既知語と未知語の組み合わせによる意図的語彙学習において有効な手がかり語はいくつか

全文

(1)Title. 既知語と未知語の組み合わせによる意図的語彙学習において有効な手がかり語はいくつか. Author(s). 金山, 幸平; 笠原, 究. Citation. 北海道教育大学紀要. 人文科学・社会科学編, 66(2): 17-27. Issue Date. 2016-02. URL. http://s-ir.sap.hokkyodai.ac.jp/dspace/handle/123456789/7888. Rights. Hokkaido University of Education.

(2) 北海道教育大学紀要（人文科学・社会科学編）第66巻第２号 Journal of Hokkaido University of Education（Humanities and Social Sciences）Vol. 66, No.2. 平成 28 年２月 February, 2016. How Many Cues are Effective in Known-and-Unknown Combination Vocabulary Learning? KANAYAMA Kohei＊ and KASAHARA Kiwamu ＊. Graduate School, Asahikawa Campus, Hokkaido University of Education. Department of English Education, Asahikawa Campus, Hokkaido University of Education. 既知語と未知語の組み合わせによる意図的語彙学習において有効な手がかり語はいくつか金山幸平＊・笠原究＊. 北海道教育大学大学院教育学研究科旭川校北海道教育大学旭川校英語教育研究室. ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to compare the effect of two-word with three-word collocation learning on long-term vocabulary retention. A total of 81 first-grade Japanese university students participated in this experiment. Participants in Group A (n = 30) were asked to learn 20 target words under the traditional method, paired-associate learning. On the other hand, those in Group B (n = 24) learned the same 20 words with two-word collocation learning, whereas Group C (n = 27) used a three-word collocation method for learning 20 words. Immediately after and a week after the learning session, all participants took an immediate and delayed post-test, where they were required to recall Japanese translations for its target English word. In addition, Group B and C were required to take a cued recall test. The results showed that: ⒜ Group A showed a higher retrieval rate than Group B, which in turn Group B had a higher score than Group C in the immediate recall test (53.7% versus 40.5% versus 29.2%). However, Group B showed a higher retrieval rate than Group C in the immediate cued recall test (64.4% versus 44.2%), but not in the delayed cued recall post-test (44.4% versus 37.8%).. 1. INTRODUCTION When language learners use their second. language, utilizing the language skills such as speaking, listening, writing, and reading, vocabulary knowledge must be one of the most. 17.

(3) KANAYAMA Kohei and KASAHARA Kiwamu. central functions. For example, if the learners. difficult to acquire different word knowledge. do not have enough vocabulary knowledge, it. such as collocation, grammar, and constraint in. will be difficult to form a sentence, to. use. Stated in a different fashion, it cannot be. communicate with others in the target language,. applied to actual language use or real life. and to express their feelings well even though. communication, and has been considered as a. they are sufficiently familiar with grammatical. thing of the past.. knowledge. Therefore, vocabulary learning is. Nevertheless, Kasahara (2015) argues that. indispensable in the second language learning. the paired-associate learning is crucial in Japan,. (Elgort, 2011).. “where incidental input is not abundant outside. Traditionally, paired-associate vocabulary. the English classroom.” (p. 318). Contrary to an. learning, where L2 words are printed along with. English as a second language (ESL) situation,. L1 meanings on the same side of a sheet of. where sufficient target language input was. paper, has been used in an actual classroom.. ensured, students in English as a foreign. Connecting L2 form and its L1 translation on a. language (EFL) settings should pay intentional. word list is a typical example. Nation (2008;. attention to L2 vocabulary learning.. 2013) argues for this approach because it gives. These days, in exchange for the traditional. an opportunity for learners to connect and. vocabulary learning approach, cued recall. enhance the linking between L2 form and its L1. learning has been given considerable attention.. meanings. In addition, he maintains that paired-. For example, Higham (2002) insists on the. associate learning makes it easy for the learners. positive effect of cued recall learning on word. to memorize a large number of target words in. retention and retrieval of meanings when a. a limited time.. word-combination consists of a familiar word. For example, Webb (2007) shows the. and a new word for the learners, because the. advantage of paired-associate vocabulary. words which the learners already know can. learning. It was proved to be an effective. work as the cue words, which helps learners to. approach for beginners of English who are. keep the target words in their minds, and to. required to acquire high frequency words in a. retrieve the target words when the learners. limited period of time. Moreover, for even. encounter the cue words.. intermediate English learners, this way of. Kasahara (2010) applied the cued recall. learning words (target words and their L1. learning to actual educational settings.. translations on the same list) is the most. Specifically, he used two-word collocation which. effective vocabulary learning technique in order. consists of a familiar word and a new word (e.g.,. to establish the form-and-meaning connections.. school janitor) because some previous studies. Although it has been used the most. (Higham, 2002; Carpenter, Pashler, & Vul, 2006). frequently as a vocabulary building tool, it has. were based on memory research, but not on the. also been criticized. The first reason is that it. vocabulary acquisition field. Therefore, the. may be boring for the learners. Thus, the. materials used in their studies were cue-target. students might pay less attention to paired-. or L1 vocabulary pairs (e.g., block-street), but. associate vocabulary learning through a word. not L2 target form and L1 meaning.. list. Moreover, the main reason is that it is. Kasahara (2010) showed the superiority of. 18.

(4) How Many Cues are Effective in Known-and-Unknown Combination Vocabulary Learning?. two-word collocation learning to single-word. immediate test, the control group who learned. learning in both short-term and long-term L2. the target words under paired-association had a. vocabulary retention, using adjective-and-noun. better score than the experimental group who. combinations or noun-and-noun combinations.. learned the same words under the chunk. The control group memorized a list of target. presentation method. However, the result was. words under the traditional way (e.g., amnesia-. reversed seven week later. Indeed, the. 記憶喪失). On the other hand, the experimental. experimental group showed a higher retention. group learned 10 two-word collocations consisting. rate than the control group. In the light of these. of high frequency words and target words (e.g.,. results, familiar words which function as the cue. school janitor-学校の用務員). Immediately and a. words offer the key for the students to learn L2. week after the 5-minute learning session,. vocabulary efficiently in regard to retention and. participants in the control group took a recall. retrieval of word meanings.. test, where they wrote the Japanese. As mentioned above, cue words which. translation for its target English word (e.g.,. learners are already familiar with help them. amnesia:_______?). On the other hand, the. acquire target words effectively and keep their. experimental group was asked to take a cued. meanings over a long period. However, only a. recall test in which they recalled Japanese. two-word combination was used in all of the. translations for English words with cue words. previous studies above. In other words, there. (e.g., school janitor:_______?). The results found. was only one cue word. This raises a question,. that the experimental group had better results. “Is there any relationship between the numbers. than the control group in both the immediate. of cue words and the ease of learning words?” If. (79.9% versus 59.9%) and delayed test (48.3%. there is a positive correlation between two. versus 11.9%). Therefore, he has proved that. factors, the two cue words method must help. two-word collocation learning is a more. the language learners remember vocabulary. effective approach than the traditional approach. effectively. Therefore, the three-word. on both short-term and long-term memory.. collocation learning consisting of two familiar. Nevertheless, he also pointed out a weak point. words and an unknown-word for learners. of his study: that is, the collocation test of his. should be examined. The present study. study used only adjective-and-noun. investigated the effectiveness of three-word. combinations or noun-and-noun combinations.. collocation learning for short-term and long-. His further research (Kasahara, 2011; 2013;. term L2 vocabulary retention.. 2015) also shows the effectiveness of a variety of two-word collocations such as adjective-andnoun, noun-and-noun, and verb-and-noun. 2. Research Purpose. combinations.. The purpose of the study is to compare the. Similarly, Ishizuka (2005) demonstrated that. effect of three-word collocation learning that. the chunk presentation method was more. included two cue words with two-word. effective than paired-associate learning for. collocation learning that included a cue word. intermediate English learners on retention of. and single word learning that included no cue. meanings (e.g., freak versus a car freak). In an. words. The focus is on the effect of a three-. 19.

(5) KANAYAMA Kohei and KASAHARA Kiwamu. word collocation composed of two known words. ⑺ There is no significant difference between. and a new word for learners, such as adverb-. two-word and three-word collocation learning. verb-noun (e.g., often see a knobb), or adverb-. in the immediate cued recall test.. adjective-noun (e.g., very beautiful preuve).. ⑻ There is no significant difference between two-word and three-word collocation learning. 2.1 Hypotheses. in the delayed cued recall test.. Considering the results of Kasahara (2010; 2011; 2013; 2015), the present study assumed. 3. METHOD. that single word learning would be less effective for both retrieval and retention of meaning than. 3.1 Participants. collocation learning as long as a cued recall test. The participants were 81 first-grade. was presented. However, single word learning. university students who belonged to three. would more effective for retrieval of meaning. different English classes. All of the learners had. than collocation learning if a non cued recall test. studied English for a minimum of six years. The. was conducted. Nevertheless, there are no. experiments in each of the classes were carried. previous studies to compare the two-word with. out in different places on different dates, but it. the three-word collocation learning. Therefore,. was conducted by the same procedure, and at. null hypotheses that the two-word collocation. the same interval. The only difference was each. learning would show the same effectiveness as. learning condition (single word learning, two-. the three-word collocation, were set up. Thus,. word collocation learning, and three-word. there are eight hypotheses in the present study.. collocation learning). In order to examine the. ⑴ Single word learning shows better results. results of the vocabulary size test (Nation,. than two-word collocation learning in the. 2008), one-way (each group) ANOVA was. immediate recall test.. conducted between Group A, Group B, and. ⑵ Single word learning shows better results. Group C. Table 1 shows the numbers of. than three-word collocation learning in the. participants, the mean, standard deviations, and. immediate recall test.. minimum and maximum values of the. ⑶ There is no significant difference between. vocabulary size test. The results of the one-way. two-word collocation learning and three-word. ANOVA revealed that there was no significant. collocation learning in the immediate recall. interaction between the means of the. test.. vocabulary size test of each group, F(2, 78) =. ⑷ Two-word collocation learning shows better results than single word learning in the. .052, p = .949. It proved that these groups were in the same stage of vocabulary development.. delayed recall test. ⑸ Three-word collocation learning shows. 3.2 Pilot study. better results than single word learning in the. A pilot study was conducted to decide the. delayed recall test.. appropriate time necessary for the participants. ⑹ There is no significant difference between. to memorize the target words in the learning. two-word collocation learning and three-word. phase. There were 13 university students, 3. collocation learning in the delayed recall test.. juniors and 10 seniors, in the pilot study. It was. 20.

(6) How Many Cues are Effective in Known-and-Unknown Combination Vocabulary Learning?. found that they needed to take 6 minutes. First,. The members of Group A were given a list of. they were divided into three groups, Group A,. 20 target words along with Japanese. Group B, and Group C, and then they were. translations, and the members of Group B were. given the lists of 20 target words and tried to. given the list of 20 target words which are two-. memorize their Japanese meanings. Second,. word collocations consisting of 10 sets of an. they took an immediate recall test soon after. adjective and noun, and 10 sets of a verb and. the learning phase. However, the participants. noun. The handout for Group C was the list of. who were in Group B and C took both the. 20 three-word collocations composed of the 10. immediate recall test and the immediate cued. sets of an adverb, adjective, and noun, and the. recall test. According to the results of the pilot. 10 sets of an adverb, verb and noun. At any. study, a 5-minute learning phase was not long. rate, all of the target words were only nouns.. enough to remember all the target words once. The 20 disguised forms were as follows: cliete,. at least. However, the 7 minutes of the phase. tright, basque, chinn, swimb, phlite, phrey,. was so long that most of participants could get. preuve, griece, purce, wought, scunk, blite, beeck,. a relatively higher score. The result showed. poarl, weighc, caute, gheuse, cryque, and knobb.. that the most appropriate time for the learning. Table 2 shows 20 disguised words and their. phase was 6 minutes. Similarly, 5 minutes was. translated meanings. Before the main session,. the best for each test session.. The Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 2008) at. Table 1 Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum and Maximum Values of The Vocabulary Levels Test (N = 81, Full score = 60) Minimum Maximum. the 2000 word level and 3000 word level was used to measure the vocabulary knowledge of the participants. Originally, the main purpose of the Nation’s test is to “see what levels of. Group. N. Means. SD. A. 30. 41.9. 8.9. 18. 58. level they should focus on next” (Nation, 2008, p.. B. 24. 41.0. 10.6. 7. 53. 15). However, in the present study, the. C. 27. 41.5. 10.1. 13. 56. vocabulary test was used to make sure that. vocabulary learners already know and which. there was no difference in the vocabulary size 3.3 Material. between each group.. In this study, 20 non-words were used as the target words. The reason why these non-words. 3.4 Procedure. were used is to exclude the possibility that the. First, the participants were given The. participants may learn the target words during. Vocabulary Levels Test to measure their. a series of the experiment session, and that they. vocabulary knowledge and to confirm that there. had already known some of the 20 words. was no vocabulary size difference between each. (Nation & Webb, 2010). All of the cue words. group. One week after the vocabulary test, they. were high frequency words and ranged from. were given the word lists respectively and, if. first 1000 word level to 2000 word level (JACET. necessary, blank sheets of paper were also. 8000, 2003). These collocation words were. given to them so that they could write and. checked by a native English speaker to make. remember the words. Then, they were asked to. sure they were appropriate and natural English.. remember as many target items as possible in 6. 21.

(7) KANAYAMA Kohei and KASAHARA Kiwamu. Table 2 The 20 Single Items and 20 Translations on the List for Group A. minutes. After the learning phase, they took the first test session, where they took an immediate recall test for 5 minutes and were asked to. Single Item. Translation. Single Item. Translation. prevue. girl. weighc. effect. cliete. person. wought. manual. tright. morning. scunk. jean. phrey. couple. knobb. fox. swimb. teacher. cryque. ticket. groups took the delayed test session. The. griece. car. poarl. accident. session was completely the same as the first. phlite. way. gheuse. reality. test session. There was no advance notice for. basque. battery. caute. answer. each delayed test.. chin. business. blite. opera. purce. choice. beeck. boss. The 20 Two-word Collocation Items on the list for Group B. write the Japanese equivalents of the target words. Soon after the immediate recall test, Group B and C took the immediate cued recall test. A week after the first test session, all. 3.5 Scoring Two points were given for each correct answer, and for a partially correct answer, one point was given. In the case of the word “cliete,”. A cue word and Target A cue word and Target Items Items. for example, the correct answer was “hito”,. beautiful preuve. increase weighc. bad cliete. read the wought. whereas “ninngenn” was also a correct answer.. cold tright. wear scunk. married phrey. see a knobb. popular swimb. get a cryque. expensive griece. remember the poarl. different phlite. become a gheuse. impossible purce. know the caute. charged basque. enjoy blite. the target word. The maximum score for each. growing chinn. accept the beeck. test was 40 points and the minimum score for. The 20 Three-word Collocation Items on the List for Group C Two cue words and Target Two cue words and Target Items Items. Moreover, in the case of the word “chinn”, a correct answer was “kigyo”, while “kaisha” was a partially correct answer. On the other hand, however, the answer “totemo-utsukushii” for very beautiful preuve received no points because it was a translation of the cue words, but not. each test was 0 points. 3.6 Data Analysis First, in order to examine Hypotheses 1. very beautiful preuve. greatly increase weighc. through 6, A 3 (Group: Group A, B, C)×2 (Test:. really bad cliete. carefully read the wought. Immediate recall, delayed recall test) mixed. quite cold tright. usually wear scunk. ANOVAs were carried out. In addition, in order. happily married phrey. often see a knobb. to examine Hypothesis 7 and 8, A 2 (Group:. most popular swimb. easily get a cryque. Group B, C)× 2 (Test: Immediate cued recall,. too expensive griece. still remember the poarl. delayed cued recall test) mixed ANOVAs were. completely different phlite soon become a gheuse almost impossible purce. already know the caute. fully charged basque. sometimes enjoy blite. quickly growing chinn. gradually accept the beeck. 22. conducted..

(8) How Many Cues are Effective in Known-and-Unknown Combination Vocabulary Learning?. Immediate recall, delayed recall test) mixed. 4. RESULTS. ANOVAs revealed that there was a significant. Table 3 shows numbers, means, standard. interaction between Group and Test in the. deviations, minimum and maximum values of. immediate recall test, F(2, 78) = 16.702, p <. the three learning conditions in the immediate. .0001. Furthermore, according to the results of. recall test and the delayed recall test. Table 4. multiple comparison, the Tukey HSD test, there. shows the same values of two-word collocation. was a significant difference between the score. learning and three-word collocation learning in. of Group A and Group B, p = .01, Group A and. the immediate cued recall test and the delayed. Group C, p < .0001, and Group B and Group C, p. cued recall test. Additionally, Figure 1 shows. = .038, in the immediate recall test. However,. the means of the three learning conditions in. there was no significant difference between. each recall test. Figure 2 shows the means of. groups in the delayed recall test, F(2, 78) = .072,. two-word collocation learning and three-word. p = .931.. collocation learning in each cued recall test.. A 2 (Group: Group B, C)×2 (Test: Immediate. A 2 (Group: Group A, B, C)×3 (Test:. cued recall, delayed cued recall test) mixed. Table 3 Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum and Maximum Values of the immediate recall test and the delayed recall test (N = 81, Full score = 40) Test Type. N. Means. SD. Mini. Max. Group A. 30. 21.5. 7.4. 10. 34. Group B. 24. 16.2. 6.4. 4. 28. Group C. 27. 11.7. 4.9. 2. 22. Group A. 30. 7.0. 5.6. 0. 18. Group B. 24. 6.6. 6.8. 0. 24. Group C. 27. 7.2. 4.8. 0. 18. Immediate. Delayed. Table 4 Numbers, Means, Standard Deviations, Minimum and Maximum Values of the immediate cued recall test and the delayed cued recall test (N = 81, Full score = 40) Test Type. N. Means. SD. Mini. Max. Immediate Group B. 24. 27.7. 6.3. 16. 38. Group C. 27. 17.7. 5.3. 6. 24. Delayed Group B. 24. 17.7. 8.4. 0. 34. Group C. 27. 15.1. 5.4. 4. 26. ANOVAs was conducted. It was found that there was a significant difference between the two groups in the immediate cued recall test. However, no significant difference was found in. 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0. Group A GroupB Group C. Immediate. Delayed. Figure 1．Means of the immediate recall test and the delayed recall test without a cue. 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0. Group B Group C. Immediate. Delayed. Figure 2．Means of the immediate recall test and the delayed recall rest with a cue. 23.

(9) KANAYAMA Kohei and KASAHARA Kiwamu. the delayed cued recall test, F(1, 49) = 4.089, p. shows better results than three-word collocation. = .185.. learning in the immediate recall test. This was. From the statistical analysis, it was found that. supported, because there was a significant. the single word learning showed better scores. difference between the scores of Group A and. than the two-word collocation learning and the. Group C in the immediate recall test (53.7%. three-word learning in the immediate recall. versus 29.2%). For the same reason as. test. Moreover, the two-word collocation. Hypothesis 1, it also proved the effectiveness of. learning showed higher scores than three-word. single word learning, because learners could. collocation learning in the immediate recall test.. concentrate on vocabulary learning only. In the. However, there was no significant difference. recall test session, it was more difficult for the. between the means of each group in the delayed. learners of Group B and C to retrieve the target. recall test.. words than the learners of Group A. The. As to the results of the immediate cued recall. participants in group B and group C were also. test between group B and group C, two-word. required to pay attention to cue words to retain. collocation learning showed significantly better. the target words.. scores than three-word collocation learning. In. Hypothesis 3 states that there is no significant. contrast, there was no significant difference. difference between two-word collocation. between the means of group B and group C in. learning and three-word collocation learning in. the delayed cued recall test.. the immediate recall test. This was not supported because there was a significant. 5. DISCUSSION. difference between the scores of Group B and Group C in the immediate recall test (40.5%. Hypothesis 1 states that single word learning. versus 29.2%). This study produced positive. shows better results than two-word collocation. evidence that two-word collocation learning. learning in the immediate recall test. This was. shows better results than three-word collocation. supported, and this study produced positive. learning. A possible reason for this result is that. evidence for the effectiveness of single word. the learners of Group C needed to focus on not. learning because there was a significant. only target words, but also the other two cue. difference between the scores of Group A and. words in the learning session. On the other. Group B in the immediate recall test (53.7%. hand, the learners of Group B could focus on. versus 40.5%). A possible reason for this result. each target word and a cue word, and make the. is that the learners who were engaged in single. most of cue words to memorize each target. word learning could focus on linking L2 forms. words in the limited time period.. with L1 translations. As previous studies have. Hypothesis 4 states that two-word collocation. shown, it was proved that single word learning. learning shows better results than single word. is the best approach as long as learners could. learning in the delayed recall test. This was not. pay attentions to the linking of the forms-and-. supported because there was no significant. meanings, and need to acquire a large number. difference between the scores of Group A and B. of new words in a limited time.. in the delayed recall test (17.6% versus 16.5%).. Hypothesis 2 states that single word learning. The single word learning showed a significantly. 24.

(10) How Many Cues are Effective in Known-and-Unknown Combination Vocabulary Learning?. sharper decline in scores. In contrast, the drop. study produced positive evidence that two-. in the two-word collocation learning was. word collocation learning shows better results. slighter. There is a possible reason. That is,. than three-word collocation learning. As. even if there were any cue words in the. mentioned in hypothesis 3, three-word. learning session, they were not useful if the cue. collocation learning is harder than two-word. words are not presented in the test.. collocation learning to focus on the target words. Hypothesis 5 states that three-word. only. Thus, two-word collocation learning is a. collocation learning shows better results than. better approach than three-word collocation. single word learning in the delayed recall test.. learning because the learners of Group B could. This was not supported because there was no. make the most of the cue words to retrieve the. significant difference between the scores of. target words in the retrieval phase. Consequently,. Group A and Group C in the delayed recall test. the number of cue word which learners can. (17.6% versus 18%). The single word learning. easily retrieve is not two words, but simply one. showed a significantly sharper decline in score,. word.. whereas the drop in the three-word collocation. Hypothesis 8 states that there is no significant. learning was slighter, the same as was seen in. difference between two-word and three-word. Group B. There is a possible reason. That is, the. collocation learning in the delayed cued recall. cue words in the learning session did not work. test. This was supported because there was no. to maintain the target words well in the delayed. significant difference between the score of. recall test.. Group B and C in the delayed cued recall test. Hypothesis 6 states that there is no significant. (44.4% versus 37.8%). Two-word collocation. difference between two-word and three-word. learning showed a significantly sharper decline. collocation learning in the delayed recall test.. in score. However, the drop in the three-word. This was supported because there was no. collocation learning was slighter. It means that. significant difference between the scores of. three-word collocation learning can be more. Group B and Group C in the delayed recall test. effective than two-word collocation learning for. (16.5% versus 18%). Two-word collocation. retention of meanings.. learning showed a significantly sharper decline. Why was three-word collocation learning not. in score. However, the drop in the three-word. significantly useful in short-term and long-term. collocation learning was slighter. It might mean. retention? There are some possible reasons for. that three-word collocation learning is more. this. First, the time of the learning session was. effective than two-word collocation learning for. not enough for Group C as long as the learning. retention of meanings.. conditions were completely the same for Group. Hypothesis 7 states that there is no significant. B and C. Since there were only 6-minute. difference between two-word and three-word. learning sessions for both groups, it seemed to. collocation learning in the immediate cued recall. be harder for Group C to focus on linking the L2. test. This was not supported because there was. forms with L1 translations than Group B.. a significant difference between the mean scores. Second, an adverb did not function as a cue. of Group B and Group C in the immediate cued. word. In this study, the target words were all. recall test (64.4% versus 44.2%). The present. nouns, but not adjectives. Thus, adverbs which. 25.

(11) KANAYAMA Kohei and KASAHARA Kiwamu. do not modify nouns, only adjectives and verbs,. know high frequency words and need to acquire. were not helpful to the participants for. a new word by making use of a familiar word.. remembering new nouns. In fact, Kasahara. Finally, three-word collocation learning might. (2013, Experiment 3) supported the present. be an effective approach for learners who need. study and explained a possible reason why. to acquire words over a long term.. adverbs did not improve long-term retention.. Finally, the limitations of this study should be. Indeed, adverbs are generally considered. noted. First, there were a small number of. abstract and difficult to imagine. Thus, it did not. participants in this study. To reconfirm the. help the learners to remember new nouns,. theory of this study, a larger number of. which leads to a poor retention rate.. participants are needed. Second, different types of the target word might have affected the. 6. CONCLUSION. results. As Webb (2007c) pointed out, we should have been more careful when selecting. This study revealed the effectiveness of single. target words. For example, the first letter, b of. word learning for intentional vocabulary. the non-word, basque had the same first letter. learning. In addition, it was also found that one. as battery. Thus, it might not be difficult for the. familiar word for learners worked well as the. participants to associate basque with battery. For. cue word in short-term L2 vocabulary retention.. the same reason mentioned above, the non-. When remembering new nouns, making use of a. word, beeck can be easily associated with boss.. two-word collocation consisting of a familiar. Moreover, it was not easy for them to recognize. word and a target word is more effective on. the spelling of the non-word, weighc, especially. short L2 vocabulary retention than single word. the part of ghc, because this combination does. and three-word collocation learning. In other. not exist in English phonology. Third, different. words, the best number of cue words was not. types of three-word combinations, such as the. two words, but one, which supports the. combinations of preposition-adjective-noun or. previous studies (Ishizuka, 2005; Kasahara, 2010;. verb-adjective-noun should be investigated to. 2011; 2013; 2015). Although the scores of three-. observe deeply the effectiveness of three-word. word collocation learning were significantly. collocation learning. In the present study, we. lower than single word learning and two-word. used the combination of adverb-adjective-noun. collocation learning in all the tests of this study,. and adverb-verb-noun. However, adverbs did. this raises the possibility of the effectiveness of. not function as the cue words. If an adjective is. three-word collocation learning for long-term. used as the target word, the three-word. retention.. combination of adverb-adjective-noun may be. Therefore, there are a few pedagogical. effective because an adjective which is modified. implications from these results. First, single. by both adverb and noun can be a cue word. . word learning can be an effective approach for learners who are required to learn some new words in a limited time. Second, two-word. REFERENCES. collocation learning can be an effective way of. Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary. vocabulary learning for learners who already. acquisition in a second language. Language Learning,. 26.

(12) How Many Cues are Effective in Known-and-Unknown Combination Vocabulary Learning?. 61⑵, 367-413. Higham, P. A. (2002). Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited. Memory & Cognition, 30 ⑴, 67-80. Ishizuka, H. (2005). The effect of learning method on efficacy of lexical memory retrieval. ARELE, 16, 111120. JACET. (2003). JACET List of 8000 Basic Words: JACET 8000. Tokyo; JACET. Kasahara, K. (2010). Are two words better than one for intentional vocabulary learning? ARELE, 21, 91-100. Kasahara, K. (2011). The effect of known-and-unknown word combinations on intentional vocabulary learning. System, 39, 491-499. Kasahara, K. (2013). The effect of two-word collocations on intentional vocabulary learning. Report of the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no.22520628) by Ministry of Education, Science, Sport and Culture. Kasahara, K. (2015). Which cues, adjectives or verbs, provide most assistance for remembering new nouns? ARELE, 26, 317-332. Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning. Nation, I. S. P., & Webb, S. (2010). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning. Webb, S. (2007). Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: The effect of a single context on vocabulary knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 11⑴, 63-81.. （金山幸平教育学研究科旭川校）（笠原究旭川校教授） . 27.

(13)