Search

This study investigated the acquisition of specialized vocabulary from L1 and L2 textbook reading by 64 Slovak high school students who were intermediate or advanced users of English. The students were divided into two groups: One group read the academic texts in their L1, the other group in their L2. In a posttest and a delayed posttest, they were asked to orally recall the meanings of 12 technical words that appeared in the texts. The word meanings recalled by the students immediately after reading and 1 week later were examined in terms of their breadth and depth. Results showed that although the L2-instructed students acquired the meanings of the specialized vocabulary items to a considerable degree, they still differed significantly from their L1-instructed counterparts in several respects: They could recall fewer word meanings after the reading; they acquired the words to a lesser depth; and after a week, their knowledge of the words faded more rapidly than that of the L1-instructed participants. The significance of the findings for L2 vocabulary acquisition and bilingual education is discussed.

The article discusses epistemic stance in spoken L2 production. Using a subset of the Trinity Lancaster Corpus of spoken L2 production, we analysed the speech of 132 advanced L2 speakers from different L1 and cultural backgrounds taking part in four speaking tasks: one largely monologic presentation task and three interactive tasks. The study focused on three types of epistemic forms: adverbial, adjectival, and verbal expressions. The results showed a systematic variation in L2 speakers' stancetaking choices across the four tasks. The largest difference was found between the monologic and the dialogic tasks, but differences were also found in the distribution of epistemic markers in the three interactive tasks. The variation was explained in terms of the interactional demands of individual tasks. The study also found evidence of considerable inter-speaker variation, indicating the existence of individual speaker style in the use of epistemic markers. By focusing on social use of language, this article seeks to contribute to our understanding of communicative competence of advanced L2 speakers. This research is of relevance to teachers, material developers, as well as language testers interested in second language pragmatic ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the quality of knowledge of technical words that high-school students learned from subject reading. In particular, it focuses on similarities and differences between students who learned new words through their L1 and their L2. In the study, 72 students were divided into two groups and asked to read and listen to two expository texts. One group received the texts in their L1 (Slovak) and the other group in their L2 (English). Afterwards the participants were tested on their knowledge of twelve technical words that appeared in the texts. The responses were examined in terms of the completeness of word meaning and the presence of errors. The results showed that compared to the L1-instructed students, the L2-instructed participants provided word meanings that were less complete and less precise. Word meanings from both groups contained errors involving omission of correct meaning components and inclusion of incorrect meaning components. L2-instructed participants made more errors of both kinds. The differences between the two groups are discussed with respect to vocabulary acquisition and subject learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses issues related to oral assessment of school knowledge of L2-educated students. In particular, it examines benefits and disadvantages of students being tested in their L1 (their dominant language) and in their L2 (their language of instruction). The study draws on the data from 37 high school students studying in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) setting in Slovakia. They were tested both in their L1 (Slovak) and their L2 (English) on material which they read in English. Their ability to verbally express content knowledge was assessed in terms of linguistic accuracy, fluency, academic format appropriateness and lexical appropriateness. The results from these 37 students were compared with the performance of 35 students who read the same material in their L1 and were tested in L1. The study shows how the choice of either L1 or L2 can to some extent constrain students' ability to express the knowledge they have. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]