The Effects of Using L1 Translation on Young Learners’ Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning

ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 109 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada THE EFFECTS OF USING L1 TRANSLATION ON YOUNG LEARNERS’ FOREIGN LANGUAGE VOCABULARY LEARNING1 Aïda Codina Camó Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain [email protected] Elisabet Pladevall Ballester Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain [email protected] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 In the field of foreign language (FL) vocabulary acquisition, there seems to be a growing awareness of the fact that the mother tongue (L1) might have a facilitating role for language learners. Research has found evidence to support the positive effects of using the L1 as an instructional tool, particularly at the initial stages of FL learning. The present study explores the role that the L1 plays in young learners’ retention of and access to English vocabulary. An experimental group and the corresponding control group of 10-11 year-old children in an EFL Catalan school context were recruited for the study. The experimental group was exposed to both the English input and the L1 translation of the target items, whereas the control group received just the English input. Differences between the groups in terms of lexical retention and lexical access were analysed. Results of the present study suggest that providing students with the L1 equivalents of the ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 110 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 lexical items results in learners retaining more lexical items, accessing them with greater ease and recalling them for longer periods of time. Key words: Young learners, foreign language learning, English vocabulary learning, L1 use. En el campo del aprendizaje del vocabulario de una lengua extranjera, parece haber cada vez más conciencia del hecho que la lengua materna (L1) podría tener un papel facilitador para los aprendices de una lengua extranjera. La investigación ha evidenciado los efectos positivos del uso de la L1 como una herramienta de instrucción, sobre todo en las etapas iniciales del aprendizaje de la lengua extranjera. Éste estudio explora el papel que desempeña la L1 en la retención y el acceso del vocabulario inglés en estudiantes jóvenes. Para el presente estudio, se reclutaron un grupo experimental y el correspondiente grupo control de niños de 10-11 años escolarizados en un contexto en el que, siendo el catalán la lengua materna de los estudiantes, el inglés se enseña como lengua extranjera. El grupo experimental fue expuesto al input en inglés y a la traducción del vocabulario y, en contra partida, el grupo control solo recibió el input en inglés. Los resultados de éste estudio muestran que proveer a los estudiantes con la traducción del vocabulario hace que los alumnos retengan más elementos léxicos, accedan a ellos con mayor facilidad y los recuerden por períodos más largos de tiempo. Palabras clave: Aprendices jóvenes, aprendizaje de lenguas extranjeras, aprendizaje del vocabulario inglés, uso de la L1. 1. Introduction Vocabulary is considered to be a key component of foreign language (FL) learning as commanding an extensive range of words is a central requirement to communicate effectively in any language (Hulstjin, 2001; Kit, 2003; Nation, 1990). A wide and growing range of techniques have been proposed to promote foreign language vocabulary development. Instances of different approaches include the use of mnemonic devices, the practice of guessing vocabulary from context, the employment of visual aids, the application of paired associates and the use of dictionaries, among many others. These various approaches are very often linked and embedded into different broad teaching methods as, for instance, the naturalistic approach, which favours more implicit techniques for vocabulary development (Laufer, 2005; Oxford, 1990; Read, 2004). ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 111 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 Providing the mother tongue (L1) translation to the items being taught is very often regarded as a controversial practice when used to deal with vocabulary in foreign language contexts. Resourcing to the L1 in FL vocabulary teaching might be seen as a negative and unfashionable exercise. Nevertheless, research has found clear advantages in linking FL words to their L1 equivalents, more significantly at the initial stages of the learning process when the initial form-meaning connection has to be established (Cook, 2003; Jiang, 2002; Liu, 2009; Schmitt, 2008). The present study seeks to contribute new data to the analysis of the role the L1 plays in young learners’ retention of and access to English vocabulary, as these learners represent the initial stages of the FL learning process in the context analysed. Two groups of Catalan students aged between 10 and 11 participated in this study. One group was exposed to both the FL forms of a set of lexical items and their L1 equivalents whereas the other group was only provided with the English input. This contrastive instructional practice is analysed in relation to lexical retention, memory effects and lexical access. More specifically, the main research questions addressed in the present study are the following (1) Does the use of L1 translation promote short and long-term vocabulary retention? and (2) Does the L1 act as a facilitator in terms of lexical access? In line with other studies carried out exploring the effects of using L1 translation in foreign or second language vocabulary learning (Grace, 1998; Hulstijn, Hollander and Greidanus, 1996; Laufer and Shmueli, 1997; Liu, 2009; Lotto and de Groot, 1998; Macaro and Lee, 2013; Prince, 1996; Sieh, 2008; Van Hell and Candia Mahn, 1997), our hypothesis is that using the L1 when teaching vocabulary will be beneficial for young learners’ vocabulary learning. Participants provided with the L1 equivalent translations are predicted to retain more words and access them with greater ease. The present paper is divided in 6 sections and it is organized as follows: section 2 presents the theoretical framework of the study, which includes three different subsections: The first subsection highlights the main differences between learning and acquiring vocabulary, the second one explores strategies used in vocabulary learning and finally, the third subsection reviews the role of the L1 in FL vocabulary teaching. The methodology of the study is presented in Section 3. Sections 4 and 5 ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 112 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 introduce, analyse and discuss the results obtained from the study and finally some conclusions are drawn. 2. Literature review 2.1. L1 vocabulary acquisition vs. FL vocabulary learning Children learning their L1 receive a considerable stream of utterances and are capable of inducing, with little supervision, the words from this stream (Kit, 2003). Such a process is used by children to acquire a large number of words and they do so at an extraordinary pace. In contrast, learning FL vocabulary presents a very different scenario. The fact that FL learners are already equipped with an L1 and, hence, have developed conceptual and semantic systems linked to the L1, implies that FL vocabulary learning will involve, at least in its initial stages, a mapping of the new lexical forms onto already existing conceptual meanings or translational equivalents in the L1 (Takač, 2008). In other words, when being exposed to a second language, children have already learned how to categorise the world from their L1 experience and such categorisation is not likely to be retraced. Instead, the FL lexical items are prone to be associated to L1 representations. Models of bilingual lexical processing like the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll and Stewart, 1994) suggest that “L1 word forms are directly linked to meaning at the conceptual level, but that FL meaning is accessed via L1 word forms” (Kroll and Sunderman, 2003: 401). Resourcing to a range of evidence from cross-language priming, Kroll (1993) also argues for a model of lexical and conceptual links between the L1 and the FL in which the strength of such connections differs depending on factors like proficiency and age of acquisition. Regarding these mentioned factors, it follows that during the early learning process, the FL mental lexicon seems to be most likely organised in subordination to the L1 than in more advanced stages. Foreign language vocabulary learning diverges from L1 acquisition not only on account of the different mental organization but also with respect to exposure to the target language. Learning words both in the L1 and in the FL is a cyclical process which involves meeting these new words repeatedly (Cameron, 2001). As suggested by Laufer (2005), in order for lexical items to enter into the long-term memory system, the learner needs ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 113 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 to have repetitive encounters with them. Such a cyclical process is more likely to occur in immersion contexts in which language tends to be learned without paying special attention to vocabulary since massive exposure to language guarantees incidental vocabulary acquisition (Kersten, 2010). Conversely, the type of input exposure students learning a FL receive is often limited to the classroom environment. This condition does not favour children learning a large amount of vocabulary neither simply from exposure nor in a short period of time. In FL learning contexts, a remarkable amount of explicit vocabulary instruction is needed in order for students to learn vocabulary in a relatively short period of time (Campbell, Campbell & Dickinson, 2004). 2.2. Strategies for foreign language vocabulary teaching A wide variety of approaches have been proposed to deal with vocabulary in FL learning contexts, which do not seem to foster the acquisition of vocabulary in an incidental way, as the FL learner is not likely to encounter a word numerous times so as for it to be naturally acquired (Folse, 2004; Laufer, 2005; Takač, 2008). In addition, a learner must have a large FL vocabulary to be able to guess the meaning of unknown words from surrounding context clues successfully. Such a precondition entails that less proficient and/or younger learners are at a disadvantage as they are likely to face considerable difficulties in increasing their FL lexicon by inferring unknown word meanings from unclear contexts. Explicit instruction of vocabulary, which is the practice used in the present study, is seen as particularly essential for FL learners, particularly beginners and young learners, whose lack of vocabulary limits their reading or understanding abilities (Folse 2004; Anuthama, 2010). It is commonly believed that strategies that take form as the principal path to meaning are more efficient for FL learners since they enhance memorisation. Once learners have met and paid special attention to the form of a new word, their vocabulary learning process has begun. The word being taught explicitly enters the learner’s short term memory and through repetitive vocabulary teaching stored items become available for use in the longer term. Specifically for young language learners, exposure to very concrete language that connects with objects young learners can handle or see is crucial in order to develop their mental inventory of lexical ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 114 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 items (Cameron, 2001). Techniques used to increase young learners’ vocabulary include presenting realia that students can experiment with, making use of mime, presenting illustrative situations in which vocabulary is introduced and using visual aids (Pinter, 2006). The use of pictures has been especially highlighted in memory research since it has been asserted that pictures are recalled more efficiently than words (Carpenter and Olson, 2012). 2.3. The use of the L1 in foreign language vocabulary learning Previous research on using L1 equivalent forms as a way of teaching, accessing and/or memorising FL lexical items has mainly focused on analysing adult intermediate-to-advanced students and suggests that a bilingual teaching /presentation method facilitates the learning and retention of vocabulary (Hulstijn et al.,1996; Laufer and Shmueli, 1997; Van Hell and Candia Mahn,1997; Lotto and de Groot, 1998; Liu, 2009) As far as beginners are concerned, in a study carried out with English speakers learning French, Prince (1996) found evidence to support the claim that less proficient students are also able to recall more items when they learn the words in the translation condition. Similarly, Grace (1998) also gave support for translation resulting in learners retaining more words. In this study, translation was considered the preferred option for the FL beginners since it provided an opportunity for learners to double check the meanings of words. Considering young beginners, Sieh (2008) conducted a study aiming at investigating the way children process and store English vocabulary in initial stages of FL learning. More specifically, the status of the L1 in FL vocabulary learning was explored by measuring the students’ accuracy and their reaction times in relation to visual and auditory stimuli. Sixty-four 9-year-old students from a suburban elementary school in southern Taiwan took part a story-telling programme focused on explicit vocabulary teaching. The experimental and the control group were discriminated by a pedagogical difference: The former was instructed only in English whereas the latter was provided with the Chinese translation equivalents to the selected English vocabulary. Results of the study showed that learners who were exposed to L1 translations not only gained more new words but they were also quicker in word retrieval. The author’s conclusion is that the fact that the two languages were connected ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 115 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 made not only retention of but also the access to English vocabulary much more effective. Finally, taking into consideration age, Macaro and Lee (2013) explored whether English only instruction or using the L1 was differentially beneficial to young and adult learners regarding vocabulary learning and retention. Elementary school children who had been studying English for a few years and adults at university with demonstrably higher levels of proficiency were selected to examine whether the effects of using L1 as a vocabulary learning practice varied across contrastive age groups. Findings of this study suggest that although the use of the L1 was shown to be more helpful for young learners than for older ones, both age groups benefited more from linking lexical items to their L1 translation than from being provided with definitions or paraphrases. All in all, research seems to give evidence to consider the L1 to be a useful tool when approaching vocabulary learning, both for young and adult learners, although previous studies on the use of L1 translation with young learners are particularly scarce. This study aims to contribute new young learners’ data to the field by analysing short and long-term retention of and access to FL lexical items with and without the use of the learners’ L1. 3. Methodology 3.1. Participants A total of 34 students from two fifth grade groups of a Catalan primary school took part in the present study. The pupils were all aged between 10 and 11 at the time of the study. The two groups were distinguished by a different instructional practice in relation to explicit vocabulary teaching. During the study, the control group was instructed in English only whereas the experimental group was provided with the L1 translation of the chosen lexical items. The control group was composed of 16 students (7 male and 9 female) and the experimental group consisted of 18 participants (8 male and 10 female). All the children participating in the study had Catalan as their L1and English was a foreign language to all of them. All the subjects started curricular English instruction when they were five years old and from that age on they had been exposed to three hours of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) a week. Apart from these ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 116 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 curricular hours of English, some of the participants reported that they were or had been attending extra English lessons. In the control group, there were 10 students attending extra classes and 6 who had never attended them. As for the experimental group, 11 students had attended them and 7 had not. Hence, the percentage of students attending and not attending private lessons is balanced between the two groups. Among the participants who reported attending extra-curricular lessons, a great variability in the number of hours per week as well as in the number of months/years that children had been exposed to these lessons was observed. As for the number of hours per week, extra exposure to English represented, in the vast majority of cases, as little as 1 hour or, at the most, two hours a week. With regards to the length of time, for children who had been attending extra lessons, values ranged from 5 months to 4 years, although many of the ones who had been involved in these lessons for years reported that their attendance had been irregular. 3.2. Materials, design and procedure Explicit vocabulary teaching through storytelling was the practice employed in order to investigate whether the use of the mother tongue in vocabulary teaching helps learners retain and access new words in a more effective way. The chosen story for the study was The Tale of Peter Rabbit (Potter, 1902), from which a total of 20 lexical items were selected to be explicitly taught. The chosen lexical items were presented through a story as stories offer meaningful and rich input while they also help increase the learners’ level of motivation, interest, enjoyment and pleasure towards vocabulary learning. The Tale of Petter Rabbit was considered suitable for the purpose of the study for two reasons. First, it presents a simple plot which would enable students to focus not only on the story line but also on the selected vocabulary. Secondly, the fact that the story develops in a rural setting helped finding many specific vocabulary items that were most certainly not previously known by the subjects. Such a fact was further assured with the administration of a pre-test (see Appendix B and further explanation in this section). Initially, storytelling was supposed to be carried out using only some flashcards with images of different scenes of the story. The exercise ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 117 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 of telling the story was piloted with a different group of 10 year-olds. The use of flashcards made the lesson not very dynamic and “rather boring”, as reported by some of the children. It was very difficult to grasp their attention, as they would stop listening and would even start talking among themselves. The pilot study indicated that the story might have been too simple in terms of plot to hold the interest of 10 year-olds or else that the non-dynamic nature of flashcards was seen as extremely unfashionable to kids who have grown up surrounded by technology. Having these considerations in mind, a second pilot experiment was conducted, this time using a video of the tale to present the story and flashcards of some items that would be used not to explain the story but to emphasize the selected vocabulary. A flashcard containing an image and its spelling counterpart was designed for each of the 20 items to be tested (see Appendix A). This second pilot resulted in all the students carefully listening to the story. They even asked for the story to be played again. Hence, using a video2 to present the story was selected as the practice to be used in the actual study. Having all the materials ready for the study, a vocabulary test was administered as an achievement test to ensure that the two initially selected groups were comparable. The test was designed adapting some exercises from the textbook the participants used in their previous school year: Incredible English 3 (Phillips and Morgan, 2007). Students were given different sets of 5 to 8 thematically related images with a total of 32 which they had to match with their corresponding spelling. The results of the vocabulary test in each group were compared by means of an independent samples t-test. Although the experimental group scored slightly higher (M= 17.84, SD= 2.62) than the control group (M= 16.99, SD= 2.40), the difference was not statistically significant: t(34)=.985, p=.332. Once the two groups were shown to be comparable in terms of their capacity to retain vocabulary, a biodata questionnaire aiming at gathering information on the age, gender, educational backgrounds and linguistic habits of the participants was given to all the subjects (see section 3.1 for the results). In addition, a pre-test was carried out to make sure the participants were not familiar with the selected lexical items prior to instruction (see Appendix B and section 4 for the results). The pre-test included the 20 key items from the story which were divided into three parts so as for the young learners to be able to quickly make their choice among six to eight pictures. Students had to listen to a recording and number a set of lexical ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 124 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 could instead make use of the L1-FL connection with which they were provided during instruction, managed not only to maintain the number of right answers for post-test I but to increase it. On the other hand, the control group failed to make such connection and thus, they went through a memory decrease. Considering the last post-test, although from post-test II to posttest III the experimental group also underwent a word decrease, this was statistically different from the more considerable decrease demonstrated by the control group. In fact, considering the overall group evolution, no statistically significant differences were found between post-test I and post-test III for the experimental group whereas the word decrease from these two tests was significant for the group that was not provided with the L1 equivalents of the target lexical items. In connection to the first research question, such a fact implies that providing young learners with both the L1 and the FL forms of lexical items does have an impact on their vocabulary gain since the connection of the two languages at the lexical level seems to make retention of English vocabulary easier. Research has found that since learners exposed to a foreign language possess a well-established L1 conceptual and lexical system, FL words are likely to be linked to the already existing L1 conceptual representations. The fact that this study was carried out with young learners gives further support to predict the participants’ reliance on the L1 translations since it has been attested that strong links between a concept and its L1 lexical representation exist at initial stages of foreign language learning (Kroll, 1993; Kroll and Stewart, 1994; Kroll and Sunderman, 2003; Kersten, 2010; Macaro and Lee, 2013). Consequently, and as it has been shown in the present study, L1 translation teaching practice enhances the connection between the FL and the L1 word forms and ultimately facilitates young learners’ retention of new vocabulary. The interviews carried out in the present study lend further support to the claim that participants provided with the L1 translation accessed the FL words through their L1. The learners’ limited proficiency in English strengthened their reliance on the L1 and they were able to retain more words precisely because they could match the FL forms directly to their already existing L1 mental representations. Students in the control group were not provided with the L1 during instruction and this made word access and retention slower and more difficult. This was shown by their substantial decrease in ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 125 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 lexical retention from post-test I to post-test II and even more regarding post-test III. As far as lexical access is concerned and in relation to research question (2), the fact that the control group would match words directly to their corresponding pictures and the experimental group had to process one more step accessing the L1 translation equivalents could well lead to the prediction that the control group would produce shorter reaction times. Nevertheless, and in line with previous research (Sieh, 2008) results of the computerised tests showed that using the L1 in conjunction with the FL in teaching FL vocabulary was also beneficial in terms of lexical access since participants in the experimental group had shorter reaction times. Again, the stronger connection of the FL word forms to L1 representations in the experimental group made them outperform the control group also in terms of speed of lexical access. As pointed out by Snodgrass (1993), connecting a FL word to its translated equivalent yields a reaction time advantage for FL–L1 translation. Since FL word forms are connected to L1 representations in early foreign language learning, the two groups had to locate the phonological cues to the L1 translation equivalents before the picture-decision was made. As suggested by Sieh (2008), the fact that the control group produced longer reaction times is linked to them having to undergo a further process: situating the L1 representations for the FL words. On the other hand, the experimental group managed to respond faster because of their readilymatched connection of English phonological forms to their L1 translation equivalents. Thus, instruction that provides students with the connection of FL words into L1 forms seems to have a positive role for young foreign language learners in terms of both retention and access. A number of limitations are acknowledged in the present study. First, although the time spent in each of the instruction sessions was the same for both groups, the experimental group inevitably received more exposure to the target lexical items as they were exposed to both the L1 and FL word forms of each item. Secondly, the fact that students were administered four tests having the same format (pre-test, post-test I, post-test II and posttest III) could be considered a factor affecting their test-taking abilities in that although they were not given feedback on their performance, they acquired practice in filling in this kind of test. Moreover, the lexical items ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 126 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 were randomly arranged in the different tests carried out throughout the study, which meant that inevitably some lexical combinations could have been easier for participants to match. Also, the usage of pictures to present vocabulary as well as the written input included in the flashcards could have played a role in young learners’ vocabulary retention that may have diminished the L1-yes versus L1-no factor. As for the computerised test, participants had to make their choice among two pictures, which meant that they possibly had to access the word-form of both lexical items to be able to decide which one matched the auditory stimulus they had been given. Such a fact meant that the RTs did not accurately show whether the time used to match the auditory and the pictorial stimuli included the access to one or two lexical items. Finally, it would have been interesting to administer a written test in which students had to provide the L1 translation of the lexical items to see whether the participants not provided with the translation during instruction could really come up with the equivalents, and hence, to explore whether they relied just on the image or whether they really understood the meaning of the concepts. Further research on this topic could include comparing the practice of using L1 equivalents versus English-only instruction in children of different ages, for instance pre and post critical period children, in order to see whether the use of the L1 is equally beneficial in different young age groups. It would also be interesting to look at more advanced levels since it seems clear that the FL is connected to the L1 at the initial stages of the learning process, but it seems that as the learner becomes more advanced, reliance on the L1 decreases. 6. Conclusion The present study aimed at exploring the role the L1 plays in young learners’ retention of and access to English vocabulary. More specifically, the study has attempted to determine (1) whether the use of L1 translation aids short and long-term vocabulary retention and (2) whether the L1 acts as a facilitator in terms of lexical access. Data were obtained from a pre-test and three post-tests to explore differences between and within the groups in relation to vocabulary gain and memory effects. A computerised test was conducted to measure ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 127 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 possible differences between the groups in relation to lexical access. In line with previous research carried out in foreign language vocabulary learning, results of the present study showed statistically significant differences in the outcomes of the two contrastive instructional practices, benefitting the group who had been instructed using the L1 translation equivalents. Data collected from recorded interviews carried out with the participants also determined from a more qualitative point of view the strong tendency for students to resort to the L1 when accessing the FL lexical items. Results are accounted for by the fact that during the early stages of foreign language learning the FL lexis seems to be most likely organised in subordination to the L1 mental lexicon. To conclude, although the use of the L1 is often neglected in the foreign language classroom, the present study suggests that the mother tongue can be used as a beneficial rather than a detrimental tool to promote foreign language vocabulary learning. Notes 1 A previous version of this article was submitted as a BA dissertation in the Departament de Filologia Anglesa i de Germanística at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain in June 2014 and is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/pub/ tfg/2014/123365/TFG_aidacodina.pdf 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MisrUJX3QGU 3 http://www.worken.com.br 4 The level of significance will be p < 0.05 all throughout the analysis. References Anuthama, B. (2010). Strategies for Teaching Vocabulary. Journal of NELTA, 15(1-2): 10-15. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733109 Campbell, L., Campbell B., and Dickinson, D. (2004). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 128 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 Carpenter, S. K. and Olson, K. M. (2012). Are pictures good for learning new vocabulary in a foreign language? Only if you think they are not. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 38: 92101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024828 Cook, V. J. (2003). Effects of the Second Language on the First. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom Teaching. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Grace, C. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentencelevel translations: Implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern Language Journal, 32(4): 533-544. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05541.x Hulstijn, J.H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781139524780.011 Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M. and Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80 (3): 327-339. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x Jiang, N. (2002). Form–meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(4): 617-637. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102004047 Kersten, S. (2010). The Mental Lexicon and Vocabulary Learning: Implications for the foreign language classroom. Tübingen: Verlag Narr. Kit, C. (2003). How does lexical acquisition begin? A cognitive perspective. Cognitive Science, 1 (2): 1-50. Kroll, J. F. (1993). Accessing conceptual representations for words for words in a second language. In R. Schreuder and B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 54-81). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi. org/10.1075/sibil.6.05kro Kroll, J.F. and Sunderman G. (2003). Cognitive processes in second language learners and bilinguals: The Development of Lexical and Conceptual ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 129 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 Representations. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 104-129). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch5 Kroll, J.F. and Stewart (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33: 149-174. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 Laufer, B. (2005). Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. In S.H. Foster-Cohen, M. Garcia-Mayo and J. Cenoz (Eds.), Eurosla yearbook volume 5 (pp. 223-250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi. org/10.1075/eurosla.5.11lau Laufer, B. and Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorising new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? Regional Language Centre Journal, 28(1): 89-108. Liu, J. (2009). L1 Use in L2 Vocabulary Learning: Facilitator or Barrier. International Education Studies, 1: 65-69. Lotto, L. & A. de Groot (1998). Effects of Learning Method and Word Type on Acquiring Vocabulary in an Unfamiliar Language. Language Learning, 48(1): 31-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00032 Macaro, E. and Lee, J. H. (2013), Teacher Language Background, Codeswitching, and English-Only Instruction: Does Age Make a Difference to Learners’ Attitudes? TESOL Quarterly, 47: 717–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ tesq.74 Maye, J. and Gerken, L.A. (2001). Learning phonemes: How far can the input take us? Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston: Cascadilla Press. Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Englewood Cliffs: Newbury House. Phillips, S. and Morgan, M. (2007). Incredible English Kit 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 130 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 Potter, B. (1902). The Tale of Peter Rabbit. London: Penguin Books. Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80.4: 478-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb05468.x Read, J. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 146–161.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000078 Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed Second Language Vocabulary Learning. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3): 329-363. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1362168808089921 Sieh, Y. (2008). A Possible Role For The First Language In Young Learners’ Processing And Storage Of Foreign Language Vocabulary. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 5(1): 136-160. Snodgrass, J. G. (1993). Translating versus picture naming: Similarities and differences. In R. Schreuder and B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (pp. 83-114). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ sibil.6.06sno Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. North York: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Van Hell, J.G. and Candia Mahn, A.C. (1997). Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal: Learning concrete and abstract foreign words by experienced and inexperienced learners. Language Learning, 47(3): 507-546. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00018 ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 131 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 Appendices Appendix A: Flashcards ROOT BASKET BLACKBERRIES UMBRELLA WOOD FIRE BAKERY NET RAKE PARSLEY LETTUCE CUCUMBER ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 132 The effects of using L1 translation on young learners’ foreign ... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 GATE TOOLSHED TEARS SCARECROW FLOWERPOT WATERING CAN BEANS BUSH ELIA 15, 2015, pp. 109-134 133 Aïda Codina Camó & Elisabet Pladevall Ballester DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12795/elia.2015.i15.06 Appendix B: Pre-test Appendix C: Post-test I