Abstract
Research has demonstrated that cognates are processed and acquired more readily than noncognates regardless of whether the languages share a common script or etymological background (e. g., Japanese and English). Very little research, however, has focused on the prevalence and frequency of cognates in orthographically distinct languages. Using Japanese word frequency data, the present study demonstrates that between 49 % and 22 % of the most common 10000 words in English are cognate in Japanese, depending on the frequency threshold used. The analysis is extended to the Academic Word List (Coxhead 2000), which is shown to be between 59 % and 30 % cognate. Finally, a lexical familiarity study revealed that Japanese cognate frequency was a reliable indicator of whether the word was known to the majority of Japanese speakers. Based on the findings and drawing upon research in psycholinguistics, a number of recommendations are put forward for future studies in applied linguistics.
References
Allen, D. 2013. Cross-linguistic similarity in Japanese-English bilingual processing and representation (unpublished doctoral thesis). Nottingham, U.K: University of Nottingham.10.1371/journal.pone.0072631Suche in Google Scholar
Allen, D. Submitted. Cognate frequency and assessment of second language lexical knowledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Allen, D., & K. Conklin. 2013. Cross-linguistic similarity and task demands for Japanese– English bilingual processing. PLOS ONE 8(8), e72631. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.007263110.1371/journal.pone.0072631Suche in Google Scholar
Allen, D., & K. Conklin. 2014. Cross-linguistic similarity norms for Japanese-English translation equivalents. Behavior Research Methods 46(2). 540–563.10.3758/s13428-013-0389-zSuche in Google Scholar
Bauer, L. & I. S. P. Nation. 1993. Word families. International Journal of Lexicography 6. 253–279.10.1093/ijl/6.4.253Suche in Google Scholar
Christoffels, I. K., A. M. B. De Groot & J. F. Kroll. 2006. Memory and language skills in simultaneous interpreters: The role of expertise and language proficiency. Journal of Memory and Language 54. 324–345.10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.004Suche in Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34(2). 213–238.10.2307/3587951Suche in Google Scholar
Daulton, F. E. 2005. Common gairaigo corresponding to high-frequency and academic vocabulary: Are our students ready for foreign study?. JALT Hokkaido Journal 9(1). 16.Suche in Google Scholar
Daulton, F. E. 2008. Japan’s built-in lexicon of English-based loanwords. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847690319Suche in Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Suche in Google Scholar
De Groot, A. M. B. & R. Keijzer. 2000. What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of words concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning 50. 1–56.10.1111/0023-8333.00110Suche in Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. 2007. The multilingual lexicon. In M. G. Gaskell (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics, 251–265. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198568971.013.0015Suche in Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., K. Miwa, B. Brummelhuis, M. Sappeli & R. H. Baayen. 2010. How cross-linguistic similarity affects cognate recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 62. 284–301.10.1016/j.jml.2009.12.003Suche in Google Scholar
Elgort, I. 2013. Effects of L1 definitions and cognate status of test items on the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing 30(2). 253–272.10.1177/0265532212459028Suche in Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188.10.1017/S0272263102002024Suche in Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. 1984. Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(2). 256–281.10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256Suche in Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., K. I. Forster & R. Frost. 1997. Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23(5). 1122–1139.10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1122Suche in Google Scholar
Hoshino, N., & J. F. Kroll. 2008. Cognate effects in picture naming: Does crosslinguistic activation survive a change of script? Cognition 106. 501–51110.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.001Suche in Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. & A. Pavlenko. 2007. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203935927Suche in Google Scholar
Jordan, E. 2012. Cognates in vocabulary size testing-a distorting influence?. Language Testing in Asia 2(3). 5–17.10.1186/2229-0443-2-3-5Suche in Google Scholar
Kim, J. & C. Davis. 2003. Task effects in masked cross-script translation and priming. Journal of Memory and Language 49. 484–499.10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00093-7Suche in Google Scholar
Laufer, B. & S. McLean. 2016. Loanwords and vocabulary size test scores: A case of different estimates for different L1 learners. Language Assessment Quarterly 13(3). 202–217.10.1080/15434303.2016.1210611Suche in Google Scholar
Lotto, L. & A. M. B. De Groot. 1998. Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning 48(1). 31–69.10.1111/1467-9922.00032Suche in Google Scholar
Maekawa, K., M. Yamazaki, T. Ogiso, T. Maruyama, H. Ogura, W. Kashino, H. Koiso, M. Yamaguchi, M. Tanaka & Y. Den. 2014. Balanced corpus of contemporary written Japanese. Language Resources & Evaluation 48. 345–371.10.1007/s10579-013-9261-0Suche in Google Scholar
Meara, P. M., P. M. Lightbown & R. H. Halter. 1994. The effect of cognates on the applicability of YES/NO vocabulary tests. Canadian Modern Language Review 50(2). 296–311.10.3138/cmlr.50.2.296Suche in Google Scholar
Miwa, K., T. Dijkstra, P. Bolger & H. Baayen. 2014. Reading English with Japanese in mind: Effects of frequency, phonology, and meaning in different-script bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(3). 445–463.10.1017/S1366728913000576Suche in Google Scholar
Miwa, K., G. Libben, & Y. Ikemoto. 2017. Visual trimorphemic compound recognition in a morphographic script. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 32(1). 1–20.10.1080/23273798.2016.1205204Suche in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.Suche in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. 2004. A study of the most frequent word families in the British National Corpus. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing, 3–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lllt.10.03natSuche in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. 2012. The BNC/COCA word family lists. Unpublished paper. www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation (accessed 2 October 2016).Suche in Google Scholar
National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics. 2013. BCCWJ Word List. http://pj.ninjal.ac.jp/corpus_center/bccwj/freq-list.html (accessed 2 October 2016).Suche in Google Scholar
Odlin, T. 1989. Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524537Suche in Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt & C. Clapham. 2001. Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18(1). 55–88.10.1177/026553220101800103Suche in Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. 1990. The languages of Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Shinnouchi, M. 2000. Gendai gairaigo jijoo [The Situation Concerning Contemporary Loanwords]. Data and Statistics 7(510). 8–13.Suche in Google Scholar
Tokowicz, N., J. F. Kroll, A. M. B. De Groot & J. G. Van Hell. 2002. Number-of-translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 34(3). 435–451.10.3758/BF03195472Suche in Google Scholar
Wesche, M. B. & T. S. Paribakht. 2010. Lexical inferencing in a first and second language: Cross-linguistic dimensions. Exeter, UK: Multilingual matters.10.21832/9781847692245Suche in Google Scholar
West, M. 1953. A general service list of English words. London: Longman, Green.Suche in Google Scholar
Yokokawa, H. 2009. Nihonjin eigogakushushano eitangoshimitsudo onseipan: Kyouiku kenyuunotameno dainigengogakudeetabeesu [English word familiarity of Japanese learners of English, Audio Edition: Second language research database for education and research]. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms
- Developing EFL learners’ morphological awareness: Instructional effect, teachability of affixes, and learners’ perception
- Accounting for the asymmetrical interpretation of thematic and non-thematic verbs in L2 English
- The prevalence and frequency of Japanese-English cognates: Recommendations for future research in applied linguistics
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The relative effects of isolated and combined structured input and structured output on the acquisition of the English causative forms
- Developing EFL learners’ morphological awareness: Instructional effect, teachability of affixes, and learners’ perception
- Accounting for the asymmetrical interpretation of thematic and non-thematic verbs in L2 English
- The prevalence and frequency of Japanese-English cognates: Recommendations for future research in applied linguistics