Inferring the Meaning of Idioms: Does Accuracy Matter for Retention in Memory?

IF 3.6 2区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Xi Yu, F. Boers
{"title":"Inferring the Meaning of Idioms: Does Accuracy Matter for Retention in Memory?","authors":"Xi Yu, F. Boers","doi":"10.1177/00336882231181771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are grounds for believing that prompting language learners to infer the meaning of new lexical items is beneficial because inferring the meaning of lexical items and verifying one's inferences invites more cognitive investment than simply being presented with the meanings. However, concerns have been raised over the risk that wrong inferences interfere with later recall of the correct meanings. The present study examines the effect of inferencing on language learners’ retention of idiomatic expressions (e.g. jump the gun, pull your weight and stay the course). In a counter-balanced within-participant design, 26 advanced learners of English were presented with 21 idioms in contexts either with their meaning clarified from the start ( k = 7) or with the instruction to try and infer their meaning before receiving the clarification. The latter condition was designed so that accurate interpretations were more likely for some idioms ( k = 7) than for others ( k = 7). The learners’ responses at the inferencing stage were collected for analysis. One week later, the participants took an unannounced meaning-recall test. Recall was the most successful in the learning condition where the likelihood of accurate inferences was high. Items that had been inferred accurately stood a better chance (odds ratio 1.22) of being recalled than items whose interpretation had needed to be rectified. Approximately 13% of the wrong or imperfect inferences re-emerged in the post-test, suggesting that the learners did not readily discard them despite the corrective feedback. The findings indicate that, for inferencing procedures to be optimally useful, they need to be implemented in ways that ensure a high success rate.","PeriodicalId":46946,"journal":{"name":"Relc Journal","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Relc Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231181771","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are grounds for believing that prompting language learners to infer the meaning of new lexical items is beneficial because inferring the meaning of lexical items and verifying one's inferences invites more cognitive investment than simply being presented with the meanings. However, concerns have been raised over the risk that wrong inferences interfere with later recall of the correct meanings. The present study examines the effect of inferencing on language learners’ retention of idiomatic expressions (e.g. jump the gun, pull your weight and stay the course). In a counter-balanced within-participant design, 26 advanced learners of English were presented with 21 idioms in contexts either with their meaning clarified from the start ( k = 7) or with the instruction to try and infer their meaning before receiving the clarification. The latter condition was designed so that accurate interpretations were more likely for some idioms ( k = 7) than for others ( k = 7). The learners’ responses at the inferencing stage were collected for analysis. One week later, the participants took an unannounced meaning-recall test. Recall was the most successful in the learning condition where the likelihood of accurate inferences was high. Items that had been inferred accurately stood a better chance (odds ratio 1.22) of being recalled than items whose interpretation had needed to be rectified. Approximately 13% of the wrong or imperfect inferences re-emerged in the post-test, suggesting that the learners did not readily discard them despite the corrective feedback. The findings indicate that, for inferencing procedures to be optimally useful, they need to be implemented in ways that ensure a high success rate.
推断习语的意义:准确性对记忆的保留有影响吗?
有理由相信,促使语言学习者推断新词汇项目的意义是有益的,因为推断词汇项目的意义并验证自己的推论比简单地呈现词义需要更多的认知投入。然而,人们担心错误的推理会干扰以后对正确含义的回忆。本研究考察了推理对语言学习者保留习惯表达的影响(例如:jump The gun, pull your weight and stay The course)。在参与者内部平衡设计中,研究人员向26名英语高级学习者展示了21个习语,这些习语要么从一开始就明确了它们的含义(k = 7),要么在得到澄清之前尝试推断它们的含义。后一种情况的设计是为了使某些习语(k = 7)比其他习语(k = 7)更有可能得到准确的解释。收集学习者在推理阶段的反应进行分析。一周后,参与者参加了一个未经宣布的意义回忆测试。在准确推断可能性高的学习条件下,回忆是最成功的。与需要纠正解释的项目相比,被准确推断的项目被回忆起来的机会更大(比值比为1.22)。大约13%的错误或不完美的推论在测试后再次出现,这表明尽管有纠正反馈,学习者并没有轻易放弃它们。研究结果表明,为了使推理程序最有效,它们需要以确保高成功率的方式实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Relc Journal
Relc Journal LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The RELC Journal is a fully peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles on language education. The aim of this Journal is to present information and ideas on theories, research, methods and materials related to language learning and teaching. Within this framework the Journal welcomes contributions in such areas of current enquiry as first and second language learning and teaching, language and culture, discourse analysis, language planning, language testing, multilingual education, stylistics, translation and information technology. The RELC Journal, therefore, is concerned with linguistics applied to education and contributions that have in mind the common professional concerns of both the practitioner and the researcher.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信