Effects Of Task Types And Search Patterns On L2Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition

A substantial number of empirical studies or academic theories on investigatingthe effects of Involvement Load Hypothesis on L2incidental vocabulary acquisitionmanifest that the basic contention of this hypothesis still remains deficient and needsfurther verification. However, there are limited researches aiming at exploring theeffects of search component in ILH on L2incidental vocabulary acquisition; and thefindings in their current forms are distinctly different. In addition, due to the differencein the difficulty and complexity of learning tasks, the interactive effects of input taskand output task on L2vocabulary learning should be different. Previous empiricalstudies demonstrated differential findings.The present study attempts to investigate the effects of task types and searchpatterns on the incidental retention of different L2vocabulary knowledge, with anintention to testify the rationality and feasibility of Involvement Load Hypothesis.Research questions are as follows.1) Will tasks with higher involvement load be more effective for L2incidentalvocabulary retention than tasks with lower involvement load?2) Do different task types with the same search pattern lead to different L2incidental vocabulary retention effects?3) Do different search patterns with the same task demand lead to different L2incidental vocabulary retention effects?The subjects enrolled in this experiment are185non-English major freshmen fromJiangnan University. They are divided into six groups: true-false Group1(no gloss),true-false Group2(irrelevant comprehension questions+meaning-given gloss),true-false Group3(relevant comprehension questions+meaning-given gloss),gap-filling Group1(meaning-given gloss), gap-filling Group2(multiple-choice gloss),gap-filling Group3(word-inferring pattern). There is no significant difference amongthe experimental groups’ English proficiency. The test material contains10targetwords. All of them are pseudo-words in order to ensure that the subjects have no priorknowledge. After the experimental treatment, the immediate vocabulary tests includingstem supplement, Chinese-English translation, English-Chinese translation, sentencecomposing are implemented. Then, the questionnaire and interview are carried out to be aware of different awareness levels from each group. In addition, four participants areselected from each group to attend the immediate interview, which comes to24people.Delayed vocabulary test is conducted one week later. Task demands are similar in bothposttests.The results of this study are demonstrated as followed:1) Among the vocabulary tests of word form, word meaning and sentence compo,Different involvement loads could facilitate the initial learning and retention ofvocabularies, however, tasks with higher involvement load may not necessarily gainbetter vocabulary retention than tasks with lower involvement load. Thus, this presentstudy partly supports Involvement Load Hypothesis.2) Different task types with the same search pattern could generate different L2vocabulary retention effects. As for the word form, word meaning and sentence compotest, gap-filling Group1outperforms true-false Group2and true-false Group3significantly, while the latter two groups fail to show any significant difference betweeneach other. Hence, output task is more effective than input task for L2incidentalvocabulary retention.3) Different search patterns with the same task demand could also producedifferent L2vocabulary retention effects. True-false Group1and true-false Group2have no significant difference between each other on the retention of L2orthographicforms but the latter group achieves better results in the retention of semantic meaningsand syntax knowledge. Then, the differences of gap-filling Group2and gap-fillingGroup3are not statistically significant in the retention of different L2vocabularyknowledge. At the same time, gap-filling Group1is more beneficial for the wordmeaning retention than gap-filling Group2and gap-filling Group3. However, in the L2word form learning, gap-filling Group3is significantly better than gap-filling group1.In contrast to this result, gap-filling Group1surpasses gap-filling Group3on theretention of L2syntax knowledge.To summarize, different task types and different search patterns could generatedifferential effects on L2incidental vocabulary retention. Output tasks surpass inputtasks on the effects of L2vocabulary retention. Different search patterns almost have nosignificant difference among them in L2target forms acquisition but have the differentlearning effects in word meaning and word application.Some implications and suggestions for future research have been drawn from thepresent study. Firstly, it provides another empirical study and the improvements for Involvement Load Hypothesis. Moreover, the more effective L2vocabulary learningand teaching approaches are proposed in the present study. Additionally, teachers coulddesign different learning tasks according to different L2vocabulary knowledge tooptimize the incidental vocabulary acquisition effects. Then, the positive effects ofdifferent search patterns on incidental vocabulary learning couldn’t be neglected. Giventhat multiple-choice gloss and word-inferring pattern are employed in the learningprocess of L2vocabularies, teachers should offer the instant feedback information oftarget words in order to make learners investigate their cognitive awareness of words’form, meaning, collocation etc. Furthermore, at the initial stage of vocabulary learning,the input vocabulary practice should be implemented; the output vocabulary practicewill be also adopted at the middle and latter stage. That will promote learners to acquiredeeper vocabulary knowledge. In addition, concerning the effects of the time andforgetting discipline on vocabulary retention, teachers should design the productivecontext to reoccur the target words to urge the learners to check and consolidate theword retention effects.