Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Sipes1

PeterSipes MultipleLanguageAcquisition

Lexiconandautomaticity
Introduction
Inournativelanguage,wehaveadeepandintuitiveknowledgeofwhatisallowedandwhatis not,evenifwecannotarticulatethereasonsforthatknowledge.AllnativeEnglishspeakersknowthat thefollowingsentenceisgrammaticallywrong:Dogtheatefoodthe.QuiteafewnonnativeEnglish speakersarelikelytoknowthattoo,butfordifferentreasons.Somewillcomparethesentencetoarule theyhavelearned.Otherswillhaveenoughexperiencethattheyhavecultivatedadegreeofintuitionin theirL2inthiscase,English. Why?WhatisgoingoninL2learningthatallowsustogrowintoanintuitiveknowledgeofthe newlanguage?Whatevenisspeakerintuition?Tobesure,itisafeatureoffirstlanguageacquisition. CanwebuildintuitioninanL2? HereiswhyIaminterested:Ibelieve,whichmeansIneedtoresearch(and/ortest),thatwe haveanintuitivemodelofwordfrequencyinourheadsaspartofourL1knowledgeevenifour personalknowledgeisslightlyinaccurate.Mysuspicionisthatthisfrequencyknowledgeisnot somethingthatweeverlearnexplicitly,soitisbynatureintuitive.Iamhopingtofindthatourfrequency knowledgeisfinelydividedand,whensampledoveralargepopulation,highlyaccurate.Ifurther suspectthatL2learnersdonothavethisknowledge,orratherthatthisknowledgeoflexicalfrequency buildswithL2experience.Ifwehavethisknowledgeoflexicalfrequencyaspartofourlinguistic function,itshouldhaveimplicationsinthepresentationorderoflexicalitemsinforeignlanguage textbooksaproductnearanddeartomycareer.

1.Automaticityasnativespeakerintuition
Segalowitz,N.,&Hulstijn,J.(2005).Automaticityinbilingualismandsecondlanguagelearning. Handbookofbilingualism:Psycholinguisticapproaches,371388.

Sipes2

IfasSegalowitzandHulstijnsayautomaticprocessingwillplayasignificantrolein distinguishingfluentfromnonfluentabilities(p.373),speakerintuitionmaybecastasautomaticity.The reasonforapproachingspeakerintuitionthiswayisthatanativespeakerknowwithouttryingorbeing abletostoptheprocesswhetheranutteranceiswellformedintheirL1.Itrequiresnoconsciouseffort oreffortfulattention,isextremelyrapid,andcannotbestoppedorinterferedwithbyotherongoing activities(p.371). Pastexperienceintheclassroomhasturnedupacentralconundrum.Iftheexercisesare repetitiousenoughtofosterautomaticity,theylackcontext.Ifcontextcomesforward(asistypicalof communicativemethods),thentherepetitionneededforautomaticityisnotlikelytobethere.Infact,the wholenotionofautomaticityisproblematicbecauseithasnotbeenproperlypinneddowninresearch, becausethetermhaseitherbeenusedinaverybroadsense,withoutclearoperationaldefinition,or elsehasbeendefinednarrowlybutindifferentwaysbydifferentauthors(p.384).Indeed,itseemsto beonesymptomofthelargerprobleminsecondlanguageresearch:everyoneseemstobeusing differenttermstotalkaboutthesamethingorsimilartermstotalkaboutdifferentthings. SegalowitzandHulstijndrawtoaclosebyhominginontheconceptofballisticityasthe hallmarkofautomaticity.Ballisticityisthepropertyofbeingunstoppableoncesetintomotionrather likeaballisticmissile.Togetatthisnotionofautomaticityfeaturingballisticity,wewillexplorethenature ofthelexiconandsomefeaturesofsyntaxastheyapplytothisnotion.

2.Doesspeedmatterforautomaticity?
Hulstijn,J.H.,VanGelderen,A.,&Schoonen,R.(2009).Automatizationinsecondlanguage acquisition:Whatdoesthecoefficientofvariationtellus?.AppliedPsycholinguistics,30(4),555. Hulstijnetal.haveputtogetherareviewofsevenstudieslookingatthenotionofresponsetime

Sipes3

(RT)andcoefficientofvariation(CV)astheyrelatetoautomaticity.AlowerRTindicatesspeedup(i.e. speedupofresponsetime).AlowerCV,whichisrelationbetweenthestandarddeviationofRTand RT,indicatesamorestableperformanceand,intheory,greaterautomaticity.Hulstijnetal.didnotfind anyevidenceforautomaticityinallthreestudieddimensions:decreaseofmeanRTdecreaseofthe standarddeviationofRTanddecreaseofCV. Sincethesevenstudieslackedthedesiredevidence,theymountedtheirownstudy.For mathematicalreasonsexplainedinthepaper,theyfoundnosmokinggunevidenceeither.Infact, multilingualpeoplemayhaveincreasedRTinlexicalsituations,duetotheprimingofrelatedconceptsin theL2andtheprimingofrelatedL1wordswhetherspeakingL1orL2,adisadvantagerelativetoa monolingualspeaker.Althoughthesuppressionofcompetingnontargetitemshasbeenshowntotake itstollfromskilledlanguageusersintermsofresponsetimeinexperimentalRTtasks,skilledlanguage processingcanberegardedastakingplacerathereffortlessly,requiringlittleornoattention,andalmost unstoppableinmostlanguageusesituationsoutsidethelaboratory(p.580). Asanescapefromthepoorevidence,Hulstijnetal.proposethatspeedisnotthehallmarkof automaticity,butratheranepiphenomenon(e.g.asideeffect).Thephenomenathatdeservestudyare levelsofactivation,cuecompetition,lateralinhibition,priming,andinteractionactivation(p.580).

3.Ifspeedisonlyanepiphenomenon,howaboutaccuracy?
Harrington,M.(2006).ThelexicaldecisiontaskasameasureofL2lexicalproficiency.EUROSLA Yearbook,6,147168. Harringtondevisedastudythataskedparticipantstojudgewhetherawordwasawordinthe L2ornotandthencomparedtheirreactiontimewiththeirresponseaccuracy.Unsurprisingly,hefound thataslearnersgainedexperiencetheywerebothmoreaccurateandfaster.Whilethelexicaldecision

Sipes4

taskgivesusanotionofthelearnersskill,itisimportanttorememberthatthelexicaldecisiontaskis anexperimentaltechniquethatprovidesonlyanindirectpictureofthestateofthedevelopingmental lexiconintheL2learner(p.163). Hefoundthatatvaryingfrequencylevels(2,0003,0005,000and10,000)thatperformance lookedthesame.Moreexperienceledtohigheraccuracyandlowerresponsetimes.Akey,thoughnot unsurprising,featureofthedataisthatasthewordsbecamelessfrequent,accuracytaperedoffand responsetimesfell.Furthermore,therateatwhichperformancedeterioratedwasgreatestintheleast experiencedsubjectsandleastinthenativespeakercontrolgroup,whichiswhatcommonsensewould tellus.Butjustbecausesomethingiscommonsense,itdoesnotfollowthatweshouldnottrytofindif thereisaprincipledexplanation.LikeHulstijnetal.,HarringtonsaysResponsetimedifferencescan alsobeduetofactorsunrelatedtotheL2processesunderinvestigation(p.165).Epiphenomenon indeed.Withoutsuggestingthataccuracyisthekeytolexicalautomaticity,hebelievesthatlexical decisiontasksshouldseemoreuseinfutureSLAresearch.Harringtonsuggestsafewareasthatought tobeofresearchinteresttoSLA.Theyincludetheroleoflexicalaccess,lexicalprocessingandlexical decisiontasks.

4.L1,lexicon1andL2,lexicon2?
Gollan,T.andKroll,J.(2001).Bilinguallexicalaccess.InB.Rapp(Ed.),Thehandbookofcognitive neuropsychology:Whatdeficitsrevealaboutthehumanmind.Philadelphia,PA: PsychologyPress. Theanswer:onelexiconforalllanguages. Basedonexperimentswithbilinguals,GollanandKrolltellusthatsemanticactivitiesforL1and L2areinthesamepartofthebrain,whichalsorelatestowherethebrainprocessesfactandevent basedmemory.ThisfindingholdstruenomatterwhentheL2wasacquired.L1andL2syntax,though

Sipes5

nottheprimaryconcernofthispaper,mayhappenindifferentareasofthebrain.Researchersbelieve lexicalaccessisinonelocationbecausewhenbilingualsarepresentedwithastimulusinL1followedby astimulusinL2afterashorttimethattheyrecognizethestimulusfasterthaniftheymentallytranslated. SomehowthebilingualswereusingacognitivelinkagetoprimetheL2wordfromtheL1stimulus. Inlanguageproduction,bilingualsmanagetoaccesseithertheL1portionortheL2portion whenspeakinginL1orL2alone.WhenthesesamebilingualswereaskedtorespondineitherL1or L2,theirresponsetimeswerelonger.Itappearsthatwheneitherlanguagecouldbecalledintouse,both arecalledintouse.Why?Shorterresponsetimestostimuliformonolingualproduction,longerresponse timesforbilingualproduction. ThelastitemishowL1andL2lexicallistsarerelatedtosemanticconcepts.Potterswork showsL1andL2canbothaccesssemanticconcepts,whilelaterreplicationsofthatworkshowedthat L1istheintermediarybetweenL2andsemanticconceptsparticularlyforearlystagesofL2learning. KrollandStewartrefinedthesemodelsintotherevisedhierarchicalmodelsothatL1lexiconhad privilegedbidirectionalaccesstoconceptsandL2lexiconhadprivilegedaccesstoL1lexiconwhilestill maintainingsecondarybidirectionalaccessbetweenL2lexiconandconceptandL1lexicalaccessto L2.Graphicallyrepresentedathttp://bit.ly/1aBmqtk.

5.L1speakersandL2learnersassociatewordsthesameway
Cremer,M.,Dingshoff,D.,deBeer,M.,&Schoonen,R.(2011).Dowordassociationsassessword knowledge?AcomparisonofL1andL2,childandadultwordassociations.International JournalofBilingualism,15(2),187204. Cremeretal.dropabomb,sotospeak.TheirstudyshowsthatbothL1Dutchspeakersand L2Dutchspeakers(withTurkishasL1)havesimilarpatternsofwordassociationinforDutchwords. Whateverelsetheyfind,thisfindingimpliesthatlexicalassociationsinL1andL2aremanagedsimilarly:

Sipes6

themademeaningbasedassociation.ThisfindingalsosupportsPottersworkmentionedinthe previoussection.Infact,theystateitexplicitly:Inotherwords,thissemanticknowledgemaynotbe verylanguagespecificor,atleast,itisavailableforbothL1andL2associations,providedthattheL2 learnersarefamiliarwiththecorrespondingL1wordforms(p.199). Whatismostinterestingisthat,exceptingsomeassociationsofyoungerstudyparticipants, virtuallyeveryassociationismeaningbased.(Cremeretal.suggestthattheyoungerparticipantsmaynot knowsomeofthewordsinthestudy.)Forthemostpart,thesemeaningbasedassociationsareevenly splitbetweenindirectanddirectmeaningassociation.(Anexampleofadirectmeaningassociation wouldbedogcat.Anexampleofanindirectmeaningassociationwouldberock(rock)star.)Adults, bothL1andL2Dutchspeakers,tendedtoleanslightlymoretowardindirectmeaningassociations. Children,againbothL1andL2Dutchspeakers,tendedtoleanslightlymoretowarddirectmeaning associations. Whilethisstudymakesnoclaimsaboutthenumberoflexicons1,itclearlyshowsthatL1andL2 bothcantapintothesamesemanticinformation,whichinturnsupportstherevisedhierarchmodel presentedinGollanandKroll.

6.ButisthelexiconstructuredthesameforL1andL2?
Wolter,B.(2001).ComparingtheL1andL2mentallexicon.StudiesinSecondLanguage Acquisition,23(01),4169. Woltersresearchgivesmuchtothinkabout.HepointsoutthatinpastresearchthatL2 speakerstypicallyhavealexicondominatedbysyntagmicassociationswhereasL1speakerstendto haveaparadigmaticassociationsetoncepastanonsemanticassociationpattern.Hefoundthesame thing,butwithatwist.

YouhavenoideahowbadlyIwanttosaylexicahere,butthatjustsoundstoopompousforwords.

Sipes7

Whennativespeakerswerepresentedwithahigh(er)frequencyword,forexamplecold,they wouldbemuchmorelikelytorespondwithhotthanday.Nonnativeswouldreversethatpattern.So far,sonormal.WhatWolterfoundthatwasdifferentisthatnativespeakerswouldreverttosyntagmic associationswhenpresentedwithalowerfrequencyword.Forexamplewhenpresentedwiththeword percolator,theywouldassociatecoffeeinasyntagmicfashion2.Wolterarguesthatthelexiconsarethe sameintheirassociativepatternswhencontrolledforbreadthanddepthofwordknowledge. Onelastnote.ItisstillprobablethatthestructureoftheL2mentallexiconofevenhighly proficientnonnativespeakersisinfluencedbytheL1mentallexicon(p.64).Thisfindingisperfectlyin linewiththerevisedhierarchicalmodelpresentedabove,soifnothingelsetherevisedhierarchicalmodel isrobustinresearchsettings. BetweenthisstudyCremeretal.(2011)andGollanandKroll(2001),itisreasonableto concludethatlexiconisoneentitythatcancontainmultiplelanguages.Whateverdifferencewesee withinL1andL2lexicalperformance,itlargelyaproductofknowledge.Cremeretal.showthatthere isadifferenceinchildversusadultassociations,butitislikelyduetoagreaterencyclopaedeic knowledgeoftheword.Woltershowsthattheparticulartypeofsemanticassociationsspeakersmake hasmoretodowithdepthandbreadthofwordknowledgethanL1andL2differences.Where performancedifferenceexist,itisbecausespeakersareexpectedtoperforminmultilingualwaysas GollanandKrollexplain.

7.WhenL1intuitionscanthelp
Bardel,C.,&FalkY.(2007).Theroleofthesecondlanguageinthirdlanguageacquisition:thecaseof Germanicsyntax.SecondLanguageResearch,23(4),459484. BardelandFalkshowusintheir2007studythatwhenapersonislearninganL3,theycannot

Googlepercolatorandlookatthefirstresult.EvenGooglessearchengineissyntagmichere.

Sipes8

relyontheirL1intuitionsforL3grammarevenwhenthefeaturesarethesame.Theyfoundagroupof L1andL2speakersofV23languageswhowerelearninganL3thathadV2.ForthemostparttheV2 languageswereSwedishandDutch.Inearlystagesoflearning,theyfoundthattheL3learners transferredtheirgrammaticalknowledgefromL2ratherthanL1.Inotherwords,nativespeakersofV2 languageslearningaV2languagewereatadisadvantageinearlystagesoflearningcomparedtoL2 speakersofV2languages. Theinterestingpartofthisstudyisthatinearlystageslearnersseemtohavelimitedaccessto theirL1grammaticalknowledge.Whatmakesthisdoublyinterestingisthatmostofthelanguages spokenasL1andL2bytheparticipantsinthestudywerealmostentirelyGermanicandthusclosely related.Sowhatevernativespeakerintuitionis,itcannotbetakenforgrantedintheearlystagesofL3 acquisition.NordoesaclosegeneticrelationbetweenL1,L2andL3seemtoplayanypartinthis blockingofL1grammaraccess. PartofthisstudywastoseehowvariousmodelsofL2acquisitionplayedoutinreality.Amajor goalofthepaper,whichtheyseemedtohaveaccomplished,istoknockdownProcessabilityTheory anditsrefinement,DevelopmentallyModeratedTransferHypothesis.Aspartoftheirexperimental setup,BardelandFalkalsolookedtoseewhethertheCumulativeEnhancementModelwasatwork.It wasnot.

8.IsL2syntaxprocessedonline?
Tokowicz,NatashaandMacWhinney,Brian,(2005).Implicitandexplicitmeasuresofsensitivityto violationsinsecondlanguagegrammar:Aneventrelatedpotentialinvestigation.Departmentof Psychology.Paper220.http://bit.ly/1cUqyYg TokowiczandMacWhinneylookedtoseewhetherL2learnersusedimplicitorexplicit knowledgetoprocessgrammaticality,whichistosayareL1andL2grammaticalityjudgmentsimilaror
3

V2isverbsecond,whichisindistinctiontoSVO.

Sipes9

differentinthebrain.TheytookbrainwavemeasurementsofundergraduateL1Englishspeakerswho wereinthefirsttwoyearsofL2Spanishstudy4.Presentingonewordatatimewithapausebetween words,theypresentedEnglishandSpanishsentencesforgrammaticalityjudgment. AtthebeginningofL2learning,participantsareonlysensitivetoviolationsofparticulartypes, dependingonthematchbetweenL1andL2(p.14).Thissortofresulthasbeenseentimeandagain: typologicaldistancebetweenL1andL2matters.Thespecificviolationsthatsubjectsdetectedwere tensedeletion(similarinEnglishandSpanish)andgenderviolation(Spanishonly).Thesubjectswere notsensitivetonumberviolationsindeterminers(differentinEnglishandSpanish). Thesubjectsshowedthatneitherexperiencelevelnorperceivedabilityinfluencedbrain sensitivity.TokowiczandMacWhinneyclaimthatthisfindingdemonstratesonlinegrammaticality judgmentsrelyonlanguagesimilarityratherthanexperience.Whereexperiencematteredwasin accuracyofjudgment.Sowhilethesentencewasflashing,explicitknowledgedidnotmatter.Even beginningstudentsprocessedthesejudgmentsonline. TheotherfindingofinterestpertainstotheCompetitionModel.Inthesentenceswhere determinernumberwasincorrect,thesubjectsfailedtonotetheerror.TheimplicationforTokowicz andMacWhinneyisthatthelackofnumbermarkingonEnglishdeterminersissostrongthatthe subjectsignoreditspresenceinSpanishsentences.Forfutureresearch,thisfindingindicatesthatevenat earlystagesL2learnershavetheabilitytobehaveinintuitiveways.

9.Doestypologymatterinlexicon?
Cenoz,J.(2003).Theroleoftypologyintheorganizationofthemultilinguallexicon.Themultilingual lexicon,103116. Onceagain,L3comesintotheresearch.CenozledastudyofL1Spanishspeakingstudentsin

NoneofwhomhadbeenexposedtoanyotherL2.Oh,andrighthandedonlyneedapply.Ifeelcheated.

Sipes10

L2BasquespeakingschoolswhowerelearningL3English.AsCenoznotes,crosslinguisticinfluencein L3situationsismoredifficulttostudythanL2situations. HeraimistoseehowstudentsusetheirL1andL2whennarratingastoryinL3.Studentsdo resorttobothL1andL2,asexpected,buttheyusethetwolanguagesfordifferentpurposes,as describedinHammarbergswork.HammarbergsuggeststhatL2suppliestransferlapses(automaticin nature)andL1suppliesinteractionalstrategies(deliberatelapsesoutofL3).Cenozfoundtheopposite. StudentstellingastoryinEnglish(L3)wouldoverwhelminglyuseBasque(L2)forinteractional strategies,oftenaskingforlexicalhelp.Infact,Basquewasusedfor89%oftheinteractionalstrategy lapses.Whenstudentslapsedunintentionally,theusualsourcewasSpanish(L1).Asanaddedwrinkle, studentswouldsometimescommittransferlapseswithfunctionwords,butonlySpanishfunctionwords inEnglish.Forcontentwords,eitherBasqueorSpanishcouldbethesourceofthetransferlapse. CenozexplainsawaytheinteractionalstrategiesinBasque(L2)sincethestudentswerein BasqueimmersionschoolswheretheirinterlocutorsareknowtobefluentinBasque.Thisexplanationis sensibleenough.HerexplanationforwhySpanish(L1)wasthesourceoftransferlapsesistenuous,but reasonableenoughaswell.Sinceitisbelievedthatthemoredistantthelanguagesarelinguistically,the furthertheirrepresentationsarefromeachotherinthespeakersmind.Inotherwords,IfL1andL3are close,theirrepresentationsarecloserandthusareeasiertojumpwhenL2ismoredistant,whichis exactlytherelationbetweenSpanish(L1),Basque(L2)andEnglish(L3).Whatisdifficultisexplaining howchildrenwhoarenineyearsofageknowaboutthesetypologicalfactors. TheotherexplanationfortheL1andL3transferlapsesisthatthestudentshavetheirL1more orlessalwayson,sincetheyusetheirL1fortheirlivesoutsideofschool.Inanycase,itseems reasonabletosuggestthatthereissomesortofautomatictypologygoingoninmultilingualbrainsand

Sipes11

thatitcanaffectL3production.

10.Howmanywordsdoyouneedtopassforfluent?
Milton,J.,&Alexiou,T.(2009).VocabularysizeandthecommonEuropeanframeworkofreference forlanguages.VocabularyStudiesinFirstandSecondLanguageAcquisition:Theinterface betweentheoryandapplication,194211. Thisquestionisreallystickyandhasasmanyanswersasithasresearchers. Butarealworldmeasureexiststoanswerthisquestion.ForpracticalpurposestheCommon EuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages(CEFR)hascreatedasetofstandardsforexamsof fluency5.Whiletheseexamsarenotindicatorsofcognitiveautomaticityorlexicalknowledge,theyare generallyacceptedascomparinglevelsofproficiencyacrosslanguages. SincegoingupalevelofanyCEFRtestshouldindicateincreasedskillinthelanguage,it followsorshouldfollowthatthevocabularydemandsofthetestshouldincrease.Tofindoutthat vocabularysizeincreaseswitheachleveluponthetest,MiltonandAlexiouhaveanalyzeddatafrom XLextestsdrawnfromEnglish,FrenchandGreektesttakers.Itturnsoutthatinfact,asthetestslevel up,theaveragevocabularysizeofthetesttakerincreases. OnfirstglancethemeannumberofvocabularyitemsthatlearnersknowmayseemlowC26 studentsofEnglishinGreecehaveameanvocabularyof4,068.18words(p.208).C2studentsof FrenchhavethehighestlevelofvocabularyinSpain,3,721.42words,andthelowestintheUK, 3,326.47words(p.204).StudentsofGreekhitthe4,000wordmarkatB2,butstudentsofEnglish reachthesamemarkatC2.Thoughthereissomevariationinthenumbersbetweenlanguagesand location,thenumbersalltrendinthesamedirection.Higherlevelstudentsknowmorewords.The

Forthecurious,themaninterviewedinthisvideo(http://youtu.be/QcJTxKP5zJM)isacandidateforC1inthe SpanishDELE.Correspondingly,ETSsuggeststhatsomeonewishingtoearnaC1equivalentontheTOEFLiBT shouldexpecttoneedascorebetween110120(http://bit.ly/IQoV4o). 6 CEFRtestscomeinsixlevels,fromlowesttohighest:A1,A2,B1,B2,C1,C2.Tocompare,aTOEFLiBTscoreof61 isrequiredforundergraduateadmissionatNEIU,thelowendofB1.

Sipes12

reasonsforthevariationmayhavetodowithstructureofthelanguage,i.e.ittakesmorewordstogetto 80%textcoverageorA2levelinEnglish2,000thanFrenchratherfewer(p.209).The variationmayalsohavetodowithpedagogicalmethods,whichisbeyondthescopeofthispaper. WhileMiltonandAlexiousworktendsmoretowardtheappliedendoflinguistics,itis importanttoseethatasperformancelevelsincrease,sodoesthespeakersL2lexicon.

Futureresearchdirections
Severalproblemspresentthemselves.Someoftheseproblemswillhavetobesidesteppedas neatlyaspossible.Othersmaybetackledheadon.Inlightofthedisagreementsoverwhatexactly speakerintuitionis,asidesteppingwouldbegood.Clearlytherearenotionsofwhatspeakerintuition lookslikeinlexicalmatters:accuracyofjudgment,responsetime,theevennessofresponsetime. Nevertheless,itisaverybroadcategorytoresearch. Whilesyntaxmaynottransfernicelytoasecondlanguage(L3isblockedfromL1accessin earlyL3study),thesamecannotbesaidaboutlexicon(onelexiconandrevisedhierarchicalmodel).To thatend,L1andL2speakersofEnglishshouldbeaskedaboutintuitivefrequencyjudgmentswithin English.Sincelexiconappearstobeonecognitiveentity,weshouldbeabletoseeifexperienceand abilityaffectfrequencyjudgments.SinceL1andL2speakersformsimilarkindsofsemantic associationsbetweenwords,itshouldfollowthatcontentwordsshouldbehavesimilarlywhethera speakerisnativeornot.Forinstance,ifL1Englishspeakershavetroublesortingfrequencyof adjectives,itwouldfollowthatL2Englishspeakersshouldshowsimilartroubles. Sinceitappearsthatlexiconisnecessarilylargeforfluency(thoughperhapsnotaslargeaswe mightthink),itwouldbebesttolimitthewordstestedinafrequencyrankingtomorefrequentwords. Increasingthenumberofwordsinthepoolofpotentialquerieswilldecreasetheproportionofwords thatL2respondentsknow,whichcouldcreateadegreeofbaddataduetoincompleteknowledge.On

Sipes13

theflipside,thenumberofwordsinthequerypoolneedstobesufficientlylargethatasemirandom selectionwillnotcreateimpossibletomakedistinctions.Thatistosay,ifyousawapileof500pennies andapileof501pennies,couldyoueasilytellthedifferenceifyoucouldnotcountthem?Probablynot, butsomethinginterestinghappenswhenyouaskmanypeoplequestionsofthisnature:onaverage,they getitright.(Ididnotbringupresearchintotheaccuracyofcrowdknowledgeduetothispaperbeing forasecondlanguageacquisitionclass.Iwillhavetodiscussthisforfuturework.Fornow,justtake mywordthatcrowdsonaverageknowthesesortsofthings.) Giventheabove,IwanttolookatL1speakersaggregateintuitiveknowledgeofword frequencyinEnglishasthetopicformythesis.Oncethemainstudyisdone,furtherworkcanbe undertakeninrelationtohowL1(orL2)affectsL2(orL3asthecasemaybe)frequencyperception.