Influence of Semantic Referent in the Fast Mapping Paradigm on L2 Vocabulary Learning

Table of contents

1. Influence of Semantic Referent in the Fast Mapping

Paradigm on L2 Vocabulary Learning

2. ????????????????????å?"

3. Chen Zhang

Abstract-Complementary learning system believes that the acquisition and consolidation of new information is a relatively slow process. Contrary to the traditional theory, recent studies have shown that new words learned by fast mapping (FM) paradigm can be rapidly integrated into neocortical memory networks, inducing neural mechanisms different from the complementary learning system. However, factors affecting rapid cortical integration through FM are still under debate. This study thus explored the influences of semantic referent on L2 English vocabulary learning in the FM paradigm. Fifty participants were randomly assigned to the fast mapping or the incidental encoding learning condition, and completed three vocabulary tests shortly after learning and again about 24 hours later. The results showed that (a) in the lexical integration test, only the FM group produced lexical competition effects, which proved that the semantic referent in the FM paradigm can promote the rapid lexical integration of new words into the pre-existing mental lexicon, (b) in the semantic integration test, only the FM group produced semantic priming effects, which proved that the semantic referent in the FM paradigm can promote the rapid semantic integration of new words into the semantic network. The results indicated that the semantic referent is driving factors for rapid cortical integration through FM. The study has important implications for vocabulary instruction and provides a new perspective for L2 vocabulary learning.

Keywords: fast mapping, incidental encoding, semantic referent, second language vocabulary learning, memory network.

Abstract-???????--????????? ??? ???????????ç¼?"??????????????? ??????ç ?"??????????????????? ??????????????????????????? ????????????å?"????????????? ??????????????ç ?"??????????? ??????????????å?"?50????????? ?????????????????????????? ???-?è?"???? ?????????????? ??????????ç ?"????1)?????????? ??????ç?"???????åº?"????????????? ?????????????????????????2) ????????????????ç?"???????åº?"??? ??????????????????????????? ?????????ç ?"?ç»?"?????????????? ????????????????????????é?"®?? ??ç ?"??????????????????????? ?? Keywords: ????? ????? ????? ???????????.
Figure 1. 2 (F( 1 ,
21al., 2014, 2015; Himmer et al., 2017)????????????(??1)???? ??????????ä½?"???????????? (??1????"cricket")?????????(?? 1???ç?"???)?????????ç­?"????(? ?1"Are the antennae of the Torato pointing up?")????????????????????? ?????????????????ä½?"?????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????(???)?? (implicit or incidental learning)??? ?Carey? Bartlett(1978)??"????"???????ç ?"?? ???????????????????????? ??(Halberda, 2006; Coutanche & Thompson-Schill, 2014; Greve et al., 2014; Merhav et al., 2015; Cooper et al., 2019b; O'Connor & Riggs, 2019; Vasilyeva et al., & Thompson-Schill(2014) ????? ????(incidental encoding)????? ??? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????????? ?? ?? ????????????Coutanche & Thompson-Schill(2014) ??????????? ????? ??(declarative memory) ???????????ç?"¨?Cooper?(2019)??? ????????(semantic reference) ????? (semantic inference) ??????????? ?é?"®?????????????????????? ??????æ¯?"????????????è?"ç»?"??? ?????????????????è?"ç»?"????? ???????????????????????? ?????????????????Cooper?(2019) ?æ¯?"?????(FM)????????????? ??ä½?"(FM-r???????FM?FM-i??????? FM?FM-ir??????????????FM) äº?"?? ?????????????????ç»?"?????? ?????????????????é?"®?????? Coutanche & Koch(2017) ????)×2 (????) ???? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????????? ??????????????????(?craglemonkey?????)????????????(?cr agle-orange)??????16?????????-48)=11.81?p =.001? ???????? ?? ???????????????åº?"???F(1, × ???? × ???? (2×2×2) ???????? ç»?"???????????åº?"???F(1, 48)= 17.81, p <.001??ç?"¨????åº?"??????ç?"¨?????? ????åº?"???F(1, 48)=33.47?p <.001? ?? ????åº?"???????????åº?"??????? ??åº?"???(p>.1)?????????????? åº?"???F(1,48)=11.28?p=.002???????? ?????????????????åº?"????(ps >.1)????????????????åº?"???? ????????????ç?"¨????åº?"?????? ç?"¨??(p<.001)????????????ç?"¨??? ?ç?"¨????åº?"??????(p>.
Figure 2. ???????????
et al., 2011; Greve et al., 2014; Atir-Sharon et al., 2015? Merhav et al., 2015?Zaiser et al. 2021, 2022)? ?ç»?"??? ??????????(modality-specific cortices) ???????(Lambon Ralph et al., 2017)?

Appendix A

  1. , Behavioral Science 5 p. .
  2. A spreadingactivation theory of semantic processing. A Collins , E Loftus . Psychological Review 1975. 6 p. .
  3. No evidence that "fast mapping" benefits novel learning in healthy older adults. A Greve , E Cooper , R Henson . Neuropsychologia 2014. 60 p. .
  4. High Feature Overlap and Incidental Encoding Drive Rapid Semantic Integration in the Fast Mapping Paradigm. A K Zaiser , P Meyer , R Bader . Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2021. 151 p. .
  5. High feature overlap reveals the importance of anterior and medial temporal lobe structures for learning by means of fast mapping. A K Zaiser , R Bader , P Meyer . Cortex 2022. 146 p. .
  6. Investigating fast mapping task components: No evidence for the role of semantic referent nor semantic inference in healthy adults. E Cooper , A Greve , R Henson . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00394. Frontiers in Psychology 2019. 10.
  7. Is this a dax which I see before me? Use of the logical argument disjunctive syllogism supports word-learning in children and adults. J Halberda . Cognitive Psychology 2006. 53 p. .
  8. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory. J Mcclelland , B Mcnaughton , O' Reilly , R . Psychological Review 1995. 102 p. .
  9. Novel word integration in the mental lexicon: Evidence from unmasked and masked semantic priming. J Tamminen , M Gaskell . Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2013. 66 p. .
  10. The neural and computational bases of semantic cognition. Lambon Ralph , M A Jefferies , E Patterson , K Rogers , TT . Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2017. 18 p. .
  11. Sleep-mediated memory consolidation depends on the level of integration at encoding. L Himmer , E Müller , S Gais , M Schönauer . Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 2017. 137 p. .
  12. Fast mapping rapidly integrates information into existing memory networks. M Coutanche , S Thompson-Schill . Journal of Experimental Psychology General 2014. 143 p. .
  13. Rapid consolidation of new knowledge in adulthood via fast mapping. M Coutanche , S Thompson-Schill . Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2015. 19 p. .
  14. Neocortical catastrophic interference in healthy and amnesic adults: A paradoxical matter of time. M Merhav , A Karni , A Gilboa . Hippocampus 2014. 24 p. .
  15. Not all declarative memories are created equal: Fast mapping as a direct route to cortical declarative representations. M Merhav , A Karni , A Gilboa . Neuroimage 2015. 117 p. .
  16. Decoding the formation of new semantics: MVPA investigation of rapid neocortical plasticity during associative encoding through fast mapping. T Atir-Sharon , A Gilboa , H Hazan , E Koilis , L M Manevitz . Neural Plasticity 2015. 2015. (Article 804385)
  17. Rapid neocortical acquisition of long-term arbitrary associations independent of the hippocampus, T Sharon , M Moscovitch , A Gilboa . 2011. 108 p. . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Home 
Date: 1970-01-01