International Journal of Arts & Sciences, CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 09(02):551–564 (2016)

EXPLOITING THE BILINGUAL’S PSYCHO-SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS TO ENHANCE VOCABULARY ACQUISITION

Enoka Makulloluwa

Brock , Canada

This paper is a literature review exploring to what extent translation from the second language (L2) to first language (L1) and the construction of mnemonics based on culturally relevant imagery facilitate the encoding and retrieval of new vocabulary words in English as a Second Language (ESL) undergraduates. The study is mainly informed by the Bilingual Dual Coding Theory (BDCT), which assumes that cognitive activity of a bilingual is mediated by the two verbal systems in his/her language repertoire and the image system representing his/her knowledge of the world. Based on the literature, I propose that the use of L1 and culturally relelvant imagery together provide a potential vocabulary learning strategy to ESL learners as they acknowledge the learners psycho-social characterisitcs into consideration.

Keywords: L1, Imagery mnemonics, BDCT, Vocabualry.

Introduction

Research suggests that there exist an achievement gap in terms of academic performance between English as a Second Language (ESL) learners with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and their native English- speaking counterparts (Bibian, 2006; Hakuta, Butler, & Witt, 2000; Stahl & Nagy, 2006; Gu, 2013). This is due to their inadequate skills in the medium of classroom instruction. In particular, one of the literacy skills that causes learners insurmountable difficulties is vocabulary. It is identified as one of the main explanations for the achievement gap between ESL learners with LEP and their native English-speaking peers (August & Shanahan, 2006; Giridharan, 2012; Ramachandran & Rahim, 2004). Since this poses great difficulty and challenges to students, vocabulary related issues have drawn a significant amount of attention from researchers. However, the issue still persists as no definite solution has been found to remedy it. Although there is ample research exploring the impact of didactic instruction on vocabulary learning strategies (VLS), so far there has been only a handful of studies discussing how a ESL learner’s cognitive architecture (i.e. the two verbal systems, the image system and his/her prior knowledge) can be utilized to enhance their academic vocabularies. Hence, in this paper, through a review of literature, I try to prove the argument that the ESL learner’s first language (L1) and culturally relevant imagery together facilitate academic vocabulary acquisition in a second language (L2) as they are strategies that are congruent with the ESL learner’s cognitive architecture and their socio-cultural identity.

551 552 Exploiting the Bilingual’s Psycho-Social Characteristics to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition

Impact of Learner’s Linguistic and Cultural Identity on His/Her Second Language

Arabski (2006) quoting Lado (1957) suggests that individuals are inclined to transfer the forms and meanings of their L1 and culture when attempting to receive and produce a second or a foreign language. This is mainly due to the fact that one’s knowledge of L1 and culture are intricately intertwined with one’s identity. Thus, it is preposterous to ignore this knowledge in L2 acquisition since previous knowledge plays a pivotal role in learning. Also, an individual’s L1 is a part of his/her essence and is connected with his/her emotions, dreaming, world concepts and group identity (Hopkins, 1988) and a significant part of his/her (multiple) identity (Norton, 1997). Therefore, ignoring or not acknowledging an individual’s linguistic and cultural background is disrespectful and can have a negative influence on the learning process. Although almost all current English language teaching practices are built on pedagogical philosophies and traditions of the western world, the application of those practices to teach students who are from periphery contexts is highly questionable (Canagarajah, 1999). These Anglo-American pedagogical practices are built based on the faulty assumptions that learning in general and learning languages are primarily value free cognitive activities isolated from the environment and that all cognitive strategies are universal. They fail to acknowledge the pivotal role culture plays in learning and the fact that socio-cultural differences interfere with learners’ comprehension and interpretation of the world. Leoni et al (2011) also wonder whether the mainstream “acknowledge and build on the cultural and linguistic knowledge (social capital) of students and communities” (p.56). According to Canagarajah, (1999), the values represented in western pedagogical practices and the culture of the ESL student can create a dissonance with possible detrimental effects on the learning process. Thus, the imposition of western pedagogical practices without considering the culture and identity of the learner is highly questionable, and as such, there is a need to re-evaluate the existing learner strategies based on the mainstream pedagogy for second language acquisition.

Significance of Academic Vocabulary to ESL learners in Higher Educational Institutions

Without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed” states Wilkins (1972, as cited in Milton, 2009, p.3) commenting on the importance of vocabulary. Lexical competence is identified as a major component of knowing a language as it enables the learner to understand and produce texts (Schmitt, 2008; Mehrpour, Rasmjoo & Kian, 2011; Haynes & Baker, 1993). For instance, unless the reader comprehends at least 95% of the vocabulary in a text, his/her ability to guess the meanings of other unknown words is severely reduced (Laufer, 1989; Liu & Nation 1985, as cited in Nation & Waring, 2004). It is also a predictor of one’s reading ability (Stahl &Nagy, 2006), and “a critical factor in the advancement of powerful reading and critical thinking abilities among adolescents, young adults, and adults” (Fastrup & Samuels, 2008, p.1). In addition to that, lack of lexical competence contributes to poor writing especially in relation to ESL students with LEP (Astika, 1993). Underscoring the significance of vocabulary for academic success, the lexical threshold hypothesis purports that adequate reading comprehension depends on a reader’s prior knowledge of 90-95% of the words in a text (Laufer, 1989). The connection between word knowledge and reading comprehension is such that the slow growth in a student’s vocabulary knowledge directly affects his/her reading comprehension (Chall & Jacobs, 2003). Where the impact of vocabulary on writing is concerned, lexical density (the proportion of content words i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs to the total number of words) is identified as an important criterion for assessing writing performance of students (Nadarajan, 2007). ESL students with LEP in higher academic institutions require advanced language skills to perform their daily academic activities. Where vocabulary is concerned, they have to learn academic words (words which are common across academic disciplines i.e. words such as analyse, conclude), technical words (words unique to a particular discipline i.e. words such as asymptote, biosphere) (Nation, 2001), and other high frequency words (in, the) as they are imperative to text comprehension and production. Also, the Enoka Makulloluwa 553 correct usage of academic vocabulary is considered a mark of intelligence (Corson, 1997, as cited in Gu, 2013). In sum, vocabulary can be considered one of the biggest obstacles preventing students from achieving academic success (Arechiga, 2013). Lexical ignorance is a major barrier to advancement for ESL learners despite having mastered the phonological code and the grammatical structures of the language of instruction (Coady, 1993, Laufer, 1997; Yang & Dai, 2011). In light of this, it is inevitable that a student with a smaller vocabulary lags behind their peers who own larger vocabularies. In schools, the former are also at the risk of being diagnosed either learning disabled (August, Carlo, Dressler & Snow., 2005) or of having shorter attention spans (Ariza, Morales-Jones, Yahya, & Zainuddin, 2002). Also, an inadequate vocabulary thwarts students’ ability to freely express themselves in academic discourse. Due to the critical nature of this, there is a dire need to devise strategies to ensure vocabulary development in learners so that they reach the expected academic standards in the classroom (Nation, 1990; August et al., 2005; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Thus, in summary, it can be stated that vocabulary knowledge directly correlates with academic literacy, and that steps should be taken to enhance the vocabulary levels, specially of ESL students with LEP to improve their academic performance. Otherwise undergraduates with LEP who lack proper skills in the language of instruction may face problems, as unlike in schools, university course instructors may not have the time to identify students’ language problems and recommend solutions.

Overcoming Challenges - Vocabulary Learning Strategies

ESL students use a variety of language learning strategies (LLS) to overcome the barriers they encounter while acquiring a new language (Oxford, 1990). LLS are “steps taken by learners to enhance their own learning” (Oxford, 1990, p.1).These strategies ‘aid acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information (p.8). They also make learning “easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to new situations” (p.8). Strategy frequency and strategy deployment vary according to a person’s gender, age, beliefs and motivation (Macaro, 2001). Additionally degrees of awareness, expectations of the teacher, stage of learning, task requirements, nationality /ethnicity, general learning style, personality traits, and purpose for learning the new language also determine a learner’s strategy choice (Oxford, 1990). VLS are part of LLS, which in turn, constitute one part of general learning strategies (Nation, 2001; Doczi, 2011). Most definitions of VLS reflect their relationship to LLS. For instance, VLS are defined as “actions that learners take to help themselves understand and remember vocabulary” (Cameron, 2001, p.92). Similarly, Taka þ (2008) claims that VLS are “specific strategies utilised in the isolated task of learning vocabulary in the target language” (p.52). She also adds that those strategies can be used in any other field of language learning. A finding of significant interest is that students employ learning strategies more in vocabulary learning than in learning other aspects of language. An impressive amount of work has been done in the field of vocabulary learning resulting in a number of VLS taxonomies (Schmitt, 1997, 2000; Gu & Johnson’s, 1996; Nation, 2001). As stated in the introduction, despite minor variations and differences, most taxonomies acknowledge discovery and consolidation strategies and a variety of sub strategies which fall under these two. Discovery strategies are employed to determine the meaning of an unfamiliar vocabulary item while consolidation strategies are used to consolidating meaning of a word after its initial discovery (Schmitt, 2000). Strategies belonging to the former contain determination and social strategies while the latter contains cognitive, metacognitive, memory and certain other social strategies. Cognitive strategies involve guessing meanings using learners’ background knowledge while metacognitive strategies involve a variety of self-initiation strategies and selective awareness strategies. Memory strategies, popularly known as mnemonics involve associating new language information with familiar concepts already in memory. Social strategies contain sub strategies which involve interacting with others to recall word meanings (Schmitt, 1997, 2000; Gu & Johnson, 1996). 554 Exploiting the Bilingual’s Psycho-Social Characteristics to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition

Critique of Existing Vocabulary Learning Strategies

A review of currently used VLS show that they conforms to the standards of the Anglo-American, mainstream pedagogical norms. According to Canagarajah (1999), pedagogy of the mainstream often suppresses the learner’s emotions, institutions and imagination, and as a result, promotes banning the learner L1 from the classroom. However, it should be noted that a learning strategy which is considered inappropriate in one learning context, could be regarded quite valuable in another context (Gu, 2003). Thus, where ESL student population is considered, it is not possible to completely ignore strategies they had been using in their previous learning contexts. Learners often feel anxious in the presence of an L2 in the classroom. Language anxiety is defined as “the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts, including speaking, listening, and learning” (Onwuegbuzie, Bailey & Daly, 1999, p. 218). As learners are affected by unequal power relations in the classroom (Pierce, 1995), banning the L1 can be disempowering to the students. As a result of banishing it, learners are deprived of their normal means of communication, and hence their ability to function fully as normal human beings (Allwright & Bailey 1991; Butzkamm, 2003; Norton 2013; Ha, 2008). Similarly, the use of imagery which western scholars may find suitable to facilitate vocabulary acquisition can also cause anxiety to the students. As affective factors such as negative emotions can impact working memory (McPherson, 2004), it is vital to rethink the current strategies designed according to mainstream pedagogical norms. As a bilingual’s linguistic and cultural repertoires do not exist in isolation from each other, it is vital to rethink of strategies that recognize and exploit learner’s prior knowledge in learning new content. In the quest for this, it is important to adopt a critical stance on the existing strategies.

Impact of the Bilingual’s Cognitive Architecture on Deep Processing of New Vocabulary

The general assumption of Bilingual Dual Coding Theory (BDCT) ((Paivio & Desrochers, 1980) is that the cognitive activities of the bilingual are mediated by an imagery system and two verbal systems (V1 and V2) corresponding to his/her two languages (L1 and L2) are both independent and interconnected. Figure 1 is a visual depiction of BDCT. According to the BDCT, a bilingual:

…can perceive, remember, and think about non- verbal objects and events without the intervention of either language system and, conversely, that they can behave or think verbally without constant intervention by the nonverbal system. At the same time, the systems are interconnected at the referential levels, so that verbal activity in either language system can be influenced by the imagery system and vice versa…the image system provides a means of indirect access from one language to the other. Under some circumstances and for some words, translation might occur indirectly in that a logogen in V1, activates imagens which in turn activate logogens in V2 permitting the translation equivalents to be accessed. (Paivio & Desrochers, 1980; pp. 390-391)

However, it should also be noted that although the two verbal systems have connections to the image system at the referential level, “verbal translation equivalents in L1, and L2 may or may not activate the same imagens, depending on the way the two languages have been acquired” (Paivio & Desrocher, 1980; p.391). This means, if the two languages were acquired in two different cultural contexts, the imagery aroused by translation equivalents will be culture specific (Paivio & Desrocher, 1980; Jared, Poh & Paivio, 2013). This contributes to the assumption that even though policies mitigate against the use and intervention of learner’s L1, and at times, is both inevitable and necessary where L2 vocabulary acquisition is concerned (Lucas & Catz, 1994, p. 558). A second assumption is that imagery used to represent L2 vocabulary should be culture specific or culturally relevant where necessary for meaningful learning to take place (Lucas & Catz, 1994). Enoka Makulloluwa 555

Figure 1. A visual depiction of BDCT (Paivio & Desrocher, 1980)

As stated in the BDCT (Paivio & Desrocher, 1980), a bilingual’s two verbal systems and the image system sometimes interact with each other in understanding the world at representational, referential and associative levels. As a bilingual has more than one verbal system in his/her language repertoire along with the image system, it is inevitable that these systems interact in varying degrees when bilinguals try to make sense of the world. As Paivio (2014) suggests, the presence of two languages contributes to the general bilingual intelligence at least partially due to the information presented in two languages. He also asserts that dual coding contributes to the picture advantage in recognition memory in any individual. Thus, in this section, I review literature which has explored the contribution of the unique cognitive architecture of the bilingual to vocabulary development. Confirming the above assumption, it was found that a dual processing strategy supports monolingual / bilingual / multilingual individuals to develop “mental pictorial representations of graphic input and mental verbal representations of linguistic input” (Jones, 2004, p.123). She further states that the presence of cues in dual forms have the ability to facilitate learning, specifically “when the corresponding visual and verbal representations are continuously present in working memory” (Jones, 2004, p.123; Farley, Ramonda, & Liu, 2012). This confirms the view that if a new word is manipulated in multiple ways i.e. providing direct translations, it will lead to better retention as there is greater engagement (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Laufer & Shmueli, 1997; Jones, 2004; Prince, 1996; Ramachandran & Rahim 2004). As an offshoot of this assumption, there has been a wealth of literature which examines to what extent the presence of both pictorial and verbal cues enhance vocabulary development. In general, 556 Exploiting the Bilingual’s Psycho-Social Characteristics to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition findings reveal that supportive information presented by way of pictorial and verbal cues exert a positive influence on language learning (Farley, Ramonda, & Liu, 2012; Jones, 2004; Oxford & Crookall, 1990; Paivio, 1971; Paivio, 2014; Shen, 2010). Where L2 learning is concerned, Paivio (1990) claim that “the image system provides an indirect access route from one language to the other. Under some circumstances and for some words, translation can be mediated because a logogen in V1 activates referential imagens which in turn activate referential logogens in V2. This permits the translation equivalent to be accessed in the bilingual. Soh (2010) illustrates the process of L1 word acquisition and L2 word acquisition when and when not bilingual coding is applied (refer Figure 3, 4 & 5). Figure 5 clearly shows the inevitable interaction between these three systems in the bilingual brain which may facilitate vocabulary acquisition.

Figure 2. The process of acquiring a word in L1 (Adapted from Soh, 2010)

Figure 3. The process of acquiring a word in L2 when bilingual coding is not applied (Adapted from Soh, 2010)

Soh (2010) asserts “Since in the bilingual dual-coding model, there exist the respective L1-L2 connections, the learning of the meaning of a new word in L2 can be shortened by invoking it, as it has already been built up when the translation equivalent in L1 is being learnt. The process, then, is”: (p.292)

Figure 4. The process of acquiring a word in L2 when bilingual coding is applied: (Adapted from Soh, 2010)

Mnemonics and Imagery Based Mnemonics

Mnemonics as defined by Taka þ (2008) are techniques based on cognitive processes which are used to enhance retention of material one would otherwise forget. The mnemonics can be classified into verbal Enoka Makulloluwa 557

(reduction, elaborated coding, semantic elaboration, rhyme and rhythm), visual (imagery, the Loci Method, method of spatial page organization) and mixed mnemonics (the Peg Method, the Keyword Method, association mnemonics, rituals, process mnemonics. (p.59) Paivio (1983), in a similar vein elaborating the distinction between mnemonic strategies and non- mnemonic strategies points out that mnemonics include using pictures or imagery which transforms or physically re-code the material to be learned. The imagery used usually have no direct relation to the target language units, instead, they only serve as retrieval cues to recall the meanings of those units. Paivio (1983) further states “Comparable non-mnemonic strategies would include pictures that simply represent, elaborate on, or provide visual interpretations of the target language without involving transformations explicitly designed to provide a link to the language material” (p.190). Two types of mnemonics are discussed in LLS literature: organizational mnemonics and encoding mnemonics (Bellezza, 1987). The former organize and interrelate new information in memory so that it can be later recalled (Bellezza, 1987, p. 35). Examples include methods such as the loci method, peg word method and the story mnemonics. Encoding mnemonics on the other hand “transform low-imagery, abstract material into more memorable form” which facilitates easy storage of information in the memory (Bellezza, 1987, p. 35). Research proves mnemonic strategies to be more effective than non-mnemonic ones in enhancing language acquisition since they demand deeper cognitive involvement (Paivio, 1983; Roediger, 1980; Tacak, 2008; Terry, 2016). Among the many mnemonic strategies, mnemonics which employ imagery such as forming mental images and making associations between images enhance vocabulary acquisition as they connect the verbal systems and the image systems (Paivio & Desrochers, 1981; Thornburry, 2002). Research reveals that L2 learners use a variety of VLS which include both mnemonic and non- mnemonic strategies in order to enhance vocabulary acquisition (Kafipour, 2011; Kafipour, Yazdi, Soori & Shorkpour, 2011; Nemati, 2009; Tsai & Chang, 2009; Kafipour & Naveh, 2011; Wang, 2004; Wu, 2005; Yang, 2008; Yang & Dai, 2012). Research also reveals the positive influence of VLS instruction on the vocabulary acquisition of L2 learners (Baumann, Edwards, Boland & Font, 2012; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Kafipour et al., 2011; Rahimy & Sham, 2012; Wang, 2004). It should also be noted that strategies which require “deeper and active manipulation of information” (Taka þ, 2008, p.59) and deep semantic processing (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, Oxford, 1990) result in better retention of vocabulary. This is in congruence with the depth of processing hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975) which purports that more cognitive energy exerts on the manipulation of a word when it is acquired facilitates easier retrieval. However, as not all learners come to the language learning process equipped with strategies, there is no doubt that didactic instruction on VLS expedite their L2 vocabulary development. However, it is crucial to educate learners on the use of VLS which are more meaningful to them as such strategies can create more opportunities to increase vocabulary acquisition. Imagery based mnemonics have played a special part in vocabulary strategy research due to its ability to enhance cognitive involvement of learners. Confirming this, Paivio (1983) emphasizes the significance of providing appropriate non-verbal situational cognitive and behavioural context for language learning. For instance, imagery has always been considered immensely superior to strategies such as rote translation (Farley, Ramonda, & Liu, 2012; Nemati, 2009; Paivio , 2014; Paivio & Desrocher, 1981). This is mainly due to the facilitative effect which visual referents can provide in retrieval of information pertaining to vocabulary (Farley, Ramonda, & Liu, 2012; Paivio, 2014; Sadoski, 2005; Shen, 2004). In other words, images contain structural messages that supplement the vocabulary presented (Baggett, 1989; Kozma, 1991).

Impact of ESL’s Two Verbal Systems on Vocabulary Acquisition

Since bilinguals have two verbal systems built into their cognitive architecture, which is considered a benefit, it is worthwhile investigating its contribution to vocabulary development in a subsequent language. Thus, there has been a considerable amount of literature investigating the impact of translation 558 Exploiting the Bilingual’s Psycho-Social Characteristics to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition in novel word learning (Grace, 1998; Jarvis; Prince, 1996; Ramahandran & Rahim, 2004; Saz, Lin & Eskenazi, 2014). Underscoring the importance of the interaction between the two verbal systems of the bilingual “Language independence hypothesis of BDCT implies that L1 and L2 translation equivalents should have an additive memory effect for bilinguals such that each bilingual code contributes equally to their additive effects” (Paivio, 2014, p.50). For instance, research reveals that learners are able to recall novel words which were coded bilingually twice as well than monolingually coded words as they are additive in their joined effect on recall (Paivio, 2014). In congruence with this, Jones (2004) found that in terms of production, translation annotations were superior to pictorial annotations. Also, learners show a general tendency to “covertly pronounce” the labels of the pictures they are presented in their L1 and “the names and the pictures converge on the foreign language response, increasing the probability of recall relative to the word – stimulus condition” (Paivio, 2014, p.54). This confirms Arabeski’s (2006) view that there exist “a dynamic interplay between the L1 and L2 mental lexicons” (p.130) and Cohen and Aphek’s (1980) view regarding the exceptionally high levels of connectivity between L1 and L2. In a similar vein, Kaushanskya and Marian (2009) purport that bilinguals demonstrate efficient retrieval of stored lexical information than monolinguals due to bilingual advantage. Many ESL learners depend heavily on different types of dictionaries i.e. monolingual, bilingual, bilingualized, electronic, and paper-based to find answers to their vocabulary related issues (Schmitt, 1997; Tsai & Chang, 2009; Wu, 2005; Yang, 2008). Although until recent times, by default it was assumed that monolingual dictionaries are the most effective (Hartman, 1991, as cited in Gu, 2003), they may be of little value to ESL learners below advanced level (Thompson, 1997, as cited in Gu, 2003). Illustrating this, a study which compared monolingual, bilingual, and bilingualized dictionaries by Laufer and Hadar (1997) found that bilingualized dictionaries were better or as good as the other two types in both comprehension and production tasks. These views highlight the significance of cross linguistic influence on learning strategies and perceive the interplay between the two verbal systems as something inevitable. Under these circumstances, it is unwise to not acknowledge or supress their influence on vocabulary enhancement. Instead, language educators should look for avenues to exploit L1 in the L2 vocabulary acquisition process.

An alternative: Cognitively and Culturally Relevant Vocabulary Learning Strategy

Above review of literature underscores the need for VLS which incorporates the bilingual’s psycho-social identity. Understandably, not much research has been conducted in this regard due to the lack of attention given to intentional vocabulary learning in the classroom and due to the belief that learning is a detached cognitive activity. Cummins (2006) pinpoints “Although the construct of identity investment has not received much attention in the cognitive psychology or educational reform research literature, it has emerged as a significant explanatory construct in the educational and second language learning literature” (p.90). This indicates the need for a more inclusive pedagogy where ESL learners are concerned. Literate adult language learners approach the task of language learning with a very different set of strategies from those available to pre-linguistic infants (Wells, 1998). Unlike in infants, social cultural factors such as adult learner’s cultural and linguistic identity have a great influence on their success (Norton, 2013; Skilton-Sylvester, 2002). Although children acquire L1 with no formal instruction, it is challenging for an adult to learn a second language without any support or explicit instruction (Gullberg, Roberts, Dimroth, Veroude, & Indefrey, 2010). Thus, when probing the research findings on this issue, it is evident that they underscore the importance of didactic instruction to facilitate independent vocabulary acquisition in adult ESL learners. . Craik and Lockhart’s (1972) levels of processing theory also asserts that memory benefits when elaboration is used to encode information received. One way of elaborating information is achieved by way of self-reference or thinking about personal associations when novel words are encountered while Enoka Makulloluwa 559 another way is to construct images relevant to the new words. Elaboration leads to deep processing of information, and results in better retention (Craik, 2002; Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Sokman, 1997). Thus, it can be concluded that highly relevant personal associations can be easily formed by making connections with L1 translation equivalents and familiar images from the learner’s culture. Findings also indicate that as adults’ sense of identity is inextricably intertwined with their L1. Expecting them to ignore it could result in their sense of identity being threatened (Cook, 2003; Dailey- O’Cain & Liebscher, 2006; Piasecka, 1986; Samar & Mokhtarnia, 2012). As adults also have an ‘emotional loyalty’ to their L1, by allowing it, teachers are letting the students know that their L1s are valued and respected (Schweer, 1999). In a similar vein, Cummins et al. (2006) assert that English language learners’ knowledge about their respective cultures and their language abilities are vital resources in facilitating academic engagement. They state that academic engagement of these learners can be ensured as long as instructions affirm their identities and enables them to invest their identities in learning. Hence, any strategy which recognizes this crucial need can exert a positive influence on the learning process. Research suggests that there are culture specific differences in the nature of images evoked in a bilingual’s mind (Jared, Poh & Paivio, 2013; Winograd Cohen & Barressi, 1976). Thus, it is imperative that the imagery and concepts used as examples in ESL programs acknowledge this difference and incorporate it into the ESL pedagogy. It should also be noted that mental images are constructed on the basis of ones knowledge of the world in response to cues in the L1 verbal system. Currently, VLS such as the keyword method acknowledges this and employ L1 key words and visual imagery to create acoustic and semantic links between L2 words and their meanings as represented by a familiar translation equivalents or synonyms (Gu & Johnsoon, 1996; Pavio, 1983). At the same time, research confirms that images which are culturally biased can be named considerably faster in culturally congruent languages than in culturally incongruent languages (Jared, Poh & Paivio, 2013; Paivio, 2014). This is congruent with the BDCT claim “some image representations are more strongly connected to on language than the other” (Paivio, 2014, p. 52). This difference is attributed to the contexts in which the two languages are learned. For instance, if the two languages were learned in two different countries, referential imagens would be different for L1 and L2 (Jared, Poh & Paivio, 2013). Apparently, this is the case of most international students who study in Anglophonic in Canada.

Conclusion

In this paper I argued that the ESL learner’s first language (L1) and culturally relevant imagery together facilitate academic vocabulary acquisition as they are strategies that are congruent with the ESL learner’s psycho-social identity. Research findings on VLS too indicate the importance of L1 and cultural specific imagery in the L2 vocabulary learning process as they acknowledge and are in congruence with the learner’s psycho-social characteristics. Although this entails a deviation from the mainstream pedagogy, such strategies may be beneficial to ESL learners to become more autonomous learners. As it is impossible to learn new information without associating it with what you already know, it is imperative to equip learners with strategies that utilize their prior knowledge. Also, strategies which acknowledge the learner’s cognitive architecture are more likely to produce better results than the ones that are not.

References

1. Allwright, D. and K. M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2. Arabski, J. (2006). Language transfer in language learning and language contact. In J. Arabski (Ed.), Cross- linguistic Influences in the Second Language Lexicon (pp.12-21). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 560 Exploiting the Bilingual’s Psycho-Social Characteristics to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition

3. Arechiga, D. (2013). Reaching English language learners in every classroom: Energizers for teaching and learning . New York, NY: Routledge. 4. Ariza, E.N., Morales-Jones, C.A., Yahya, N., & Zainuddin, H. (2002). Why TESOL? Theories and issues in teaching English as a second language for K-12 teachers (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. 5. Astika, G. G. (1993). Analytical assessment of foreign students' writing. RELC Journal, 24, 61-72. 6. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). Accelerating English academic vocabulary: An intervention design for Spanish literate children acquiring English as a second language. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 20 (1), 50-57. 7. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 8. Baggett, P. (1989). Understanding visual and verbal messages. In H. Mandl & J. Levin (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 101-124). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 9. Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E., & Font, G. (2012). Teaching word-learning strategies (pp. 139- 166). In E. J. Kame'enui & J. F. Baumann E (Eds.). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. 10. Bellezza, F. S., (1987). Mnemonic devices and memory schemas . New York: Springer NewYork. 11. Bibian, G. C. (2006). An ethnographic case study of a reconstituted urban and the factors that contribute to improved ELL redesignation rates . (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of California, Los Angeles. 12. Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once. The role of the mother tongues in FL classrooms: death of a dogma. Language Learning Journal 28 (1): 29–39. doi:10.1080/09571730385200181 13. Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733109 14. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting Linguistic imperialism in English teaching . New York: Oxford University Press. 15. Chall, J., & Jacobs, V. (2003). Poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27 (1). Retrieved from Spring. http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/ American educator/ spring2003/chall.html 16. Cohen, A. D. and Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: Investigating the role of mnemonic association. System 8, 3, 221-235. 17. Cook, V. (2003). Using the first language in the classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review . Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0 =EJ623369&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ623369 18. Craik, F.(2002). Levels of processing: Past, present and future? Memory , 10 (5/6), 305-318. 19. Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Language and Verbal Behavior, 11 , 671-684. 20. Craik, F. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103 (3), 268-294 21. Cummins, J. (2006). Multiliteracies pedagogy and identity texts. (pp.85-93). In K. Leithwood, P. McAdie, N. Bascia, & A. Rodrigue (Eds) Teaching for deep understanding: What every educator should know. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 22. Dailey-O’Cain, J. and Liebscher, G. (2006) Language learners’ use of discourse markers as evidence for a mixed code. International Journal of Bilingualism 10 (1), 89– 109 23. Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). The first term at university: Implications for EAP. ELT Journal , 65 (4), 387-397. 24. Farley, A. P., Ramonda, K., & Liu, X. (2012). The concreteness effect and the bilingual lexicon: The impact of visual stimuli attachment on meaning recall of abstract L2 words. Language Teaching Research , 16 (4), 449–466. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436910 Enoka Makulloluwa 561

25. Farstrup, A.E & S, Samuels, J (2008). What research has to say about vocabulary instruction . Oklahoma: International Reading Association. Inc. 26. Giridharan, B. (2012). Identifying Gaps in Academic Writing of ESL Students *. US-China Review A, 6, 1548–6613. 27. Grace, C. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentence-level translations: Implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (4), 533-544. 28. Gu, Y. (2013). Second language vocabulary. In J. Hattie & E. Anderman (Eds.). International Guide to Student Achievement . Oxford: Routledge. 29. Gu, Y. & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46 (4), 643-679. 30. Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., Dimroth, C., Veroude, K., & Indefrey, P. (2010). Adult language learning after minimal exposure to an unknown natural language. In M. Gullberg, & P. Indefrey (Eds.), The earliest stages of language learning (pp. 5-24). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 31. Ha, P. L. (2008). Teaching English as an international language: Identity, resistance, negotiation. Clevedon : England Multilingual Matters 32. Hakuta, K., Butler. G., & Witt, D. (2000) “How Long Does it Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency?” Policy Report 2000-1. The University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute. 33. Haynes, M., & Baker, I. (1993). American and Chinese readers learning from lexical familiarizations in English text. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 130-150). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 34. Hopkins (1988). Use of mother tongue in the teaching of English as a second language to adults. Language Issues 2 (2), 18 - 24. 35. Jared, D., Pei Yun Poh, R., & Paivio, A. (2013). L1 and L2 picture naming in Mandarin–English bilinguals: A test of Bilingual Dual Coding Theory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , 16 (Special Issue 02), 383–396. http://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S1366728912000685 36. Jones, L. (2004). Testing L2 Vocabulary Recognition and Recall Using Pictorial and Written Test Items. Language Learning and Technology , 8(3), 122–143. 37. Kafipour, R. (2011). Vocabulary Learning strategies and their contribution to reading comprehension of efl undergraduate Students in Kerman Province, 23 (4), 626–648. 38. Kafipour, R. and Naveh, H. (2011). Vocabulary learning strategies and their contribution to reading comprehension of EFL undergraduate students in Kerman Province. European Journal of Social Sciences , 23 (4), 626-647. 39. Kafipour, R., Yazdi, M., Soori, A. & Shorkpour,N. (2011).Vocabulary levels and vocabulary learning strategies of Iranian undergraduate students. Studies in Literature and Language. 3 (3), 64-71. DOI:10.3968/j.sll.1923156320110303.052 381. 40. Kaushanskaya, M., & Marian, V. (2009). The bilingual advantage in novel word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 16 (4), 705–10. http://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.705 41. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of , 61 (2), 179-211. 42. Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 43. Laufer, B. (1997) what’s in a word that makes it hard or easy : Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 44. Laufer, B. & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and "bilingualized" dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. The Modern Language Journal, 81 , 189-196. 45. Laufer, B. & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal , 28 (1), 89–108. 562 Exploiting the Bilingual’s Psycho-Social Characteristics to Enhance Vocabulary Acquisition

46. Lucas, T. & Katz, A. (1994). Reframing the debate: the roles of native languages in English-Only programs for language minority students. TESOL Quarterly , 28 (3), 537–561 47. Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms . London: Continuum. 48. Mehrpour, S., Razmjoo, S., & Kian, P. (2011). The relationship between depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning , 222 (53), 97-127. 49. Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition . Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 50. Nadarajan, S. (2007). Measuring academic vocabulary size and depth in the writing classroom: Does it really matter? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (AAT 3284352). 51. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary . New York: Newbury House 52. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 53. Nation, P. & Waring, R. (2004). Second language reading and incidental vocabulary learning. Angles on the English- Speaking World , 4, 96-110. 54. Nemati, A. (2008). Use and rankings of vocabulary learning strategies by Indian EFL learners, Language in India, 8 (4), 2-11. 55. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly . 31 (3), 409-429. 56. Norton, B. (2013) Identity and language learning . New York: Pearson Education Limited 57. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C.E. (1997), Foreign language anxiety among college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN. 58. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know . Boston: Heinle & Heinle. 59. Oxford, R., Crookall, D. (1990) Vocabulary Learning: A Critical Analysis of Techniques. TESL Canada Journal, 7 (2), 566–593.Paivio, A. (1983). Strategies in language learning. In Pressley, M. and Levin, J. (eds.). Cognitive Strategy Research . New York: Springer Verlag. 60. Paivio, A., & Desrochers, A. (1980). A dual-coding approach to bilingual memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie , 34 (4), 388–399. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0081101 61. Paivio, A., & Desrochers, A. (1981). Mnemonic techniques in second-language learning. Journal of , 73 (6), 780–795. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.6.780 62. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press. 63. Paivio, A. (2014). Bilingual dual coding theory and memory. In R. R. Heredia & J. Altarriba (Eds.), Foundations of bilingual memory (pp. 41–62). New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4614-9218-4 64. Piasecka (1986). Using mother tongue in teaching adult immigrants. Language Issues: The Journal of NATES LA 1 (1), 29 - 30. 65. Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: the role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal , 80 (4), 478–93. 66. Rahimy, R. and Shams, K. (2012). An investigation of the effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategies on Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary test score. International Education Studies, 5 (5), 141-152. 67. Ramachandran, S. D., & Rahim, H. A. (2004). Meaning recall and retention: The impact of translation method on elementary level learners’ vocabulary learning. RELC Journal, 35 (2), 161-178. 68. Roediger, H. L. (1980). The effectiveness of four mnemonics in ordering recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory , 6(5), 558–567. http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.5.558 69. Sadoski, M. (2005). A Dual Coding View of Vocabulary Learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21 , 221- 238. 70. Saz, O., Lin, Y., & Eskenazi, M. (2015). Measuring the impact of translation on the accuracy and fluency of vocabulary acquisition of English. Computer Speech & Language , 31 (1), 49–64. http://doi.org/10.1016/ j.csl.2014.11.005 Enoka Makulloluwa 563

71. Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary Learning Strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199-227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 72. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching . Cambridge. U.K: Cambridge University Press. 73. Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research , 12 (3), 329–363. 74. Shen, H. H. (2010). Imagery and verbal coding approaches in Chinese vocabulary instruction. Language Teaching Research , 14 (4), 485–499. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375370 75. Schweers, C. W. Jr. (1999). Using L1 in the L2 classroom. English Teaching Forum , 37 (2), 6–9. 76. Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2002), Should I stay or should I go? Investigating Cambodian women’s participation and investment in Adult ESL Programs. Quarterly, 53 (1), 9-26. 77. Soh, K. C., & Cheng, K. (2010). Bilingual Dual-Coding and Code-Switching:Implications for the L1 in L2 Learning, 1(2), 271–296. 78. Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 79. Taka þ, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and second language acquisition . Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 80. Tsai, C. C., & Chang, I. C. (2009). An examination of EFL vocabulary learning strategies of students at the university of technology of Taiwan. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 5 (2), 32-38. 81. Wang, Y. H. (2004 ). An investigation into vocabulary learning strategies used by senior high school students in Taiwan . (Unpublished master thesis). National Chengchi University, Taipei 82. Wells, G. 1998. ‘Using L1 to master L2: A response to Anto´n and DiCamilla’s ‘‘Socio-Cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom’’,’ The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 (3), 343–52. 83. Winograd, E., Cohen, C., & Barresi, J. (1976). Memory for concrete and abstract words in bilingual speakers. Memory & Cognition , 4(3), 323–9. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213184 84. Wu, W. S. (2005). Use and helpfulness rankings of vocabulary learning strategies employed by EFL learners in Taiwan. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1 (2), 7-13. 85. Yang, C. H. (2008). A study of journalistic vocabulary learning strategies by EFL college students. Journal of Meiho Institute of Technology, 27(1), 43-60. 86. Yang, W. and Dai, W. (2011). Rote memorization of vocabulary and vocabulary development. English Language Teaching. (4) 4, 61-64.