemes(Klima and Bellugi 1966; Brown 1973), a related hypothesis about L2 waspostulated: the developmental route which the second language learnerfollowed was similar to that followed by a child learning the same language as hismother tongue. This assumption became known as the 'LI acquisition = L2acquisition hypothesis'.

The empirical studies which investigated this hypothesis dealt mainly withsyntax, for example, the order of acquisition of some grammatical functors in L2

Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, No. 3 © Oxford University Press 1990

at University of H

aifa Library on A

pril 27, 2014http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

https://ssl.haifa.ac.il/,DanaInfo=applij.oxfordjournals.org+

282 SEQUENCE AND ORDER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF L2 LEXIS

(Dulay and Burt 1973,1974), the acquisition of negatives (Ravem 1968; Wode1976), interrogatives (Ravem 1974; Butterworth and Hatch 1978), and relativeclauses (Schumann 1980). The results of the above studies, especially thelongitudinal ones, supported the view that L2 acquisition indeed followed anatural developmental route which was not very different from that found insome LI acquisition studies (for example, Porter 1977). However, there wasalso evidence to suggest that LI and L2 acquisitional routes differed (Felix1978; Brown 1973).

To reconcile the conflicting evidence, Ellis (1985) suggests making adistinction between sequence of development and order of development in thesecond language. Sequence refers to the overall developmental profile, starting,in grammar, with unanalysed units, followed by invariant word order, thenvariant word order, then morphological development, ending with complexsentence structure. Sequence may well be common to both LI and L2acquisition. Order of development, on the other hand, refers to the acquisitionof details within each general stage. Order may well differ from learner tolearner as a result of individual differences, for example, a different LI. Thus,learners 'follow a standard sequence but vary in the order in which specificfeatures are acquired' (Ellis 1985: 64). The modified LI = L2 hypothesis willclaim, then, that the sequence of L2 acquisition resembles that of LI, while theorder of acquisition may differ.

The studies referred to so far investigated the development of grammar. Bycomparison, research on lexical development has been scarce. (For possiblereasons for the neglect, see Levenston 1979; Meara 1980; Laufer 1986). Moststudies that compare lexical behaviour in L2 and LI are relatively recent. Meara(1978) and Randall (1980) studied differences between associations providedby native speakers and L2 learners to the same words, in the attempt toinvestigate the effect of language proficiency on associative behaviour. Olshtain(1987) deals with the acquisition of word formation devices as an indication ofnear-native competence at the advanced level of L2 proficiency. Blum-Kulkaand Levenston (1987) discuss the use of some pragmatic indicators in Hebrewand English by learners and native speakers of each of the two languages.

LEXICAL CONFUSIONS AND LANGUAGE LEARNINGWords of similar form are sometimes confused by both native speakers andforeign learners. When confusion occurs with an adult educated native speaker,this is usually a case of an accidental lapse—a slip of the ear in comprehensionand a slip of the tongue in production. (For studies of such errors, see, forexample, the collection of papers in Fromkin 1980.) In such cases, the speakeror hearer accidentally accesses, instead of the intended word, its 'near neigh-bour' in the mental lexicon, since words of similar form are likely to be storednear each other (Fay and Cutler 1977; Cutler and Fay 1982).

When, on the other hand, learners of a foreign language confuse words ofsimilar form, the error is usually not accidental but stems from a defective(wrong or incomplete) representation of one or both of the confused items'

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


BATIALAUFER 283

forms. He may remember a part of the item's form, but not all of it. For example,in the case of an incomplete representation of prize, the last consonant may notbe recalled easily—the learner may be uncertain whether it is /s / or /z/. In thecase of a wrong representation of prize, the word will be said as /prais/. In thefirst case, the learner's not recalling the last consonant, when prize is heard orread, it may be interpreted as the word price since the two words differ preciselyin the consonant that is not recalled; in the case of a wrong representation of theitem /s/ instead of/z/, the error is bound to occur. Since vocabulary acquisitioninvolves acquiring the correct representation of words in the mental lexicon (i.e.with all the specifications spelled out correctly)1 and since the acquisition of lexisis a gradual process (Levenston 1979; Meara 1984), it is reasonable to assumethat the more advanced a learner becomes, the fewer confusions he will make.This is probably true of both the foreign learner and the native-speaking child.

It was mentioned earlier that similarities have been found in the way thegrammar of a particular language is learnt by children as LI and by foreigners asL2. It would be interesting to see whether in vocabulary acquisition, too, thereare similarities between the two groups of learners,2 i.e. whether the LIacquisition = L2 acquisition hypothesis could be supported by evidence fromlexical development. As lexical confusions are a part of vocabulary acquisition,a comparison of native speakers and foreign learners with respect to suchconfusions can provide some evidence for or against similar acquisition patternsof LI and L2 learners.

DESIGN OF THE PRESENT STUDY

PurposeThe experiments reported in this paper attempt to examine the similarities and/or differences experienced by English native speaking children and foreignlearners of English in distinguishing between words of similar form.

SubjectsFor that purpose, 528 subjects were tested, of which 321 were adult foreignlearners of English (ages 18-25) in Israel and the UK, native speakers of 21languages, whose level of English was the equivalent of the FCE (FirstCertificate of English). The remaining 207 subjects were English nativespeakers, age 12, from five Edinburgh primary schools. Both groups of subjects(the foreign students at FCE level and the native speaking children, age 12)were learners of English. Their vocabulary may have sufficed for communica-tion and comprehension of moderately difficult written language, but it was stilldeveloping: new words and additional meanings of already familiar words werebeing continually added to the learner's lexicon, whether the lexicon in questionwas that of the native tongue or the foreign language.

Test itemsThe test items were pairs/groups of similar words selected from a large corpusof lexical errors which had previously been collected from foreign learners'

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from



writing performance and interpretations of texts. The pairs/groups of theconfused words were called 'synforms' (similar lexical forms) and wereclassified into ten categories on the basis of features of similarity between them.3

Here are the ten categories of synforms. (More examples for each categoryare listed in Laufer 1985: Appendix 1.)

Category 1—synforms which have the same root, productive in present-dayEnglish but different suffixes (for example, considerable, considerate;imaginary, imaginative, imaginable).Category 2—synforms which have the same root, not productive in present-dayEnglish, but different suffixes (for example, capable, capacious; integrity,integration).

Category- 3—synforms which differ from each other in a suffix present in onesynform but not in the other (for example, historic, historical; sect, sector).Category 4—synforms which have the same root, not productive in present-dayEnglish, but different prefixes (for example, consumption, assumption,resumption; compress, suppress, repress, oppress).Category 5—synforms which differ from each other in a prefix present in onesynform but not in the other (for example, passion, compassion; fault, default).Category 6—synforms identical in all their phonemes except one vowel ordiphthong (for example, affect, effect /a'fekt, i'fekt/; set,sat /set, saet/).Category 7—synforms which differ from each other in a vowel present in onesynform but not in the other (for example, cute, acute /kju.t, a'kju.t/; quite,quiet /kwait, kwaiat/; date, data /deit, 'delta/).Category 8—synforms identical in all their phonemes except one consonant (forexample, price, prize /prais, praiz/; extend, extent /iks'tend, iks'tent/).Category 9—synforms which differ from each other in a consonant present inone synform but not in the other (for example, ledge, pledge; simulate,stimulate; mean, means (noun)).Category 10—synforms identical to each other in their consonants but differentin their vowels (more than one vowel) (for example, base, bias /beis, 'baias/;manual, menial /'maznjual, 'miinjal/; embrace, embarrass Am'breis, im'baeras/).

Elicitation proceduresFor each of the ten categories of synforms, two written multiple choice tests(version A and version B) were designed. Both versions of a particular test weretaken by the same students, that is, each synform was tested twice with eachgroup of learners. Version A of each test consisted of sentences with a gap to befilled in each sentence. The examinees were given four alternatives from whichthey had to choose the correct answer, for example:

The factory . . . included fifteen workers.a staff b stiff c stuff d stove

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


BAT1A LAUFER 285

Version B of the same test, which was given to the learners after they hadcompleted version A, consisted of individual words with four possibleexplanations of the meaning of each word. The examinee had to choose thecorrect interpretation, as in the following example:

STAFFa. group of people working togetherb. not easily changed in shapec. material of which something is maded. apparatus used for warming rooms.

The explanations in a-d corresponded to the four possible answers in theparallel sentence in version A. Thus, alternative a (staff) in test Version A corre-sponded to alternative a (group of people working together) in version B; altern-ative b (stiff) in A corresponded to b (not easily bent) in B; c (stuff) in Acorresponded to c (material of which something is made) in B; d (stove) corre-sponded to d (apparatus used for warming rooms). This correspondencebetween the two versions meant that the same distractors were provided twicefor each synform by means of the two test versions.

The fact that test version A tested synforms in sentences, while test version Btested them in isolation, does not mean that we wanted to check context effecton synform confusion. The versions were simply two elicitation methods: test ver-sion A tried to elicit synform confusions when the allegedly confused wordswere actually seen by the examinee; version B of the same test tried to elicit syn-form confusions when the examinee was faced with the interpretation of theword tested, of its allegedly confusing synforms, and of two other distractors. Itwas believed that the likelihood of results being artificially affected by a particu-lar testing method would be reduced if the same phenomena were tested by twodifferent testing methods which are reputable and widely used.4

Each pair of tests (testing one synform category) was given to a group ofnative speakers and a group of foreign learners. Each group comprised thirtystudents on the average.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The tests checked (a) the frequency of the synform confusions and (b) whetherthis frequency was significant or not.

Tables 1 and 2 display the following information:

1 x2 values for the difference between the number of synform errors and othererrors in the column labelled 'favourite error';

2 x2 values for the difference between the number of synform errors and all theother responses, including the correct one, in the column labelled 'favouriteresponse' (altogether four x2 values are presented in the table);

3 an indication whether each x2 value is significant (+) or not (—), but only inthe direction of synform errors, i.e. if their number is higher, not lower thanthat of the other responses.

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from



Table l:x2 values for synform errors—native speakers

Category number

1. considerable/considerate2. credible/credulous3. economic/economical4. superficial/artificial5. passion/compassion6. staff/stuff7. cute/acute8. price/prize9. addition/addiction

10. merely/merrily

Favourite errorTest A

6.15 +26.9 +18.43 +0

18.23 +2.97 +

15.72 +32.79 +

5.15 +25.8 +

TestB

39.77 +70.5 +99.0 +

7.46 +19.3 +6.7 +

61.2 +14.33 +12.46 +8.87 +

Favourite responseTest A

2.03 -0.15 -2.39 -

59.95* -1.39 -

38.13* -12.31* -3.49* -

14.63* -3.07 -

TestB

19.16 +9.63 +

18.25 +8.96* -0.18 -

21.04 -0.94 -

135.90* -21.60* -0.004 -

Table 2:%2 values for synform errors—foreign learners

Category number


10. merely/merrily

Favourite errorTest A

9.77 +95.3 +68.4 +

1.74 -20.39 +8.08 +

38.42 +2.68 -8.45 +

42.5 +

TestB

55.91 +172.4 +198.0 +

10.28 +7.98 +

82.5 +32.25 +

7.55 +5.26 +

44.39 +

Favourite responseTest A

0.007 -6.59 +

13.6 +33.59* -0.13 -3.95* -5.41 +5.7* -

11.1* -11.08 +

TestB

14.28 +15.58 +61.03 +

2.04 -4.3* -0.07 -2.97 -0.27 -6.16* -7.74 +

mean that the number of other responses, not synform errors, wassignificantly higher. Therefore, a (—) appears in the 'significance' columns. This is in accordance withthe decision to mark a result with a (—) when the number of synform errors was not significantlyhigher but lower than that of the other responses.

A point of clarification is appropriate here. %2 values were chosen for presenta-tion rather than the percentage of synform errors since in different testsdifferent percentages of synform errors were expected to occur by chance.Therefore, comparison of categories in terms of synform-error inducing powercould not be made on the basis of the actual percentage of synform error, but bycomparing their respective differences between the observed and the expectednumbers of synform errors, or %2 value.

Hierarchy of difficulty: individual categoriesAs mentioned earlier, the x2 value is an appropriate indication of difficulty sincethe higher the value, the more synform errors were made in comparison with the

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


BATIA LAUFER 287

expected number of these errors (except in the cases marked with * where thenumber of other responses was higher than expected in comparison with thesynform errors). However, since for each category there are four %2 values, notone, an additional criterion had to be added in measuring the relative difficultyof the categories—the number of significant differences. Thus, the most difficultcategories were considered to be those with four pluses (+) for significance ofX2; next, those with three pluses, then with two, then with one. Within this maindistinction, if several categories had the same number of significant %2 values,their order of difficulty was determined as follows: the higher the value of %2

results in the 'favourite response' tests, the more difficult the category was thoughtto be. Another possibility would be to take into account all the %2 values,but since the 'favourite response' result was a more certain indication ofdifficulty, it was judged to be the proper criterion of difficulty after the maindistinction (i.e. the number of significant results). When the %2 value wassignificant in the direction of other responses, it was taken to be an adverseindication of difficulty and therefore was assigned a negative value incomparison with other categories.

On the basis of these two criteria, the number of significant differences in thefour x2 tests and the x2 values in the 'favourite response' tests, two orders ofdifficulty were worked out: one for native speakers; the other for foreignlearners. In Table 3 rank number 1 indicates the most difficult category andrank 10, the easiest one.

To find out how similar the two orders were, the ranks were correlated.Spearman rank order correlation was calculated to be 0.83, significant at 0.01probability level. This correlation indicates that the order of difficulty is quitesimilar for the two groups of learners. However, it does not mean that bothnative speakers and foreign learners experience similar difficulty with individualcategories of synforms. Tables 1 and 2 show that some categories of synformsinduced a significant number of synform errors in the case of foreign learners,but not native speakers. What the correlation indicates is that for each group of

Table 3: Hierarchy of difficulty of synform categories

Category number


10. merely/merrily

Rank order fornative speakers

132

10596874

Rank order forforeign learners

421

10565983

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from



learners some categories are more difficult than others and the order of theirdifficulty is quite similar even though the degree of difficulty might varyconsiderably.

Hierarchy of difficulty: major groups ofsynform categoriesAnother way of looking at the resemblance of the two orders is by organizing theten categories into the four major categories of synforms: suffix synforms, prefixsynforms, vocalic synforms, and consonantal synforms, calculating the averagerank order of each major group and comparing the average rank orders ofnative speakers and foreign learners.5

The idea of'average' order of difficulty was developed by Krashen (1982) withrespect to the morpheme acquisition. In his comparison of children learningEnglish as their mother tongue and adults learning English as a secondlanguage, with respect to the acqusition of certain morphemes, Krashenorganized these morphemes in three major groups and claimed that the order ofacquisition of these three groups was similar for native speakers and foreignlearners. However, the order of acquisition of the individual morphemes in eachof the three groups might be different for the different learner.

According to the principle of the average order of difficulty in synformcategories, the ranks will appear as shown in Table 4.

Looking at the average rank orders, we can see that the internal order ofdifficulty of the four groups is similar for the two types of learners, native andnon-native. The most difficult ones are the suffix synforms, then the vocalic,then the prefix and the consonantal. As in Krashen's case, the order of difficulty

Table 4: The average order of difficulty of the four major categories of synforms

Category number

Suffix1. considerable/considerate2. credible/credulous3. economic/economical

Prefix4. superficial/artificial5. passion/compassion

Vocalic6. staff/stuff7. cute/acute

10. merely/merrily

Consonantal8. price/prize9. addition/addiction

Native speakersCategory rankorder

132

105

964

87

Averageorder

2

7.5

6.3

7.5

Foreign learnersCategory rankorder

421

105

653

98

Averageorder

2.3

8.5

4.6

8.5

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


BATIA LAUFER 289

for each individual category within a major synform group may be different forthe two kinds of learners, see for example categories 1 and 6.

The similarity in the rank order of the four major groups of synformcategories does not necessarily point to the fact that both native speakers andforeign learners experience similar difficulty with the groups of categories. Whatit shows is that in each group of learners, the relative difficulty of the four majorgroups of categories is as described in the previous paragraph.

The question is whether this hierarchy of difficulty, which is based on resultsof a cross-sectional study, actually reflects the order in which the learner ofEnglish, as LI or L2, learns to distinguish between the various synformiccontrasts in the course of his learning. In spite of a number of criticisms of the'accuracy order = acquisition order' principle, with regard to the morphemestudies, it has also been claimed that the two types of order can be equated onthe grounds that the more accurately an item or structure is used, the earlier it isacquired. (For a discussion see, for example, Hatch and Farhady 1982;Borland 1984).

If we accept the notion that the route of acquisition is reflected in the accuracyresults and bear in mind that vocabulary learning is a gradual process, thefollowing conclusions seem to emerge from the results of the study; thesequence in which learners of English, both native and foreign, would learn todistinguish between the synformic contrasts is: consonantal and prefix synformsfirst, then the vocalic, then the suffix ones. As opposed to the identical sequence(the overall development, Ellis 1985), the order in which they learn todistinguish between synforms of each individual category within the majorcategories will be different for native speakers and foreign learners (see Table4)-

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONThe study compared native speaking learners of English with learners ofEnglish as a foreign language, with regard to confusions of 'synforms' (similarlexical forms). Specifically, tests were designed in which the learners wererequired to distinguish between synforms of ten categories (ten types ofsynformic similarity). The frequency of synformic confusions and the signific-ance of this frequency were calculated for each category of synforms and foreach group of learners, i.e. each category was measured in terms of its synform-error inducing power.

On the basis of this information, hierarchies of difficulty were produced (a)for the individual categories of synforms, (b) for the four major groups ofcategories, each one for native speakers and for foreign learners. The hier-archies of native speakers were then compared with those of the foreignlearners. In the case of the individual categories, Spearman rank ordercorrelation was 0.83, significant at 0.01 probability level. In the case of themajor groups of categories, the internal rank order was similar in the two groupsof subjects. The most difficult synformic distinctions were those of the suffixsynforms, the vocalic, then the prefix and the consonantal.

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from



Adopting the distinction between sequence and order of acquisition, we mayargue on the basis of the results, that sequence (the overall pattern of develop-ment) in acquiring the synformic distinctions is common to both the nativespeakers and foreign learners. It corresponds to the accuracy order of the majorgroups of synform categories. However, the order of acquiring the synformicdistinctions of each specific category is different for native speakers and foreignlearners (though not too different) and corresponds to the accuracy order of theten individual categories.

It is not claimed here that the native language of the learner has no role inlearning to distinguish between synforms. Native speakers and foreign learnersexperience different degrees of difficulty, as was shown by the results.Moreover, in Laufer (1985), the responses of foreign learners were analysedaccording.to LI families (Romance, Germanic, Semitic); the analysis indicatedthat there were significant differences in the three LI groups.

However, these findings do not invalidate the conclusion that, in learning todistinguish between synforms, all learners, native and foreign, follow a similarsequence, an overall developmental route, starting with an accurate distinctionbetween prefix and consonantal synforms, followed by differentiation betweenvocalic synforms, and ending with an accurate distinction between suffixsynforms. The order within each of the four major categories, and the degree ofdifficulty each category induces, may differ for each group of learners.

Similar sequence and different order in studies of grammar have beenconsidered as evidence for the modified LI acquisition = L2 acquisitionhypothesis. The results of the present study suggest that in vocabulary acquisi-tion, too, learners may follow a similar developmental route.

(Received September 1988)

NOTES1 A proper representation would include semantic and syntactic features as well. Our

interest here, however, is in form only.2 We are not talking about the acquisition of concepts, which varies considerably

between children and adults because of cognitive differences.3 For a detailed discussion and classification of 'synforms' see Laufer (1985). Synforms

were defined as similar lexical forms. Similarity, in turn, was defined in terms of generalcharacteristics of all synforms and particular characteristics of each of the postulated tencategories.

4 See, for example, the vocabulary sub-test in the FCE and CPF tests.5 The grouping into four categories was based on similarities between categories

within each major group: synformic differences in suffixes, prefixes, vowels, consonants.

REFERENCESBlum-Kulka, S. and E. A. Levenston. 1987. 'Lexical-grammatical pragmatic

indicators.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9:155-69.Borland, H. E. 1984. "The Acquisition of Some Features of English Syntax by Four

Groups of Adolescent Immigrants to Australia.' Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edin-burgh.

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


BATIALAUFER 291

Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.

Butterworth, G. and E. M. Hatch. 1978. 'A Spanish-speaking adolescents acquisition ofEnglish syntax' in E. M. Hatch (ed.): Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.

Corder, S. P. 1967. 'The significance of learners' errors.' International Review of AppliedLinguistics. 5:161-69.

Cutler, A. and D. A. Fay. 1982. 'On mental lexicon, phonologically arranged; commentson Hurford's comments.' Linguistic Inquiry 13:107-12.

Dulay, H. C. and M. K. Burt. 1973. 'Should we teach children syntax?' LanguageLearning 23:245-58.

Dulay, H. C. and M. K. Burt. 1974. 'Natural sequences in child language acquisition.'Language Learning 24: 37-54.

Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Fay, D. A. and A. Cutler. 1977. 'Malaproprisms and the structure of the mental lexicon.'Linguistic Inquiry 8: 505-20.

Felix, S. 1978. 'Some differences between first and second language acquisition' inN. Waterson and C. Snow (eds.): Development of Communication. New York: JohnWiley and Sons.

Fromkin, V. A. 1980. Errors in Linguistic Performance. Slips of the Tongue, Ear, Pen andHand. London: Academic Press.

Hatch, E. M. and H. Farhady. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for AppliedLinguistics. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Klima, E. and V. Bellugi. 1966. 'Syntactic regularities in the speech of children' inJ.Lyons and R.Wales (eds.): Psycho linguistic Papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni-versity Press.

Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. NewYork and London: Oxford University Press.

Laufer, B. 1985. 'Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: the Hypothesis of"Synforms" (Similar Lexical Forms).' Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

Laufer, B. 1986. 'Possible changes in attitude towards vocabulary acquisition research.'International Review of Applied Linguistics 24:69-75.

Levenston, E. A. 1979. 'Second language acquisition: issues and problems.' InterlanguageStudies Bulletin 4:147-60.

Meara, P. M. 1978. 'Learners' word associations in French.' Interlanguage StudiesBulletin 2:191-211.

Meara, P. M. 1984. 'The study of lexis in interlanguage' in A. Davies, C. Criper, andA. P. R. Howatt (eds.): Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Olshtain, E. 1987. "The acquisition of new word formation processes in second languageacquisition.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 221-31.

Porter, R. 1977. 'A cross-sectional study of morpheme acquisition in first languagelearners.' Language Learning 27:47-62.

Randall, M. 1980. 'Word association behaviour in learners of English as a foreignlanguage.' Polyglot 2 (fiche 2).

Ravem, R. 1968. 'Language acquisition in a second language environment.' InternationalReview of Applied Linguistics 6: 175-85.

Ravem, R. 1974. 'The development of WH questions in first and second languagelearners' in J. C. Richards (ed.).

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from



Richards, J. C. (ed.) 1974. Error Analysis. London: Longman.Richards, J. C. 1974. 'A non-contrastive approach to Error Analysis' in J. C. Richards

(ed.).Schumann, J. H. 1980. 'The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language

learners' in R. Scarcella and S. Krashen (eds.): Research in Second Language Acquisi-tion. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Wode, H. 1976. 'Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition.' WorkingPapers on Bilingualism 15:37-57.

APPENDIX

Synform test—category 10, version A

Student...

Mother tongue . . .

In each sentence below a word is missing. From the four alternatives which follow eachsentence, decide which word best fits that sentence. Put a cross in the corresponding box.

1. The characters in the play were t o o . . . to be interesting.a. 0 ingrainedb. () ingeniousc. Qingenuousd. 0 infectious

2. It is hard to discuss politics without personal . . . .a. 0 baseb. Q basisc. ()biasd. () bathe

3. They criticized our terms but failed t o . . . an alternative.a. 0 proposeb. Q purposec. 0 prosed. () purse

4. Students over thirty years of age are n o t . . . for these scholarships.a. 0 eligibleb. 0 legiblec. 0 legislatedd. () elevated

5. He had to accept any job he could get, even the most... ones.a. 0 manualb. 0 menialc. 0 maind. 0 medium

6. He did not mean to be rude; he was . . . trying to mind his own business.a. 0 markedlyb. 0 merely

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


BATIA LAUFER 293

c. 0 merrilyd. Q meagerly

7. Not many candidates turned up; therefore anyone... was accepted for the job.a. 0 availableb. () valuablec. () veiledd. () avoidable

8. He tried t o . . . the fact that he was poor.a. 0 councilb. Q cancelc. 0 conceald. () cancer

9. The local... employed sixty workers.a. 0 daintyb. () dearyc. Q dairyd. Q diary

10. The ink has . . . on the desk.a. Q spiltb. 0 splitc. 0 spelledd. () spoiled

11. They.. . other teams to reach the Cup Final.a. 0 illuminatedb. 0 eliminatedc. Q illustratedd. Q elevated

12. He held her to him and . . . her warmly.a. () engrossedb. 0 engravedc. 0 embracedd. Q embarrassed

13. . . . of currency restrictions is considered a criminal offence.a. 0 defaceb. 0 defiancec. 0 defenced. Q fence

14. Mention of sex and . . . were taboo in Victorian literature.a. 0 exerciseb. Q excursionc. 0 excretiond. Q expectation

15. Saving the life of an enemy in distress is particularly....a. 0 humorousb. 0 humid

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from



c. 0 humand. 0 humane

16. Something must be done to raise the. . . of these troops after defeat.a. 0 moraleb. 0 moralc. 0 murald. (Jmore

17. Candidates are required to write a . . . of this text in no more than one third of itslength.a. 0 precisb. 0 precisec. () preciousd. 0 P r e s s

18. I don't like my boss, so here's my notice toa. 0 quietb. 0 quitec. ()quitd. ()quiz

19. His appearance was deceptively mild because he had a.. . temper.a. 0 fairyb. 0 fieryc. ()faird. ()far

Synform test—category 10, version B

Student...

Mother tongue...

Choose the alternative which means most nearly the same as the word(s) in block lettersand put a cross in the corresponding box.

1. INGENUOUSa. 0 deeply fixedb. 0 clever and skilfulc. 0 innocentd. () spreading disease

2. BIASa. 0 place where armed forces have their tents, stores, etc.b. 0 foundationc. 0 prejudiced. 0 put in water

3. PROPOSEa. 0 suggestb. 0aimc. 0 language not in verse formd. 0 small bag

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


BATIA LAUFER 295

4. ELIGIBLEa. 0 suitableb. 0 readablec. Q made lawsd. () raised

5. MENIALa. 0 done with the handsb. 0 suitable for a servantc. 0 principled. Q middle quality

6. MERELYa. Q clearlyb. o°n 'yc. Q happilyd. Q poorly

7. AVAILABLEa. 0 that may be obtainedb. 0 °f great worth or usec. Q coveredd. Q that can be escaped

8. CONCEALa. 0 grouP of people appointed to manage affairsb. 0 cross outc. Ohide

d. () disease growth in the body

9. DAIRYa. 0 delicateb. 0 darlingc. 0 building where milk products are maded. 0 daily record of events

10. SPILTa. 0 ran over the side of the containerb. 0 broke into twoc. 0 named the letters of a wordd. () made useless

11. ELIMINATEa. 0 g"ve light tob. 5 r e m o v e

c. 0 explain by examplesd. 0 r a i s e

12. EMBRACEa. 0 w r r t e in large lettersb. 0 c u t words on a hard surfacec. 0 take into one's armsd. 0 cause confusion

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from



13. DEFIANCEa. 0 sP°il the appearanceb. 0 open disobediencec. 0 protectiond. Q wooden barrier

14. EXCRETIONa. 0 practiceb. () short journeysc. () discharge from the systemd. 5 awaiting

15. HUMANEa. 0 funnyb. Qdampc. 0 of mand. 0 kind-hearted

16. MORALEa. () state of mind and spiritb. 0 concerning principles of right and wrongc. 0 of a walld. 0 greater in quantity

17. PRECISa. 0 restatement in shortened form of the chief ideasb. 0 exact, correctly statedc. 0 of great valued. 0 the newspapers

18. QUITa. 0 not noisyb. 0 relativelyc. 0 leaved. ()test

19. FIERYa. 0 small imaginary being with supernatural powersb. 0 flamingc. 0justd. 0 distant

at University of H

aifa Library on A


Dow

nloaded from


`Sequence` and `order` in the development of L2 lexis.

Documents

Transcript of `Sequence` and `order` in the development of L2 lexis.