A study on the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of english education study program of Sanata Dharma University.
i
A STUDY ON THE DEPTH OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED BY THE THIRD SEMESTER STUDENTS OF ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM OF SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By
Antonius Rendy Endrawan Student Number: 021214031
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA
(2)
(3)
(4)
iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY
I honestly declare that this thesis, which I wrote does not contain the works or part of the works of other people, except those cited in the quotations and bibliography, as a scientific paper should.
Yogyakarta, March 2007
(5)
v
I Dedicate This Thesis to:
Jesus Christ Almighty God,
Bapak,
Ibu (RIP),
Mbak Nessy,
Mas Sinung,
and My “Guidance Angel”.
(6)
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and above all, my greatest gratitude goes to my Holy Lord for His invaluable blessings and for giving me so many wonderful things throughout the journey of my life. Finally I managed to finish this thesis. Thanks God for everything.
Second, I am also in great debt to my major sponsor Dr. F. X. Mukarto, M.S. for giving me his thoughtful understanding, helpful suggestions, and positive advices, for sparing his valuable time to encourage me to finish my thesis, and for sharing me his great knowledge.
I would like to address my thankfulness to Laurentia Sumarni, S.Pd. and Gregorius Punto Aji, S.Pd. for permitting and for letting me to conduct the test in their classes. I am also very much grateful for the third semester students for their participation in the study and for their great contribution to the completion of this thesis. I would also thank Anita for her unwavering support and maintaining my sanity through her compassion and good counsels.
My gratefulness also belongs to my 2002 PBI fellows, who have supported me unwaveringly: Wisnu, Mima, Krisna, Adjeng, O’ok, Bita, Andre, Regina, Seto, Silvy, Udjo, Reny, I Gede Agus, Ayu, Dedy Kdal, Anton (Bambang), Haryana, Zakti, Heru, Lia, Geol, Utik, Chiko, Kristin, Sapto, Nisa, Galih, Nandaka and Teddy; the Brotowihardjo’s family: Pakde En, Bulik En, Bu Nunuk, Bulik Mur (RIP), Om Kentut, Om Tono, Bayu, Dewo, Bimo, Lintar and Adit; Blabak’s family: Pak Jo, Bu Tin, and mBak Reny; PBI and KBI secretariat: mBak
(7)
vii
Danik, mBak Tari, and mBak Leli, and those not listed here who have supported me directly and indirectly.
(8)
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGE ... ii
ACCEPTANCE PAGE ... iii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv
DEDICATIONAL PAGE ... v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... viii
ABSTRACT ... xii
ABSTRAK ... xiii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background ... 1
B. Problem Identification ... 3
C. Problem Limitation ... 4
D. Problem Formulation ... 4
E. Research Objectives ... 5
F. Research Benefits ... 5
G. Definition of Terms ... 5
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
A. Theoretical Description ... 7
1. What is a word ... 7
(9)
ix
a. Real and Potential Vocabulary Knowledge ... 10
b. Active (Productive) and Passive (Receptive) Vocabulary Knowledge ... 10
c. Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge ... 12
3. L2 Lexical Development ... 13
a. Formal Stage of Development (WordAssociation Stage) ... 14
b. LemmaMediation Stage (ConceptMediation Stage) ... 14
c. IntegrationStage (Final Stage of Development) ... 15
4. Model of Vocabulary Acquisition ... 16
5. Vocabulary Mapping Determinants ... 18
a. From Input to Intake: Quality Determinants ... 18
1) Context of Learning ... 18
2) Intrinsic Difficulties of Second Language Vocabulary ... 19
3) Learner’s First Language ... 19
4) Vocabulary Teaching Strategy ... 20
5) Learner’s Strategies for Discovering Meaning ... 20
b. From Intake to Lexicon: Consolidation Strategy ... 20
c. From Lexicon to Output: Language Use and Feedback ... 21
6. Componential Analysis of Meaning ... 22
a. Types of Meaning Relation ... 22
1) Inclusion ... 22
2) Overlapping ... 22
3) Complementation ... 23
(10)
x
b. Procedures for the Componential Analysis of Meaning ... 24
1) Analyzing a Meaning of a Lexical Unit in One’s Mother Tongue ... 24
a) The Verticalhorizontal Procedures ... 25
b) Overlapping Procedures ... 25
2) Determining the Meaning of a Lexical Unit in a Foreign Language ... 25
a) Analysis of Meaning on the Basis of Context ... 25
b) Determining a Meaning of a Lexical Unit with the Help of Informants ... 26
c) The Use of Dictionaries in the Analysis of Meaning ... 26
B. Theoretical Framework ... 26
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ... 29
A. Method ... 29
B. Participants ... 30
C. Instrument ... 30
D. Data Gathering Procedures ... 31
E. Data Analysis Procedure ... 32
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 33
A. Results ... 33
1. The Meaning of the Verb SEE ... 33
2. The Meaning of the Verb ASK ... 35
(11)
xi
4. The Meaning of the Verb GET ... 38
5. The Meaning of the Verb MAKE ... 39
B. Discussion ... 41
1. The Mapping of L2 Vocabularies ... 41
2. Cases Wrong Meaning Mapping ... 45
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 49
A. Conclusions ... 49
B. Recommendations ... 49
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 52
APPENDIX I ... 55
(12)
xii ABSTRACT
Endrawan, Antonius Rendy. 2007. A Study on the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Acquired by the Third Semester Students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.
Vocabulary learning is central to language acquisition whether the language is a first, second or foreign. In the past years, vocabulary was often neglected in the language teaching and learning because it was thought that learners could learn it by themselves. Recently, the studies addressing the issues on second language vocabulary teaching and learning have got special attention. It could be seen from the flourish of experimental studies and materials development related to second language vocabulary teaching and learning. However, the studies mostly are focused on the measures of vocabulary sizes rather than on the depth of vocabulary knowledge (quality of learners’ vocabulary knowledge) of specific words or the degree of such knowledge, on the growth of L2 lexicons and on the number of words gained or forgotten over time.
The present study is intended to study the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. It tried to answer just one research question: What is the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University?
The research was a descriptive qualitative study. The participants of the research were the third semester students of English education study program of Sanata Dharma University. A test was conducted to gather the data. The participants were asked to give a selfreport on the knowledge of the meaning of ten English verbs. The instrument used was the modified version of Vocabulary Knowledge Scale proposed by Wesche and Paribakht. Due to the large amount of data, only the meanings of five verbs were analyzed.
The results of the study showed that the depth of vocabulary knowledge of the students varies on every tested verb. It may confirm Jiang’s statement that a learner’s mental lexicon may contain second language vocabularies that are at various stage of development. The results of the study also showed that the students may no longer rely on the Indonesian translations equivalent in recognizing the meaning of the tested verbs indicating that they have built L2 lexical networks in their lexicon.
(13)
xiii ABSTRAK
Endrawan, Antonius Rendy. 2007. A Study on the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Acquired by the Third Semester Students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.
Kosakata adalah suatu hal yang pokok dalam pengenalan bahasa baik itu bahasa ibu, bahasa kedua, ataupun bahasa asing. Dahulu kosakata sering diabaikan dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa karena muridmurid dianggap bisa mempelajarinya sendiri. Barubaru ini penelitian membahas isu tentang pembelajaran dan pengajaran kosakata bahasa kedua mendapatkan perhatian khusus. Ini bisa dilihat dari berkembangnya penelitianpenelitian dan pengembangan materi yang berhubungan dengan pengajaran dan pembelajaran kosakata bahasa kedua. Tetapi, penelitianpenelitian itu kebanyakan lebih difokuskan pada penghitunganvocabulary sizes daripadadepth of vocabulary atau kualitas peangetahuan arti kosakata bahasa kedua.
Penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk meneliti depth of vocabulary knowledge dari mahasiswa semester tiga, program study pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma. Penelitian ini mencoba menjawab satu rumusan masalah: Apakah the depth of vocabulary knowledge dari mahasiswa semester tiga, program studi pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma?
Penelitian ini termasuk dalam penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Subjek penelitian ini adalah mahasiswamahasiswa semester tiga, program studi pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma. Untuk mengumpulkan data digunakan sebuah tes yang meminta subjek penelitian untuk memberikan selfreport tentang pengetahuan dari arti sepuluh kata kerja Bahasa Inggris. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah modifikasi dari Vocabulary Knowledge Scale yang dibuat oleh Wesche dan Paribakht. Dikarenakan besarnya jumlah data, hanya arti dari lima kata kerja yang diteliti.
Hasil dari penelitian in menunjukkan bahwa depth of vocabulary knowledge dari mahasiswa bervariasi pada setiap kata kerja. Hasil tersebut mungkin membuktikan pernyataan Jiang bahwa mental lexicon dari pelajar mungkin berisi katakata bahasa asing yang berada pada level perkembangan yang berbeda. Penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa para mahasiswa mungkin tidak lagi bergantung pada persamaan kata dalam bahasa Indonesia untuk mengenali arti kata kerja yang diteskan yang juga megindikasikan bahwa mereka sudah mempunyaiL2 lexical network.
(14)
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Meaning Frequency of the Verb SEE ... 34
Table 4.2 Meaning Frequency of the Verb ASK ... 35
Table 4.3 Meaning Frequency of the Verb KEEP ... 37
Table 4.4 Meaning Frequency of the Verb GET ... 38
(15)
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Introduction
This chapter presents the background of the conducted research, the purpose of the research, the scope of the problem that would be discussed in the research, the benefits that may be obtained from the research and the definition of terms related to the study.
A. Background
Vocabulary learning is central to language acquisition, whether the language is first, second or foreign (Decarrico, 2001: 285). In the past years, the area of vocabulary learning and teaching was often neglected, because it was thought that vocabulary could be left behind and the students could learn it by themselves. Indeed, there was a period when too much vocabulary learning was regarded as positively dangerous thing (Seal, 1991: 296). Although vocabulary has not always been recognized as priority in language teaching, interest in its role in second language teaching has grown rapidly in recent years. It is evidenced by the booming of experimental studies and pedagogical materials that most of which are aimed to address the issues in second language vocabulary learning and teaching. Most research on L2 acquisition to date, however, has focused on estimates of vocabulary size or breadth measures rather than on the depth of vocabulary knowledge of specific words or the degree of such knowledge, on the growth of L2 lexicons and on the number of words gained or forgotten over time
(16)
(Wesche & Paribakht, 1996: 13; Schmitt, 1998: 282). One obvious limitation of test measuring the vocabulary size is that they do not measure how well given words are known (Read, 1998 quoted in Wesche and Paribakht 1996: 13). Schmitt (1998: 281) says that vocabulary research that is focused on the size of lexicons and the number of words learned through various activities has generated little understanding on how individual words are acquired.
Studies on the students’ vocabulary knowledge have been conducted inside the Sanata Dharma English Education Study Program. Two of them were conducted by Susilo (2001) and Saputro (2005). Susilo (2001) in his study measured the controlled active vocabulary of the students. He found that there were significant differences of students’ vocabulary size in every semester. He concluded that there were gradual improvements of students’ vocabulary sizes along with their length of study. Another study was conducted by Saputro (2005). He investigated the lexical richness in the written work of Indonesian students learning English as foreign language. He found that there were significant differences of lexical density indices of written work between second semester and fourth semester but the others are static. The study also showed that the higher the students’ proficiency level, the students produced more word types and used word types that are less frequent.
Boogards (2000: 494), quoting Wesche and Paribakht (1996: 424), says that the other types of test on vocabulary knowledge are also necessary because advanced learners need depth and speed of access as well as range in their vocabulary knowledge, for ease and precision of comprehension as well as for effective composition and oral expression. Although breadth of knowledge is
(17)
essential dimension, it does not mean that the other dimension i.e. depth of knowledge is not important. For advanced learners it is important that they acquire more senses of polysemous word and learn more about possible collocates, special uses, and so on (Boogards, 2000: 495).
The present study is conducted with the aim to study the depth of vocabulary knowledge of the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The study is focused on the third semester students who are considered as the sophomore students. From the study, an assumption of depth of vocabulary knowledge of EFL learners in the initial level could be gained, so that further research aiming to observe the development of vocabulary knowledge could use the results or finding of this study as one of the related references.
B. Problem Identification
Lexical knowledge is more a matter of degree than ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and implies far more than just knowing one meaning for each form (Wesche & Paribakht, 1996: 14 cited in Boogards, 2000: 498). Knowledge of words concerns to the knowledge of its form, its position, its function and its meaning. Thus, assessing vocabulary either in L1 or L2 context should consider all of those four aspects. Testing vocabulary in a second or foreign language is not as straightforward an affair as is sometimes thought (Boogards, 2000: 490). The design of the test depends on what one wants to know about the learners’ vocabulary knowledge. The appropriate material and adequate procedures should be selected to arrive at valid and reputable results (Boogards, 2000: 490).
(18)
Greidanus and Nienhuis (2001) states that a word could be known in all sorts of degrees: from knowing that a given form is an existing word to knowledge including all four aspects of word knowledge which are knowing its form, its position, its function, and its meaning. Vocabulary knowledge of either L1 or L2 learners expands in breadth or the learners’ vocabulary sizes (the number of known words grows) and also in depth (the knowledge concerning the words already known increases, in other words, the quality of what the learners know increases) (Greidanus & Nienhuis, 2001: 567).
C. Problem Limitation
The discussion of the research would be limited on the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the students of English Education Study Program focused on the third semester students. The investigation of the students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge covers the discussion on the students’ meaning mapping on the tested English verbs.
D. Problem Formulation
The general problem of the investigation, the study on the depth of vocabulary knowledge of the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University, is formulated into more specific problem below:
1. What is the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University?
(19)
E. Research Objective
The research would be intended to answer the questions that are formulated in the problem formulation above that is to find out the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.
F. Research Benefits
The result of the study could be used as one of the references for the next study intended to investigate the development of the students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge or any researches conducted in the field of vocabulary teaching and learning. The finding could also be used as a tool to evaluate the instructional processes and practice in the department particularly in the field of vocabulary teaching and learning and in making necessary adjustment for improvement.
G. Definition of Terms
In order to avoid misunderstanding in perceiving and understanding some important terms in this study, some significant terms related to this study would be defined as follows:
1. Depth of vocabulary knowledge
Depth of vocabulary knowledge refers to the students’ quality of vocabulary knowledge (Read, 2000: 90). Mukarto (2005: 156) affirms that depth of vocabulary knowledge covers the depth and breadth of meaning dimension of a given word. The depth of meaning refers to the knowledge of both syntactic and semantic features that constitutes the core meaning
(20)
of a word while the breadth of meanings refers to the multiple meaning senses of a word.
2. Meaning mapping
Meaning mapping is the representation in the mind of a word meaning: both syntactic and semantic features within the boundary of a word which make up the meaning of that word (depth of meaning) and the multiple meaning senses of a word (breadth of meaning) (Mukarto, 2005: 157).
(21)
7 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter presents the literature review of the study. It is divided into two parts. The first part is the theoretical description containing review of the related theories to the study and the second part is the theoretical framework of the study.
Theoretical Description 1. What Is a Word?
Word is not an easy concept to define, either in theoretical terms for various applied purposes (Read, 2000: 17). Read makes some basic distinctions as the basic points to define words. One is the distinction between tokens and types. This distinction refers to the counting of words in a text. Individual words occurring more than once in the text are counted each time they are used refer to as tokens (Read, 2000: 18). For example, the word walk in a text occurs as walked, walking and walks is counted three times. On the other hand, the number of types is the total number of the different word forms, so that a word that is repeated many times is counted only once.
Another distinction is between function words and content words. The words like the, a, to, and, in and that are seen as belonging more to the grammar of the language than to its vocabulary. This kind of words – articles, prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions, auxiliaries, etc. – is often referred to as function words.
(22)
While content words – nouns, ‘full’ verbs, adjectives, and adverbs – they have little if any meaning in isolation and serve more to provide links within sentence, modify the meaning of content words and so on.
These content words may occur in various forms. For example, the word “wait” may occur as waits, waited, waiting. They would be normally regarded as the same word in different forms. These different forms are the result of inflectional endings adding to a base form without changing the meaning or word class of the base. The base and the inflected forms of a word are known as lemma (Read, 2000: 18). Content words may also have a variety of derived forms that often change the word class and add a new element of meaning. For example, the derived forms of the word happy: happily, happiness, happier. Even though they have slight semantics differences, all of these words are closely related in form and meaning. Such a set of word forms sharing a common meaning is known as a word family.
Cruse (2000: 80) distinguishes word forms and lexeme. Word forms are individuated by their form, whether phonological or graphic. Lexeme could be regarded as groupings of one or more word forms which could be individuated by their roots and/or derivational affixes. So, the words run, runs, running and ran are word forms belonging to the same lexeme “run”. While walk, walks and walked belongs to a different lexeme. Walk distinguished from the former by its root: likewise obey, obeys, obeying and obeyed belong to single lexeme and disobeys, disobey, disobeying and disobeyed having the same root as the first set, belonging to different lexeme, distinguished this time by the possession of the derivational affix dis.
(23)
2. Vocabulary Knowledge
Richards (1976: 7789 cited in Mukarto 2005: 152) proposed several aspects on assumption of vocabulary knowledge. According to Richards, knowing a word means:
1. knowing its relative frequency and its collocation 2. knowing the limitation imposed on its use 3. knowing its syntactic behavior
4. knowing its basic forms and derivations 5. knowing its association with other words 6. knowing its semantic value
7. knowing many of the different meanings associated with the words
Nation (1990: 31) adopted Richards’ assumption of word knowledge; he added the receptive and productive knowledge and several other considerations and reorganized them.
Form
Spoken form R what does the word sound like? P how is the word pronounced? Written form R what does the word look like?
P how is the word written and spelled Position
Grammatical position R in what patterns does the word occur? P in what patterns must we used the word?
Collocation R what words and types of words could we express before and after the word?
(24)
P what words or types of words must we use with this word?
Position
Frequency R how common is the word?
P how often should the word be used? Appropriateness R where would we expect to find this word?
P where could this word be used? Meaning
Concept R what does the word mean?
P what word should be used to express this meaning?
Association R what other words does this word make us think of?
P what other words could we use instead of this one?
Figure 2.1: Components of word knowledge (Nation, 1990: 31)
Some other researchers proposed some notions on the vocabulary knowledge:
a. Real and Potential Vocabulary Knowledge
Gass (1994: 272) suggests that learners appear to have differing degrees of knowledge of their second language lexicon. She differentiates between potential vocabulary and real vocabulary. Potential vocabulary consists of words a learner would recognize even though they have yet to be seen in the second language. Common scientific and technological terms, for example, in the economic, medical, technique, and physics, would be the examples of potential vocabulary. Real vocabulary consists of words the learner is familiar with after (and because of) exposure. The examples would be the vocabularies learned in the shool, or learned by reading.
(25)
b. Active (productive) and Passive (receptive) Vocabulary Knowledge Another distinction is between passive (receptive) vocabulary knowledge and active (productive) vocabulary knowledge. Passive or receptive vocabulary knowledge is the matter of word recognition (Gass, 1994: 375). Nation (1990) states that passive vocabulary knowledge includes the ability to distinguish a word from words with a similar form and being able to judge if the word form sounds right or look right. The knowledge involves having some expectation of the words that it would collocate with. Knowing a word in this knowledge includes being able to recall its meaning when we meet it. It also includes being able to see which shade of meaning is most suitable for the context that it occurs in. In addition, knowing the meaning of a word may include being able to make various associations with other related words. On the other hand, active or productive vocabulary knowledge involves knowing how to pronounce the word, how to write it and spell it, how to use it in correct grammatical pattern along with the words it usually collocates with. Active vocabulary knowledge is the extension of passive vocabulary knowledge. Active or productive vocabulary knowledge also involves not using the word too often if it a typically a lowfrequency word, and using it in the suitable situations. It involves using the word to stand for the meaning it represents and being able to think of suitable substitutes if any.
Laufer and Paribakht (1998 cited in Gass, 1994: 375) investigated three types of vocabulary knowledge, which are passive, controlled active, and free active. Passive knowledge involves understanding the most frequent meaning of a word. Controlled active involves cued recall (e.g. a test item might include The railway con____ the city with it suburbs, where the first few letters of a word are
(26)
included to eliminate other possibilities). Free active knowledge involves spontaneous use of the word. According to Laufer and Paribakht, these three knowledge types developed at different rates. Passive vocabulary knowledge is the fastest while active (particularly free active) vocabulary knowledge is the slowest. In addition, passive vocabulary is always larger than active vocabulary, although there is a difference between learners in a foreign language setting and those in a second language setting. The gap between knowledge types is smaller in the foreign language setting, suggesting a strong role for the environment in learning (Gass, 1994: 375).
c. Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge
Breadth of vocabulary knowledge is defined as vocabulary size, or the number of words for which a learner has at least some minimum knowledge of meaning (Qian, 1999). There are two ways to see how many words a second language learner needs. One way is to look at the vocabulary of the native speakers of English and consider that as a goal for second language learners. The other way is to look at the results of frequency counts and the practical experience of second language teaching and researchers and decide how much vocabulary is needed for particular activities.
Depth of vocabulary knowledge is defined as a learner's level of knowledge of various aspects of a given word, or how well the learner knows this word. Mukarto (2005: 156) affirms that depth of vocabulary knowledge covers the depth and breadth of meaning dimension of a given word. The depth of meaning refers to the knowledge of both syntactic and semantic features that constitutes the core
(27)
meaning of a word while the breadth of meanings refers to the multiple meaning senses of a word.
3. L2 Lexical Development
One of the most essential tasks of vocabulary acquisition in an L2 is the mapping of lexical forms to meaning (Jiang, 2002: 617). Language learners use vocabulary mapping as the learning strategy to identify and specify lexical properties and to eventually incorporate them into their existing lexical system or network of the lexical properties (Mukarto, 1999: 28). This vocabulary mapping constitutes representation of a word meaning both syntactic and semantic features within the meaning boundary of a word which make up the meaning of that word (depth of meaning) and the multiple meaning senses of a word (breadth of meaning) (Mukarto, 2005: 157). This representation refers as meaning mapping. Swan (1997 cited in Mukarto 2005) claims that mapping second language vocabulary onto mother tongue is a basic and indispensable learning strategy. It is a general phenomenon in the EFL learning context in Indonesia.
Figure 2.2: The lexical representation in the mental lexicon. Source: Jiang (2000: 48)
(28)
Based on Levelt’s model of lexical entry in the mental lexicon, Jiang (2000: 48), proposed the three stages of second language vocabulary mapping development.
a. Formal Stage of Development (WordAssociation Stage)
In the initial stage of L2 vocabulary learning, L2 words are mapped to L1 translations, not to its meaning directly. In this stage, L2 words are learned mainly as formal entities because the meaning is provided either through association with L1 translation or by means of definition rather than extracted or learned from the context by learners themselves (Jiang, 2000: 50).
b. LemmaMediation Stage (ConceptMediation Stage)
The next stage is the L1 lemma mediation stage. In this stage, the information L1 lexeme morphology, pronunciation, and orthography is gradually deactivated because it does not assist the L2 word use. A strong link between L2 words and the lemma component (meaning and syntax) of L1 translation is established. So, the mapping is no longer done from L2 words to L1 translation but from L2 words to L1 meaning directly. L2 learner arrive at this stage when they have already had advanced and increase experience in L2. Adopting Levelt’s model of lexical representation, Jiang suggest that L1 lemma information could be said to have been copied into the L2 lexical entry from its L1 translation and become part of the lexical knowledge represented in L2 entries. Transfer of lexical meanings from the native language to the target language is a familiar phenomenon with second language learners at the beginner level (Ijaz, 1986: 405). Ijaz suggest, concepts in the L1 are transferred to the L2 and mapped onto new linguistics labels regardless of differences in the semantics boundaries
(29)
of corresponding words. The continuous L1 transfer could promote problem for L2 learners. Very rarely do L2 words have one to one correspondence with L1 words (Mukarto, 1999: 28). Poedjosoedarmo (1989: 6670 cited in Mukarto, 1999: 28) suggest that most L2 words are polysemous; they have more than one meaning and different meaning may require different linguistics context.
c. IntegrationStage (Final Stage of Development)
The last stage is called L2 integration stage. Learners arrive at this stage when the semantic, syntactic and morphological specifications of an L2 word are extracted form exposure and uses and integrated into lexical entry. In the point of learners’ L2 lexical development, Jiang (2000) observes that there are two practical constraints on L2 lexical development in instructional setting. The first constraint is that L2 learners do not have any contextualized input in the target language that make them difficult to create and extract semantics, morphological, and syntactic specifications about a word and integrate such information into the lexical entry of that word. L2 acquisition in instructional setting only provides such a tiny amount of input for the learners to work (Singleton: 51). The second constraint is that L2 learners have established L1 semantic system that closely associated with the target language; this makes the L2 learners tend to rely on the system in learning the L2 vocabulary. The L2 learners in the initial stage learn L2 words together with its L1 translation. When L2 learners learn L2 words together with their translation, the learners’ language processor or language acquisition device may be less motivated to pay attention to the contextual cues for meaning extraction. Thus the tendency to use L1 translation in learning the L2 vocabulary would hinder the L2 lexical development. Ijaz adds, in the case of L2 lexical
(30)
acquisition the learners may copy such abstract entries from L1 lexicon to the interlanguage lexicon to assist the recognition of L2 words. According to her, in this way of learning, concepts underlying word in the L1 are transferred to the L2 and mapped onto the new linguistic labels regardless of differences in the semantics boundaries of corresponding words (Ijaz: 405). This would easily lead the L2 learners to error in L2 use and production. The continuous L1 transfer may also become the impedance of L2 lexical development. L2 learners would stick on a certain stage of development and difficult to reach the complete and final stage of development.
4. Model of Vocabulary Acquisition
The basic model adapted to account for the process of L2 vocabulary acquisition is adapted from the computational model of L2 acquisition (Ellis, 1997).
Figure 2.3: Model of Process of L2 Acquisition adapted from the Computational Model of L2 Acquisition (Ellis, 1997).
In this model, learners encounter or are exposed to language input in the spoken or written forms or both. In the foreign language learning context, learners are mostly exposed to the written forms rather than the spoken one. The language
(31)
input is processed in two stages. First, information contained in the words are attended and taken into shortterm memory. The information attended may be the word forms (spelling, intonation, stress), and the word meaning(s). This attended information are called intake. Then, some of the intake is stored in the longterm memory as part of the lexicon. The process that is responsible for creating intake and the lexicon occurs within the “black box” of the learners’ mind. Finally the lexicon is manipulated or used by the learners in learner language (Ellis, 1997: 35).
This model of vocabulary acquisition corresponds to the five essentials steps in vocabulary learning proposed by Brown and Payne. Their paper was presented at the TESOL convention in Baltimore, MD, in 1994. The steps are 1. encountering new words
2. getting clear image – visual or auditory or both of the words forms 3. getting the word meaning
4. consolidating the word form and meaning in memory so that the new words become part of the lexicon
5. using the word
(Hatch and Brown, 1995: 371 391).
There are three crucial stages in the model of vocabulary acquisition process. The first is from input to intake, which is the first stage of vocabulary mapping. The processes influence the intake quality. Brown and Payne suggest that learners need to get clear image of word form and meaning. The second crucial stage is from intake to the lexicon, from the short term memory to the long term memory. It is the stage that determines how much of the intake would be
(32)
incorporated into the lexicon. In this stage learners continually construct and adjust the vocabulary mapping or network of associations in the mental lexicon. The third stage is the use of the lexicon by the L2 learners. According to Melka (1997), there are two natures of word use: 1. Receptive and productive. In the L2 acquisition context, the use of lexicon or words may serve two functions: to express one self and to understand others in communication. 2. To learn more properties of L2 words or vocabulary.
5. Vocabulary Mapping Determinants a. From Input to Intake: Quality Determinants
The quality of vocabulary intake is subject to the following determinants or factors:
1) Context of L2 Learning
Brown (1986: 34) classifies the context of L2 learning into two major categories: second language learning and foreign language learning. L2 learning may take place in two different contexts: within the culture of L2 language e.g. an Indonesian learning English in the US / UK and within its own native culture where the L2 is an accepted lingua franca in education, business etc. learners learn L2 in their native culture would have less opportunities to use the language e.g. Indonesian learn English in their country. Sources of language input and the chances to use the language in communication are limited. Thus, the limited chances and exposure to use the language would likely be detrimental to vocabulary mapping. Without enough exposure, learners would have a limited
(33)
number of contexts resulting the limited identification and acquisition of limited language features.
2) Intrinsic Difficulties of Second Language Vocabulary.
Intrinsic difficulties of L2 vocabulary may cause problems for learners in mapping the L2 words. Features such as familiar phonemes, consistency of sounds script relation, regularity, transparency, register neutrality, and one form to one meaning correspondence help learners in vocabulary mapping and also acquisition. On the other hand features like unfamiliar morphemes, inconsistency of sound script relation, irregularity, lexical complexity, synformity (Similarity among L2 lexical forms), register restriction and one form to multiple meaning correspondences, hinder vocabulary acquisition as vocabulary mapping become much more complicated.
3) Learner’s First Language
It is undeniable that L1 has a considerable influence on how L2 is learned. Swan’s view (1997) says that mapping L2 words into L1 is a basic and indispensable strategy in vocabulary learning, but also inevitably leads to error. Ijaz suggests that L2 learners transfer the concepts in the L1 to L2 words without regarding the differences in the semantics boundaries of corresponding words (Ijaz, 1986: 405) and this may lead the students to the error in the L2 production. Very rarely do L2 words have one to one correspondence with L1 words (Mukarto, 1999: 28). Poedjosoedarmo (1989: 6670 cited in Mukarto, 1999: 28) suggests that most L2 words are polysemous; they have more than one meaning and different meaning may require different linguistics context.
(34)
Vocabulary teaching generally focuses primarily on two aspects: form and meaning. The meaning taught is usually the core meanings of the words and the other possible meanings are often neglected because they are considered irrelevant at the moment. The learners learn the L2 words from the L1 translation and the problem here there is no exact translation from L2 to L1.
5) Learner’s Strategies for Discovering Meaning
There are three ways that are most helpful for discovering meaning according to Schmitt’s survey on vocabulary learning strategies used by Japanese learners of English (1997: 221223): (1) checking the meaning of unknown words in bilingual dictionaries, (2) asking teachers for paraphrases, synonyms, or gestures and (3) guessing meaning from contexts. However, Meara (1997) claims that L2 word is only partially taught and learned, but when different aspects of words are touched as the same word is encountered later, the mapping would be adjusted.
In terms of vocabulary mapping, intake is the first step in the mapping process and is temporary and partial in nature.
b. From Intake to Lexicon: Consolidation Strategy
Some of the intake is stored in longterm memory (Ellis, 1997: 35), so that the maximizing the portion of intake in longterm memory as part of the lexicon and L2 knowledge should be the concern of both language educators and the learners.
The consolidation strategies that may be used by the learners are repetition, mnemonic devices, loci, key words, cognitive depth and games. The
(35)
most commonly used strategy is repetition in its various form, one of them called “structured repetition” technique. This technique requires the students to memorize a list of vocabulary items. Weekly tests, consisting 40% new vocabulary items and 60% “old” vocabulary items which have been tested before, are given as a means to encourage learners to memorize the vocabulary items. In an experimental study, Purba (1990) found out that this structured repetition technique proved to be effective to increase the learners’ mastery of English vocabulary. This technique allows the students to reach their threshold where they could start to learn from context. However, this technique must not be the sole technique of vocabulary learning as only core meanings are given.
Consolidation strategies allow the learners better map the newly acquired vocabulary into the existing lexicon by making as many connections as possible between the newly learned words with the existing lexicon and strengthening the link through repeated encounter of the words in various linguistic contexts.
c. From Lexicon to Output: Language Use and Feedback
At the early stage of language acquisition, learners likely think in L1 and then seek the suitable L2 words before using them. At a later stage or more advanced level, learners may activate their L2 lexicon without reference to L1 lexicon. In the use of lexicon in communication, learners may receive feedback. If the learners get proper feedback, they would be able to adjust their mapping or network in the lexicon and therefore have a bettermapped lexicon. On the other side, if there is no proper feedback on learners’ language, the learners’ language would be fossilized at an earlier stage. In order to avoid the fossilization occur in
(36)
the L2 lexical development, it would be better for the teachers or lecturers to give negativefeedback when the students inaccurately map the words.
6. Componential Analysis of Meaning a. Types of Meaning Relation
According to Nida (1975: 15), there are four principal ways in which the meanings of different semantic units may be related to one another: inclusion, overlapping, complementation, and contiguity.
1) Inclusion
In many instances the meaning of one word may be said to be included within the meaning of one another. All poodles, for example, are dogs, and all dogs are animals. Thus the meaning of poodle could be said to be included in the meaning of dog, and the meaning of dog included in the meaning of animal. Such inclusions of meaning, one within another, are extremely important in determining the significant features of meaning, since each “included” meaning has all the features of the “including” meaning, that is, the immediately larger area of meaning, plus at least one or more feature which serves to distinguish the more restricted area.
2) Overlapping
One of the most obvious features of the relatedness of meanings is the tendency for meanings to overlap, e.g. give/bestow, ill/sick, posses/own, answer/reply. The words in each pair, normally called synonyms, are almost never substitutable one for the other in any and all contexts. That is to say, they are not identical in meaning, but they could be substituted one for the other in at least
(37)
certain contexts without significant changes in the conceptual content of an utterance. Initial learners should be aware of the English synonyms because they could lead the learners into the misuse of words.
3) Complementation
Meanings complementary to each other involve a number of shared features of meaning, but show certain marked contrasts, and often opposite meanings. Generally, there are three types of complementary relations: (1) opposites, (2) reversives, and (3) conversives.
Opposites are often spoken of as polar contrasts, since they involve distinct antithesis of qualities (e.g. good/bad, high/low,), quantities (e.g. much/little, many/few), states (e.g. dead/alive, open/shut), time (e.g. now/then), space (e.g. here/there), and movement (e.g. go/come).
Certain complementary meanings involve reversives of events, e.g. tie/untie, alienate/reconcile; or may be better described as conversives, e.g. buy/sell, lend/borrow.
4) Contiguity
The relation of contiguity is the most important for the analysis of distinctive features or components of meanings since it represents the relation between closely related meanings occupying a welldefined, restricted semantic domain, and exhibiting certain wellmarked contrasts. That is to say, each meaning is distinctly set off from other related meanings by at least one important feature. The related meanings of walk, run, hop, skip, and crawl constitute such a cluster of contiguous meaning. They all share the features of movement by animate an animate being, using the limbs; but the number of limbs, the order of
(38)
movement, and the relation of the limbs to the supporting surface involve clearly definable contrasts. The relation of contiguity does not apply to the words walk, hop, run, skip, and crawl, but only to the meanings of those words which are related, in the sense that they share certain common features, and hence constitute a single semantic domain.
b. Procedures for the Componential Analysis of Meaning
A meaning is not a thing in itself, but only a set of contrastive relations. In some instances the crucial contrasts involve a few related meanings, but there is no way to determine a meaning apart from comparisons and contrasts with other meanings within the same semantic area (Nida, 1975: 151).
1) Analyzing a Meaning of a Lexical Unit in One’s Mother Tongue
The procedures for determining a single referential meaning of a lexical unit in one’s mother tongue involve comparison with related meanings of other units, that is, with other meanings in the same semantic domain. Where the meaning of a lexical unit occurs in a semantically contiguous set, especially if this set is part of a more or less systematic hierarchical structure, the procedures are relatively simple, and the results could be determined with little difficulty. Since they are varieties in between comparable meanings it is important to recognize two distinct types of procedure. One may be called the “verticalhorizontal procedures”, the other, the “overlapping procedures”.
a) The Verticalhorizontal Procedures
The verticalhorizontal procedure for analyzing meaning involves (1) a vertical dimension, in which more inclusive meanings are compared with less
(39)
inclusive meanings, that is, meanings on different hierarchical levels, and (2) a horizontal dimension in which meanings on the same hierarchal level are compared, whether contiguous, overlapping, or complementary.
b) Overlapping Procedures
In general it is preferable to employ the verticalhorizontal procedures in determining the meaning of a semantic unit. However, in many instances it is impossible to do so, since the relevant contrasts could be stated only in terms of overlapping meanings.
2) Determining the Meaning of a Lexical Unit in a Foreign Language
In analyzing the meaning of a lexical unit in a foreign unit in a foreign language, two principal types of resources are usually available: (1) items in context, either existing texts or material provided by informants, spontaneously or by elicitation, and (2) dictionaries (monolingual or bilingual) and vocabulary lists with glosses.
a) Analysis of Meaning on the Basis of Context
The analysis of word meaning on the basis of context could be done by a series sentence of sentences containing different context on the use of the word.
b) Determining a Meaning of a Lexical Unit with The Help of Informants In working with a language informant, it is essential to avoid asking, “What does the term mean?” A sophisticated informant may sometimes provide a helpful definition, but in most instances it is better to ask, “What is it like?” “How is it used?” “When do you say this word?”
(40)
If the lexical unit seems to refer to some entity or object, one of the first question may be, “what does it look like?” It may be necessary to ask questions as, “What does it sound like?” “What does it feel like?” other types of question could be developed to elicit description of words.
c) The Use of Dictionaries in the Analysis of Meaning
Key syntactic and semantic features of a word could be generally found in dictionary definitions (Mukarto, 2005: 156). Finer semantic features of words could be identified by contrasting them with other words sharing the common meaning sense of the words. By contrasting them, one could identify the features that constitute the meaning of those words. In general, dictionaries cover the semantic areas involved, list typical contrast, provide illustrative contexts, indicate different syntactic uses, give historical data suggestive of relation between meanings, frequently list idiomatic and figurative uses, and may note such temporal features as “obsolescent”, “archaic”, “neologism”, etc (Nida, 1975: 172). Dictionaries may also be very useful in providing terms for setting up contiguous and overlapping series, since they often list under generic terms those synonyms which are structurally included.
B. Theoretical framework
The investigations of L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge have important implication for language pedagogy. The investigations on the L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge, recently, are focused on the learners’ vocabulary sizes rather than on the learners’ depth of vocabulary knowledge. Although breadth of
(41)
vocabulary knowledge is an essential dimension, it does not mean that the other dimension i.e. the depth of vocabulary knowledge is not important. For advanced learners it is important that they acquire more senses of polysemous words and learn more about possible collocates, special uses and so on (Boogards, 2000: 495).
In attempt to answer the research problem mentioned in chapter I, the present study uses several theories: vocabulary knowledge, second language lexical development proposed by Jiang (2000), vocabulary mapping determinant proposed by Mukarto (1999), and componential analysis of meaning proposed by Nida (1975).
Jiang (2000) proposed three stages of second language lexical development, namely: (1) the initial stage of second language lexical development or word association stage, (2) lemmamediation stage or conceptmediation stage, (3) final stage of second language lexical development or integration stage. The stages of second language development is used to see in what stage do the third semester students belong to and to see the quality of mapping produced by the students.
Vocabulary mapping done by second language learners is determined by several factors: (1) from input to intake, there are: context of L2 learning, intrinsic difficulties of second language vocabulary, learners’ first language, vocabulary teaching strategy, and learners’ strategy for discovering meanings, (2) from intake to lexicon: consolidation strategies, and (3) from lexicon to output: language use and feedback (Mukarto: 1999). These determinants are used to see the factors that affect the third semester students’ quality of vocabulary knowledge or their depth of vocabulary knowledge.
(42)
The meanings written by the students in the selfreport categories (Vocabulary Knowledge Scale) would be analyzed using one of the procedures in the analysis of words meaning proposed by Nida (1975) that is using dictionaries. The procedure is used to see whether the meanings that the students would write are inside the meaning boundary of the tested verbs or not. In case that the meaning of the tested verbs based on the students’ knowledge is outside the meaning boundary of the tested verbs, it indicates that the meaning mapping done by the students is inaccurate and vice versa. From the students’ meaning mapping accuracy an assumption on the students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge could be drawn.
(43)
29 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter presents discussion on the procedure of the study. The discussion includes the discussion on the research methodology used on the study, the subjects of the study, the instrument used to gather the data, the procedure of data gathering and the procedure to analyze the data in order to answer the problem formulations mentioned in the first chapter.
A. Method
The present study is a descriptive qualitative study. Fraenkel (1993: 380) affirms that studies investigate the quality of relationships, activities, situations, or materials are referred to as qualitative research. The study investigated the students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge by analyzing documents of selfreport on the students’ knowledge on the meaning of five tested English verbs (see, keep, make, get, ask) and was intended to give a general description on the students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge. The interpretation of the data was descriptive in nature and it did not deal with any hypothesis testing so that the study was a descriptive qualitative study.
Before conducting the research, library and journals study was done to find and select the appropriate theories and informations related to the study in order to find out the answer to the problem formulation mentioned in the first chapter.
(44)
B. Participants
The participants of the study were one class of third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University attending Extensive Reading I course. The third semester students were chosen with the assumption that they have had adequate English vocabulary mastery since they have passed courses on Vocabulary I, Vocabulary II, Reading I and Reading II. Therefore, a picture of depth of vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners that is focused to learn English in the sophomore stage could be obtained.
C. Instrument
In order to find out the answer to the research questions, the study used the modified version of Vocabulary knowledge Scale proposed by Wesche and Paribakht (1997: 180). Vocabulary knowledge Scale is a generic instrument that it could be used to measure any set of words (Read, 2000: 132; Mukarto, 2005: 152). It consists of two scales: one for eliciting responses from the testtakers and one for scoring the responses. The first scale is presented with the words to be tested. It has five categories representing how well the testtakers know the words. The categories range from 1 representing complete unfamiliarity to 5 representing the ability to use a word with grammatical and semantic accuracy in a sentence (Mukarto, 2005: 154).
The modified version of the VKS asked the testtakers to write as many as examples of synonyms or translations and illustrate the use of each synonym and translation in sentences, in case that they choose categories IV and V. The modification to the original VKS was done in order to explore the testtakers
(45)
vocabulary knowledge so that it could give clearer picture of the students’ vocabulary knowledge. The scale of scoring was not used because the test results were not scored instead the words which the students have written in the VKS were tabulated.
The tested verbs were taken from Collins Cobuild Dictionary. They were see, get, keep, take, draw, make, run, kill, carry, and ask. The ten tested verbs were all high frequency words. High frequency verbs were chosen because they usually had more extended meaning than the low frequency words so that they could give more opportunity to the students to explore their vocabulary knowledge in the test. (See Appendix II for the instrument used).
D. Data Gathering Procedure
The subjects were asked to give a selfreport of their knowledge on 10 the tested verbs using the modified version of Vocabulary Knowledge Scale. They had two minutes to give self report on every verb, so that the data gathering lasted for twenty minutes. The data was collected on 9 October 2006. The researcher himself collected the data. The procedure of collecting the data was generally divided into three parts: preparation, administering the test, and data collection. 1. Preparation
Modifying the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale.
Choosing the verbs to be tested from “Collins Cobuild English Dictionary” Obtaining permission to the lecturer whose class was intended to be tested. 2. Administering the test
(46)
Distributing the test sheets.
Announcing the time limitation and the prohibition of using dictionary. 3. Data collection
The results of the test were not scored; instead the meaning of the tested verbs which the students had written in the VKS was tabulated into the table of inventory of meaning.
Since the focus of the study was on the third semester students’ depth of vocabulary knowledge, for those who were not the students of the intended semesters but taking the class (shoppers) their works were put aside.
E. Data Analysis Procedure
In order to answer the problem formulation mentioned in Chapter I: What is the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University? The procedure of data analysis is presented as follows:
1. From the ten tested verbs only five verbs (see, keep, get, make, ask) were chosen to be discussed for reason of manageability, financial and time consideration.
2. Tabulating the data.
3. In order to see the depth of vocabulary knowledge of the students, the results of the test were analyzed using related theories reviewed in chapter II.
(47)
33 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter presents the results of the study and the discussion on interpretation of the results. The results of the study concern the meaning of the tested verbs and their occurrence. Those two aspects are expected to reveal the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of English Education Department of Sanata Dharma University. The discussion covers the discussion on the students’ L2 vocabulary meaning mapping and the cases of the students’ inacurrate meaning mapping.
A. Results
The results are the tabulation of the meaning of every tested verb (see, make, ask, keep, get) written by the respondents in the selfreport categories (Vocabulary Knowledge Scale modified version). Every meaning of the tested verbs in the form of both English synonyms and Indonesian translation equivalents is counted so that each meaning and its frequency are presented in the following tables.
1. The Meanings of the Verb SEE
The verb SEE was assigned different meanings. It was considered synonymous with twelve English verbs and was considered equivalent with four Indonesian translations. The meanings and the Indonesian translation equivalents are presented in Table 4.1.
(48)
Table 4.1: Meaning Frequency of the Verb SEE
No. Synonyms F % Translations F %
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Look at Watch Understand Know Notice Observe Visit Meet Stare Spy Analyze Synthesize 26 16 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 43.34 26.67 8.34 5 3.34 3.34 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.67 Melihat Mengerti Bertemu Tahu 27 4 3 3 72.97 10.81 8.10 8.10
Total 60 37
The verb SEE was considered synonymous with the verb look at by 26 respondents or 43, 34% of the total respondents and was considered equivalent with melihat by 27 respondents or 72, 97% of the total respondents. The Indonesian translation equivalent melihat is the most frequent meaning occurred in the table inventory of meaning. On the other hand, there are 6 English verbs that each meaning is written only by 1 respondent (1, 67%); they are: visit, meet, stare, spy, analyze, and synthesize. The verb synthesize is one case of wrong word association or wrong meaning mapping since the meaning of the verb synthesize is mostly outside the meaning boundary of the verb SEE.
Besides look at that was considered equivalent with Indonesian translation melihat there are some other meanings in the form of English synonyms that can be considered equivalent with the Indonesian translations: understand is considered equivalent with mengerti, know is considered equivalent with tahu, and meet is considered equivalent with bertemu. The table also shows that there are certain meanings that do not share the literal meaning of the verb SEE that is
(49)
using the eyes or using the sight sense; rather they have the connotative meaning or the figurative meaning senses of the verb SEE. The verbs that have the figurative meaning senses are: synthesize, visit, meet, understand, know, and analyze.
2. The Meaning of the Verb ASK
The verbs ASK was assigned different meanings. It was considered synonymous with nine English verbs and was considered equivalent with eight Indonesian translations. The meanings and the Indonesian translation equivalents are presented in table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Meaning Frequency of the Verb ASK
No. Synonyms F % Translations F %
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Question Request Tell Say Invite Demand Exclaminate Have sb to Order 14 6 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 43.75 18.75 15.62 6.25 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 Bertanya Meminta Menyuruh Mengatakan Memohon Memerintah Permintaan Pertanyaan 25 22 3 2 1 1 1 1 42.85 39.28 5.35 3.57 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78
Total # 32 56
The verb ASK was considered synonymous with the verb question by fourteen respondents or 43, 75% of the total respondents and was considered equivalent with Indonesian translation bertanya by twenty five respondents or 42, 85 % of the total respondents. There are 5 meanings in the form of English synonyms that each is written only by one respondent: invite, demand, exclaminate, have somebody to, and order and 4 Indonesian translation
(50)
equivalents that are each is also written only by one respondent, they are: memohon, memerintah, permintaan, and pertanyaan. One respondent wrote exclaminate in the selfreport categories, which is not a word or a dictionary entry. In addition, the Indonesian words permintaan and pertanyaan are not classified as Indonesian verbs, rather they are nouns.
Besides the verb question that is considered equivalent with the Indonesian translation bertanya, there are some other English verbs that can be considered equivalent with the Indonesian translation, they are: request that can be considered equivalent with meminta, order that can be considered equivalent with menyuruh and memerintah, have somebody to that can be considered equivalent with menyuruh, and tell and say that can be considered equivalent withmengatakan.
The meaning of the verb ASK that is have somebody to has different meaning with the common meaning of the verb ASK. It does not share the common meaning of the verb ASK which is question. The meaning is one of the examples of extended meaning or multilpe meaning senses of English vocabularies particularly English verbs. The other examples could be found in the table of meaning frequency.
3. The Meaning of the Verb KEEP
The verbs KEEP was assigned different meanings. It was considered synonymous with 9 English verbs and was considered equivalent with 9 Indonesian translations. The meanings and the Indonesian translation equivalents are presented in table 4.3.
(51)
Table 4.3: Meaning Frequency of the Verb KEEP
No. Synonyms F % Translations F %
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Guard Maintain Take care Protect Stay Save Remain Still Go on 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 19.35 16.12 16.12 12.9 9.67 9.67 6.45 6.45 3.32 Menjaga Menyimpan Tetap Memelihara Merawat Melindungi Menjauh Mempertahankan Stabil 26 9 6 5 3 1 1 1 1 47.16 16.98 11.32 9.43 5.66 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88
Total 31 53
The verb keep was considered synonymous with the verb guard by 6 respondents or 19, 35% of the total respondents and was considered equivalents with the Indonesian translationmenjaga by 26 respondents or 47, 16% of the total respondents. The frequency between the verb guard and the Indonesian translation equivalent menjaga is significantly different. It may show that the respondents are more familiar with the indonesian translation menjaga. The English meaning in the form of English synonyms that each is only written by one respondent are: go on, melindungi, menjauh, mempertahankan and stabil. The Indonesian word stabil is not a verb, instead it is an adjective.
Besides the verb guard can be considered equivalent with the Indonesian translation menjaga, it also can be considered equivalent with melindungi. Some other verbs are possible to be considered equivalent with the Indonesian translation, they are: take care that can be considered equivalent with menjaga, maintain and save that can be considered equivalent with mempertahankan, protect that can be considered equivalent withmelindungi, and stay, remain, still and go onthat can be considered equivalent withtetap.
(1)
KILL
SelfreportCategories
I I don’t remember having seen this word before. II I have seen this word, but I don’t know what it means.
III I have seen this word before, and I think it means. (Synonym(s) or translation(s)).
________________________________________________________ IV I know this word. It means. (Meaning: synonym(s) or translation(s).
Write all the meanings that you know).
· ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________
V I can use this word in a sentence:
· ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________
· ___________________________________________________ (Illustrate the use of every synonym(s) or translation(s) you write in section IV in sentences)
(2)
72
GET
SelfreportCategories
I I don’t remember having seen this word before. II I have seen this word, but I don’t know what it means.
III I have seen this word before, and I think it means. (Synonym(s) or translation(s)).
________________________________________________________ IV I know this word. It means. (Meaning: synonym(s) or translation(s).
Write all the meanings that you know).
· ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________
V I can use this word in a sentence:
· ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________
· ___________________________________________________ (Illustrate the use of every synonym(s) or translation(s) you write in section IV in sentences)
(3)
ASK
SelfreportCategories
I I don’t remember having seen this word before. II I have seen this word, but I don’t know what it means.
III I have seen this word before, and I think it means. (Synonym(s) or translation(s)).
________________________________________________________ IV I know this word. It means. (Meaning: synonym(s) or translation(s).
Write all the meanings that you know).
· ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________
V I can use this word in a sentence:
· ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________
· ___________________________________________________ (Illustrate the use of every synonym(s) or translation(s) you write in section IV in sentences)
(4)
74
SEE
SelfreportCategories
I I don’t remember having seen this word before. II I have seen this word, but I don’t know what it means.
III I have seen this word before, and I think it means. (Synonym(s) or translation(s)).
________________________________________________________ IV I know this word. It means. (Meaning: synonym(s) or translation(s).
Write all the meanings that you know).
· ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________ · ________________________
V I can use this word in a sentence:
· ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________ · ___________________________________________________
· ___________________________________________________ (Illustrate the use of every synonym(s) or translation(s) you write in section IV in sentences)
(5)
xii ABSTRACT
Endrawan, Antonius Rendy. 2007. A Study on the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Acquired by the Third Semester Students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.
Vocabulary learning is central to language acquisition whether the language is a first, second or foreign. In the past years, vocabulary was often neglected in the language teaching and learning because it was thought that learners could learn it by themselves. Recently, the studies addressing the issues on second language vocabulary teaching and learning have got special attention. It could be seen from the flourish of experimental studies and materials development related to second language vocabulary teaching and learning. However, the studies mostly are focused on the measures of vocabulary sizes rather than on the depth of vocabulary knowledge (quality of learners’ vocabulary knowledge) of specific words or the degree of such knowledge, on the growth of L2 lexicons and on the number of words gained or forgotten over time.
The present study is intended to study the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. It tried to answer just one research question: What is the depth of vocabulary knowledge acquired by the third semester students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University?
The research was a descriptive qualitative study. The participants of the research were the third semester students of English education study program of Sanata Dharma University. A test was conducted to gather the data. The participants were asked to give a selfreport on the knowledge of the meaning of ten English verbs. The instrument used was the modified version of Vocabulary Knowledge Scale proposed by Wesche and Paribakht. Due to the large amount of data, only the meanings of five verbs were analyzed.
The results of the study showed that the depth of vocabulary knowledge of the students varies on every tested verb. It may confirm Jiang’s statement that a learner’s mental lexicon may contain second language vocabularies that are at various stage of development. The results of the study also showed that the students may no longer rely on the Indonesian translations equivalent in recognizing the meaning of the tested verbs indicating that they have built L2 lexical networks in their lexicon.
(6)
xiii ABSTRAK
Endrawan, Antonius Rendy. 2007. A Study on the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge Acquired by the Third Semester Students of English Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University.
Kosakata adalah suatu hal yang pokok dalam pengenalan bahasa baik itu bahasa ibu, bahasa kedua, ataupun bahasa asing. Dahulu kosakata sering diabaikan dalam pengajaran dan pembelajaran bahasa karena muridmurid dianggap bisa mempelajarinya sendiri. Barubaru ini penelitian membahas isu tentang pembelajaran dan pengajaran kosakata bahasa kedua mendapatkan perhatian khusus. Ini bisa dilihat dari berkembangnya penelitianpenelitian dan pengembangan materi yang berhubungan dengan pengajaran dan pembelajaran kosakata bahasa kedua. Tetapi, penelitianpenelitian itu kebanyakan lebih difokuskan pada penghitunganvocabulary sizes daripadadepth of vocabulary atau kualitas peangetahuan arti kosakata bahasa kedua.
Penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk meneliti depth of vocabulary knowledge dari mahasiswa semester tiga, program study pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sanata Dharma. Penelitian ini mencoba menjawab satu rumusan masalah: Apakah the depth of vocabulary knowledge dari mahasiswa semester tiga, program studi pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma?
Penelitian ini termasuk dalam penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Subjek penelitian ini adalah mahasiswamahasiswa semester tiga, program studi pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma. Untuk mengumpulkan data digunakan sebuah tes yang meminta subjek penelitian untuk memberikan selfreport tentang pengetahuan dari arti sepuluh kata kerja Bahasa Inggris. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah modifikasi dari Vocabulary Knowledge Scale yang dibuat oleh Wesche dan Paribakht. Dikarenakan besarnya jumlah data, hanya arti dari lima kata kerja yang diteliti.
Hasil dari penelitian in menunjukkan bahwa depth of vocabulary knowledge dari mahasiswa bervariasi pada setiap kata kerja. Hasil tersebut mungkin membuktikan pernyataan Jiang bahwa mental lexicon dari pelajar mungkin berisi katakata bahasa asing yang berada pada level perkembangan yang berbeda. Penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa para mahasiswa mungkin tidak lagi bergantung pada persamaan kata dalam bahasa Indonesia untuk mengenali arti kata kerja yang diteskan yang juga megindikasikan bahwa mereka sudah mempunyaiL2 lexical network.