Jacet Kansai J.12 (2010), 68‑79. c Kansai Chapter, JACETISSN 1880‑2281 Printed in Japan2010

Difficulty in restructuring foreign‑language vocabulary knowledge:
Polysemous verbs
Nobuhiko

Akamatsu

Doshisha University

ABSTRACTThis study examinedthe effectiveness of a cognitive linguistics(CL) approachforeign‑language learner's knowledgeof English polysemousin improving

verbs (i.e.,hold, put, run). An

original test was administered to Japanese learners of English as a foreign language
assess their knowledgeof the target verbs. Whilethein order totaking the test,one group (i.e.,the CL

approachgroup) was allowed to read a text explaining the core and peripheral senses of each target verb; theother group (i.e.,the control group), in contrast,took the test without such supplementary
Results showedno statisticallysignificantdifference in the testscores between the CL approach andthe control group. This
polysemousKeymaterials.

verbs mayfinding implies that simply introducing the core and peripheral senses of
not induce learning by itself.

words: cognitive linguistics,vocabulary knowledge,

conceptual change

I. INTRODUCTION
Cognitive linguistics(CL) has enjoyed popularity in research on not only second
acquisition (SLA)(e.g.,Achard& Niemeier, 2004; Boers & Lindstromberg,

Guntharp, & Sprang, 2007; de Knop

2008; Byrnes, Weger‑& de Rycker, 2008; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; Robinson, 2008),

but also foreign language learning (FLL) (e.g., Tanaka, Sato, &Kawahara,

2007). For

cognitive linguistic perspectives on lexical representation are appealing, because
makea unique contribution to language learning and instruction.In

secondlanguageexample,they appear tofact,it has been reported that

language (L2) or foreign language (FL) learners benefit from cognitive linguistic insights

into idioms (e.g.,Boers, 2000; Boers & Demecheleer,
metaphors

2001; Boers, Eyckmans,(e.g.,Deignan, Gabrys, & Solska, 1997), polysemous&

Stengers, 2007),

words (e.g.,Boers &Demecheleer,

1998; Csabi, 2004; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003), and prepositions (e.g.,Lindstromberg,

1996). Thesefindings suggestthat a learning approachbased on cognitive linguistic insights (i.e.,the CL

approach) provides the learner a better understandingof various linguistic items than do moreconventional approaches.
A

crucial concept

underlying

the CL

conceptualization, individual experience, andapproachis that language

cultural background.

68

reflects one's general

Languageis regarded as a

Difficulty in restructuring foreign‑language

means

to represent how

vocabulary

Polysemousverbs

a person cognizes or experiences the world. In this view, major linguistic

aspects are interpreted in a rather different manner
Chomskianknowledge:

linguistics).For

example, in CL,from so‑called "mainstream"grammarconceptual apparatus through which we apprehend

linguistics (e.g.,

is seen as "an essential aspect of theand engage the world" (Langacker, 2008, p. 4),

and grammaticalforms and elements are analyzed with respect to their conceptual relations withmeanings. The

lexicon is also explained quite differently.Cognitivereflecting the general cognitive principles of humantheir corresponding

senses andmeanings

linguists view the lexicon as

beings; the associations of lexical items withare emphasizedin the CL

research. In

mainstream

linguistics,on the other hand, the lexicon is regarded as a static,arbitrary listof words and wordclasses that play no major linguisticroles. Thiswhich

has not attracted muchdifference in perspective explains why

attention in mainstream

polysemy,

linguistics,has been one of the focal issues in

CL.
In structuralistand generative linguistics,polysemy
focus on relationships between
Polysemy

only plays a minor role.By

language and cognition in CLshowspolysemy

contrast,thein a newlight.

has been explored as a major research theme in CL, and it has been pointed out that thedistinct senses or meanings
2001). The

of a polysemous

relationships amongfamily resemblanceword

are highly associated (Cuyckens&

Zawada,the senses are described as core and periphery (e.g.,Lakoff, 1987).

(e.g.,Taylor, 2003), or lexical networks (e.g.,Tyler & Evans, 2003). Despite

the difference in perspective, however, the distinctsenses are seen to be associated through meaning
chains, rather than related on the basis of one semantic or cognitive commonality
Matlock, 2001). This

cognitive linguist viewonpolysemy

has influenced

Specifically,cognitive linguistic proposals such as conceptual metaphors
lexical senses are considered a major facilitatingfactor in SLA

anddistant from the core sense). The

introduced, using conceptual metaphors(e.g., "handor the radial structure offacilitatelearning polysemousand(e.g., CONTROLIS HOLDING

control" for the verb hold), drawings,

senses of keep and hold were
SOMETHING

IN THEsenses of a polysemous

word are associated) was more effective in learning polysemous

the conventional approach, such as memorizing
and Lowie

learners of English were

provided two types ofwords: sentences containing polysemous

sense and those in a peripheral sense. Whileand Lowie

words

in a corelearning the English sentences, the learners were asked

semantic connections between

the senses of each polysemous

found that providing the core senses of polysemous

words

promotedcorrect guessing and better retention of the figurative senses of unfamiliar polysemous
Alongwords than(2003) also underscored the effectiveness of vocabulary learning based

English sentences containing polysemous

Verspoor

different

words with their firstlanguage (LI) equivalents.

on the radial structure of lexical senses. Dutch

to discover and memorize

HAND),

and representative example

sentences. Csabi found that the CL approach (e.g.,clear explanation of how the seemingly

Verspoor

FLL.

students were taught the English verbs keep and hold, provided with their coreand peripheral senses (i.e.,more

keywords

SLA

and FLL.

Csabi (2004), for example, claims that conceptual metaphorsverbs. Hungarian(e.g., Gibbs &

word.
more

words.

with these studies,previous studies favoring the CL approach in learning polysemous69

Nobuhikowords

emphasizethe "conceptual

Akamatsu

relatedness" of to‑be‑learned items. They

argue that overt

explanation of the conceptual relatedness between the target items enhances the learner's awarenessof theirunderlying commonalities
however,another camp

Conceptualand helps the learner understand their usage in depth. There

which raises caution against this view.

relatedness of various senses in a polysemous

one develops through encountering the word

word is the kind of knowledge

in various contexts. Suchknowledge

acquired in an implicit manner, and conceptual relatedness of polysemous
realized unless it is madecan improve

explicit.The

criticalclaim of the CL

Krashenand FLL

that native speakers(e.g.,DeKeyser,

2003; Ellis,1995;(1985), for example, argues that consciousness during learning affects knowledge.
results in explicit knowledge

learning (i.e.,Acquisition) results in implicit knowledge.

explicit and implicit knowledge

their fundamental

According

structures.He

and vice versa), because these two types of knowledge

also claims that implicit knowledge

linguisticperformance. It is noteworthy

whereasto Krashen,

do not interact with each other (e.g.,explicit knowledgetransform into implicit knowledge,

advanced

approach is that L2 or FL learners

Elder, Erlam & Philp, 2009; Hulstijn, 2005).

He hypothesizes that conscious learning (i.e.,Learning)
subconscious

is generally

view, however, can be controversial because there have been disputes overthe usefulness of explicitand implicit learning in SLA
Ellis,Loewen,that

senses is not normally

their proficiency by explicitly learning the lexical knowledge

acquire implicitly.This

is,does notdiffer inplays a more important role inthat,despite the fact that Krashen's hypotheses

are often criticized (e.g.,Gregg,

1984; McLaughlin,

1978; Sharwood

implicit knowledge

as being more

useful than explicit knowledge

supported by many

SLA

Smith, 1981), his view ofin advanced

cognitive abilityis

researchers (e.g.,Ellis et al.,2009). In other words, in SLA,

it is assumed

that explicitknowledge

mayin advanced

linguistic performance(DeKeyser, 2003; Krashen, 1994).

not function as effectively and fully as implicit knowledge

This study examines the effectiveness of the CL approach in helping FL learners develop in‑
depth knowledge
explicit knowledge
understandingof English polysemousabout

the coreverbs. The

sense

of

study focuses on whethera polysemous

different senses of the polysemous

word. Thisfindings implying the facilitativeadvantage of the CL
If the CL

word

or to what extent

benefits FL

learners infocus is motivatedby research

approach over the conventional approaches.

approach leads to a better understanding of lexicalitems, as previous studies suggest, it

should improve FL learners'performancein usage of polysemousverbs.

II. METHOD
1. Participants
A totalof 80 FL learnersparticipatedin this study. All

the participantswere Japanese

universitystudents majoring in English, and they had received formal English education for
approximately 8 to 10 years at the time of the study.No
country for more than one year.

70

one had lived in an English‑speaking

Difficulty in restructuring foreign‑language

vocabularyknowledge:

Polysemousverbs

2. Tests
All the participants had taken an institutionalTOEFL

approximately three months

before thetime of the study; the scores were used to assess the participants' English proficiency. The
TOEFL

scores ranged

comprehension

from

413

to 567(max=

scores ranged from 33 to 52 (maxranged from 41 to 63 (max

= 68; M=

53.9, SD=

from 42 to 62 (max = 68; M=

52.1, SD=

3.9).

680; M== 68; M=505.5, SD=
45.6, SD=

32.9). The

4.2); the grammar

4.7); the reading comprehension

total

listeningscoresscores ranged

Nation's vocabulary size test(Nation & Nation, 1990) was adopted and administered to assess
the participant's vocabulary
designed to measure

vocabulary

5,000‑, and 10,000‑wordAnknowledge.

Theknowledge

section had 18 questions.

the participant'sknowledgeof the target verbs: hold,test consisted of 45 sentences, 15 sentences for each verb, and one‑third of the 15

sentences contained inappropriate, unconventional

usages of the verb in question (see Appendix

The participant's task was to choose sentences with inappropriate usage. This
chosen to focus on the learner's receptive vocabulary knowledge,
which

of which wasof a specific vocabulary‑size level (2,000‑, 3,000‑,

levels),and also an academic word level.Each

original test was created to measureput, and run. The

test consisted of five sections, eachis seen as more demandingA).

test format was

rather than productive knowledgein acquisition (Read, 2000). The

test was created with reference

to an English textbook (Tanaka et al.,2007) and an English‑Japanese bilingual dictionary (Konishi&

Minamide,2001). All

the sentences accompanied

their Japanese translations.

3. ProcedureThe

study consisted of two stages. First, the participants were given the vocabulary size test.

After the test,they filledin a questionnaire on their educational backgrounds
abroad. According

to the vocabulary‑test and institutionalTOEFL

divided into two groups in such a way
vocabularyOnesize (see Appendicesweekand experience living

scores, the participants werethat each group was equivalent in English proficiency and

B and C).

after the firststage, the original verb test was administered. In addition to the test,

the participants in one group (i.e.,the CL‑approachgroup) were

provided written material that

explained the core and peripheral senses of each target verb in Japanese. The

material was adopted

from an English textbook that focused on the usefulness of core senses (Tanaka et al.,2007) (seeAppendix

D). In contrast,the participantsin the other group (i.e.,the control group) were given thetest only. The

participantsin both groups were told to pay attention to appropriateness in usage ofthe verbs while they were answering the questions. The

administration time was approximately

30

minutes.
4. Experimental

design and data analysis

Data were analyzed with group (CLapproach group and control group) as a between‑subjects

factor, and verb {hold, put, run) as within‑subjects factors,using a MANOVAType

I error (see O'Brien &Kaiser, 1985). The

procedure to avoid

scores in the verb test constituted the dependentmeasures.
71Nobuhiko

Akamatsu

III. RESULTS
Table 1 liststhe means and standard deviations of verb‑testscores for each group under all theconditions.

Table 1. The Mean

Verb‑Test Scores for Each Group

under All Conditions

hold

put

run

total

CL Approach Group(N=36)

7.2
(2.1)

10.9
(1.7)

8.1
(1.5)

26.3
(3.0)

Control Group(N=44)

8.5
(1.9)

10.8
(2.0)

7.8
(1.8)

27.0
(3.4)

Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent standard deviations.The
maximum
score for each verb is 15.

There was no significantmain effect of group type, F(l,78) = .99, rjv2= .01; the CL
group (M= 26.2; SD= 3.0) and the control group (Mdifferent in their verb test scores. In
Lambda= 27.0; SD

not statisticallycontrast, the main effect of verb type was significant,Wilks'= .35, F(2,77) = 72.32, p < .0001, T]v2= .65; the scores for the verb put (M1.9) were significantly higher than those for the verbs hold (M=SD== 3.4) wereapproach= 10.8; SD =7.9; SD = 2.1) and run (M=7.9;1.7)1.
The

two‑wayinteraction between

group and verb type was also significant,Wilks' Lambda= .91, F{2,77) = 3.79, p = .03, ijv2= .09. A

post‑hoc analysis (i.e.,Scheffe Test), however, showedthat there were no statisticallysignificant differences in the test score for each verb between

thegroups.

IV. DISCUSSION
The results showed
English polysemousthat FL

learners demonstrated

verbs in the CL approach. FL

no observablelearners who

advantages

in learningreferred to the text explaining thecore and peripheral senses of the target verbs (hold, put, run) did not outperform those whotest without such supplementary
examiningmaterials. Thisfinding contradicts those of previous studies

the effectiveness of the CL approach in learning grammaticalan FL; a majority of these studies showed

took theor lexical items in an L2 orthe facilitativeeffectsof the CL

approach in SLA

or FLL(e.g., Csabi, 2004; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003).
A

potential reason for the discrepant finding may involve the nature of the target items in thisstudy. The

target items of thisstudy were familiar polysemousas the target items because

verbs. The

three verbs {hold, put,run) werechosenexposure

to these verbs and yet their knowledge

the participants had had a substantial amountofexaminethe possible facilitative
effects of learning core senses, one group of learners was provided

was not sufficient to allow for proper use. To

material explaining the core senses of each verb while taking the test designed to measure
72

their

Difficulty in restructuring foreign‑language vocabularyknowledgeknowledge:

Polysemousverbsof the target verbs.

The distinctivefeature of the target items of thisstudy is their polysemousverbs, hold, put, and run are polysemous,nature. The

and the distinct senses (or meanings)

considered to be associated in such a way that the relationship amongcore and peripheral (e.g.,Lakoff, 1987). The

targetof each verb are

the senses can be described as

distinct senses are seen to be associated throughmeaning

chains, rather than related on the basis of one semantic or cognitive commonality

Gibbs &

Matlock, 2001). This(e.g.,

implies that the semantic relatedness of the distinct senses of eachtarget verb mayvary according to their mediating chains. The

sharing the sameor similar mediating chains is relatively close, while that between

relationship between

those differingin the mediating

chains can be quite remote. The

explains this"core andperiphery" view

the senses

relationship (i.e.,the semantic relatedness of senses) with respect to the distance fromsense: the moredistant from

relationship is. Thisview

the core sense the peripheral senses are, the more

the coreremoteappears to provide a plausible explanation as to why

their

there wasnoobservable effectiveness for the CL approach in thisstudy.
The

test items used in this study involved both the core and peripheral senses of three verbs;

the test items for the peripheral senses were larger in number
arrangement

was madethan those for the core senses. This

to avoid potential ceiling effects,because the participants were expected tohave been exposed to the target verbs quite often and thus to have a substantial knowledgecommonof theirusage (i.e.,the usage of the core senses). Nonetheless, it is possible that this concern may

have led to a collection of peripheral senses that are quite remote from the core senses, with theresult that the peripheral senses were too difficultto infer from the core senses. Suchdifficultyis

reported in previous studies (e.g.,Boers, 2000; Verspoor & Lowie, 2003).
Anotherpotential reason for no observable effectiveness for the CL

the learners' LI effects on conceptualization of the target items. At
participants had already studied English for six to eight years. They

approach may

relate tothe time of this study, thehad been exposedto the target

English verbs in various contexts, and it is quite plausible that they had already conceptualized
usage of these verbs. As

the test showed, however, they had not fully understood the proper usage.

In particular,they had

experienced

misconceptionThe

difficulty in grasping usage of polysemous

appears to stem from cross‑linguisticinfluence.

verb hold, for example, has the core sense of "to take and keep somethingor arms" (Tanaka et al.,2007). Suchin one's handa core sense can be seen in the sentences (a) to (c), although

they differfrom each other in subtlety.The

Japanese translationsof the verb, by contrast, are quite

different in meaning: (a) to contain [hairu],(b) to keep someone
not to be a heavy drinker [sake ga tsuyoku nai]:(a) This measuring cup holds ten ounces of liquid.
(b) Thesenses. This

police are holding the suspect for questioning.

(c) I don't hold liquor very well.

73

in custody [kouryu‑suru] and (c)Nobuhiko

In these cases, the Japaneseequivalents

Englishthe verbs

counterparts.

Japaneseverbs.

EvenThis

of the target verbs
representing

incommensurability
represented

concepts

represented

by the JapaneseJapanesetranslations do not help understandmeaningsof the verb, but rather, it may

to modify

prior knowledge.
and

One

play

and

be translated

Japaneseno role in English.

the commonality

hinder suchcanunderlying

understanding,to their

into various

suggests

play no role in Japanesesuchmisconceived

knowledge,needs

to change

the prior

prior knowledge

coalesce

in a coherent

conceptualchange,demanding

than

which
simplyRestructuringofmisconceived

knowledge

affected

Englishverbs

translations

sensescorrespond

and

In

that

the

the coalescentotherwords,

the seemingly

thedifferent

resulting in incomprehension

orknowledge2.

In orderconcepts

by the English

do not necessarily

the corebetweendifferentiated senses

misconceived

Akamatsu

is consideredaddingnewprior knowledge,in suchtobequalitatively

the "conceptual

providedthat the verb

knowledge,

it maycognitively

deep

verbs. Thismight

polysemousverbs.

change"test requires the FL

be plausiblekindis hardto bring

science, andofofrelatedness

advantage

andabout.

learning

is called

cognitively

more(Carey,1991).

shows(e.g., FL

Pintrich,

2003).

in restructuringof core senses

did not leadpolysemous

sensesof learning the core andthat

knowledgeof explicit teaching

&

their

conflicting

Research

language(Sinatra

among

of

knowledge

learners in this study to engage

semantic

result in no observable

type

and various forms

learning

restructureso that thedifferentenrichingthat forthright explanation

understanding

This

or

areas as mathematics,

to radicallystructuremanner.

by the learner's LI) is often resistant to change

failed to induceneedsknowledge

information

nevertheless,

one

of

peripheral

have

Thus,

their prior
them

to a

the target
sensesof

V. CONCLUSION
This study highlighted no observablevocabularycontribution of cognitive linguistic insights into

to FLL, which contradicted the findings of previous studies.Two

proposed: the difficultyin learning the peripheral senses of a polysemousconceptualization in FLL.
knowledge

Bothreasons concern

the possible influence of the learner's priorknowledge.

suggest that explicitly explaining lexical knowledge
not induce the "conceptual

however;word, and LI effects onin learning the core and peripheral senses of English polysemous

difficultyin restructuring FL vocabularymaypotential reasons were"conceptualchange"change"Inother words, the results of this study

that native speakers have implicitly acquired

kind of learning by itself.One

is regarded as difficult to make.

necessarily negate the possibilitiesof CL

approaches

vocabulary knowledge.

74

verbs, reflecting theThisshouldbe cautious,

study's findings do not

to other types of FLL, suchas enrichingDifficulty in restructuring foreign‑language

vocabularyknowledge:

Polysemous

verbs

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am very gratefulto the anonymous
this paper. I would
Mark

Richardson

Grant‑in‑Aidreviewers for their insightful comments

also like to thank Yuko

Ohno

on an earlierversion offor her assistance in developing the verb test andfor his help with revision of the paper. The research reported was supported byfor ScientificResearch (C) (18520462).

NOTES
1. The scores for the verb put were significantly higher than those for the verbs hold and run. Thisfinding was
however,beyondnot expected because the three verbs are equally high in frequency. Thereslight differences in frequency between

put, and hold and run (see Appendix

the scope of thisstudy to provide the reason for the unexpected

might have resulted in the higher mean
2. Because

are,E). It isresult;such differencesscore for put.

all the test items (i.e.,English sentences containing the target verbs) in the verb test

accompanied

their Japanese translations,one could speculate that itmight hinder the participantsfrom learning common
meanings)

features underlying the peripheral senses (i.e.,the seeminglyof each target verb. Insteadof providing Japanese translations,giving rich context(e.g., several English sentences for each target verb) may
understanding

differentof the target verbs. In the same

have led the participants to a better

vein, the written material explaining the core andperipheral senses of each target verb might need to accompany

illustrationsor figures whichfacilitatelearning.

REFERENCES
Achard, M., & Niemeier, S. (2004). Cognitive linguistics,
secondlanguageteaching. Berlin, Germany:

Moutonlanguage acquisition, and foreignde Gruyter.

Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor

awareness and vocabulary retention.Applied Linguistics,21, 553‑571.

Boers, F., &M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT

Demecheleer,

Journal, 52, 197‑204.
Boers, F., &Demecheleer,M.

learners' comprehension
Boers, F., Eyckmans,
etymology:
Boers, F., &

J., &

More

(2001). Measuring

the impactof imageable idioms. ELTof cross‑cultural differences on

Journal, 55, 255‑262.

Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms

than mere mnemonics?

Language

Teaching Research, 11, 43‑62.

Lindstromberg, S. (2008). Cognitive linguisticapproaches

phraseology.

Berlin, Germany:

Byrnes, H., Weger‑Guntrharp,H., &Moutonwith a touch of

to teaching vocabulary

andde Gruyter.

Sprang, K. (2007). Educating

for advanced

foreign language

capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction,assessment. Washington,

D.C.: Georgetown

University Press.
Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge
Gelmanacquisition: Enrichment

or conceptual change?

In S. Carey(Eds.), The epigenesis of mind (pp. 257‑291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
75

&

R.

Erlbaum

Nobuhiko

Akamatsu

Associates.
Csabi, S. (2004). Expressing

motionperspective. In M. Achardacquisition, and&events in a
S. Niemeierforeign language

secondlanguage: A

cognitive typological(Eds.), Cognitive linguistics,second

teaching (pp. 13‑49). Berlin, Germany:

language

Moutonde

Gruyter.
Cuyckens,

H., & Zawada,

B. (2001). Polysemy

Deignan,A., Gabrys, D., &Solska, A. (1997). Teachingawareness‑raising activities.
ELT
DeKeyser,R. (2003). Implicit andhandbookde Knop,in cognitive linguistics.
Amsterdam:
English metaphors

Journal, 51, 352‑360.

explicit learning. In C. Doughty

de Rycker, T. (2008). Cognitive approaches

Germany:&

MoutonEllis, R., Loewen,

Gibbs, R., &

M.

Long

(Eds.), The

Blackwell Publishingto pedagogicalgrammar.

Berlin,de Gruyter.

Ellis, N. (Ed.) (1995). Explicit and implicitlanguage learning. London:

secondusing cross‑linguisticof second language acquisition (pp. 224‑255). Maiden, MA:

S., &John Benjamins

S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., &AcademicPress.

Philp, J. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge

language learning, testing and teaching. New

Matlock, T. (2001). Psycholinguistic perspectives on polysemy. In H. Cuyckens

Zawada(Eds.), Polysemyin

York: Multilingual Matters.

in cognitive linguistics (pp. 213‑239).

Amsterdam:

& B.
John

Benjamins.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's

razor. Applied Linguistics,5, 79‑101.

Hulstijn, J. (2005). Theoretical and empirical issues in the study of implicit and explicit second‑languagelearning. Studies in Second

Language

Acquisition, 27, 129‑140.

Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language

and cognition. New

York:

Routledge.
Konishi, T., & Minamide,[GeniusY. (Eds.). (2001). Genius English‑Japaneseeiwa jiten].Tokyo: Taishukan.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. New
Krashen, S. (1994). The
learning

bilingual dictionary (3rd ed.).

York: Longman.

input hypothesis and its rivals.In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit andof languages (pp. 45‑77). London:

LakofF, G. (1987). Women,

AcademicPress.

fire,and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: Chicago

Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive grammar:

explicit

A basic introduction. New

University Press.

York: Oxford

University

Press.
Lindstromberg,
McLaughlin,

S. (1996). Prepositions: Meaning

B. (1978). The

monitormodel,and method. ELT
someJournal, 50, 225‑236.

methodologicalconsiderations. Language

Nation, P.,& Nation, D. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New

York: Heinle & Heinle.

Learning, 28, 309‑332.

O'Brien, R., & Kaiser, M. (1985). MANOVA

methodfor analyzing repeated measures designs: An

extensive primer. Psychological Bulletin,97, 316‑333.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. New
Robinson, P. (2008). Handbook

York: Cambridgeof cognitive linguistics and76

University Press.
secondlanguage acquisition. New

Difficulty in restructuring foreign‑language

vocabularyknowledge:

Polysemous

the second

languageverbs

York: Routledge.
Sharwood

Smith, M.

(1981). Consciousness‑raisingandlearner. Applied

Linguistics, 2, 159‑163.
Sinatra, G., &Pintrich, P. (Eds.). (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah,

Erlbaum

Tanaka, S., Sato, Y., & Kawahara,

K. (2007). Learning English via image: English conversation via

keywords. [Imeji de wakaru
Nihon

NJ: Lawrence

Associates.

Hoso Shupantangocho‑NHKshinkankaku.Kiiwado

de eikaiwa]. Tokyo:

Kyokai.

Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic categorization (3rd ed.).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, A., &Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied

meaningand cognition. Cambridge:

Verspoor, M., &Lowie, W. (2003). Making

Cambridge

University Press.

sense of polysemouswords. Language

547‑586.

Appendix
An

A

Extract from the Verb Test

The police are holding the suspect for questioning･（警 察の尋問のた めに容 疑者を拘留してい る。）
Hold your hands off my car!
2.
（ 私の車に手を触れ るな！）
There is no holding her･3.
（彼女 は手に負えない。）
l don't hold liquor very well･４．
(私は 酒があまり強く ない。)
She can hold herown against any of her co‑workers in policy‑making.
5.
（政 策立案では、彼 女はどの同僚に も引け をとらない。）
This measuring cup holds ten ounces ofliquid･6.
に の計量カ ップには10 オンスの液 体が入る。 ）ﾌ． Always hold your driver's license on you･
( 運転免許証をいつ も携帯するよ うにしな さい。)
l broke up with her. But hold this to yourself. OK?
8.
（彼 女とは別れ た。 でも、内緒にしておい て。）
I'm wondering if your 氏
o r still holds･
9.
（君 の申し出はま だ有効かな。）
l hold my career because of a serious illness･10.
（ひ どい病気 のため休職している。）
She completely held the attention of the audience･11.
（彼 女は聴衆を 完全に魅了していた。）
You're going too fast. Hold the speed to sixty･12.
( スピ ードを出し すぎているよ。速 度は６０キロでいこ う。)
They hold me responsible for it.
13.
（そ の責任は 私にあると彼らは思っ てい る。 ）He has held the office governoroffor 16 years･
14.
（ 彼は16 年間知 事の職にある。）
Hold yourself comfortable･
15.
( 気楽にしてく ださい。)
１．

77

Learning, 53,

Nobuhiko

Appendix
TOEFL

Akamatsu

B
Scores for the CL Approach and the Control Group
Control Group (N=44)

CL Approach Group (N=36)
Listening Grammar

Reading

TOTAL

Listening Grammar

Reading

TOTAL

Mean

45.1

54.7

52.3

506.9

46.0

53.3

52.0

504.5

SD

4.5

5.1

4.4

37.4

4.0

4.4

3.5

29.0

Min

34.0

41.0

42.0

413.0

33.0

44.0

44.0

413.0

Max

52.0

63.0

62.0

567.0

52.0

63.0

58.0

547.0

Appendix

C

Vocabulary Size Test Scores for the CL Approach and the Control Group
Level
CL

ApproachGroup(N=36)

ControlGroup(N=44)

2,000

3,000

5,000

academic

10,000

TOTAL
58.2

Mean

16.0

16.2

11.6

11.2

3.2

SD

2.0

1.9

3.3

3.7

2.3

9.6

Min

8.0

10.0

5.0

2.0

0.0

29.0

Max

18.0

18.0

18.0

17.0

8.0

77.0

Mean

16.4

15.7

10.8

10.9

3.5

57.4

SD

1.6

2.6

3.2

2.6

2.7

8.6

4.0

0.0

37.0

16.0

9.0

76.0

Min

10.0

5.0

4.0

Max

18.0

18.0

17.0

78

Difficulty in restructuring foreign‑language vocabulary knowledge: Polysemous verbs

AppendixAnＤ

Ｅ ｘtｒａｃt ｆｒｏ ｍ t ｈ ｅTarget

に

な

ら

「 そ

の

る

為

行

は

、

「 手

で

う コ

ア

く

」

の

意

味

か

お

り

、

鉛

筆

の

よ

う

に

動

か

な

い

も

一

方

で

、

動

き

の

あ

る

も

の

の

場

合

は

囗

ま

「 銃

を

撃

っ

て

い

」

と い

う 意

味

に

な

り ま

す 。

動

き

を

一

時

的

に

止

め

る

」

と い

う 意

味

に

な

り

ま

す 。Hold your fire

を

一

時

的

に

止

め

る

」

と い

う こ

と

か

ら

「 撃

ち

方

や

め

！ 」

と

い

う 意

味

に

な

り

ま

す

。 Hold

（ 黙

れ

！ ）

も

舌

の

動

き

を 一

時

的

に

止

め

れ

ば

、

し

ゃ

べ

れ

な

い

と い

う

こ

と

か

ら 理

は

熟

語

で

「 止

ま

れ

」

の

意

味

で

す

が

、it

が

具

体

的

な

も

の

を

指

す

場

合

、

ら

く 待

っ

て

お

け

」

と い

う 意

味

に

も

な

ま

す

。

も

以

外

に

も

よ

く 使

い

ま

す 。 hold an idea

「 考

え

を

い

だ

く

」

、hold

味

で

す

手

に

し て

し

ば

は

目

見

え る

ａ meeting

に

だ
［ 考

を お

う 意

と

「 会

議

の
を

催

］

な

ら

え

、

開

催

す

る

ら 生

ま

れ

た

名

詞holder味、 ａ penholder

と

「 今

開

え

さ

か

Appendix

お

つ

を

hold

て

持

れ

、

え

に

。 Hold it.

と い

い

さ

的

す

hold

お

時

ま

場

と

Ｐ ｅｒｉｐ ｈ ｅｒａｌ Ｓ ｅｎ ｓｅｓ ｏｆ the

一

き

に

Ｅ ｘｐｌａｉｎ ｅｄ t ｈｅ Core and

で

で

ら

ｈａt

「 手

、

your tongue!

かＭ ａt ｅｒial t

Verbs

hold
の

Ｗ ｒittｅｎ

す

る

」

の

意

い

だ

い

て

い

る

」

］

と

い

う 感

じ

が で

（ ペ

が

、

［ 一

う 感

じ

が

き

す

。

と い
て

は

、 ａ record holder

ン

立

て

）

の

よ

り

う

ま

に

だ
時

と

て

「 そ

的

に

お

さ

え

お

く

］

と

い

う こ

と

「 会

議

」

な

ら

［ 特

定

の

目

的

の

た

め

（ 記

録

保

持

者

）

の

よ

う

に

「 何

か

を

持

つ

人

「 何

か

を

支

え

る

も

の

」

の

が

あ

り

ま

す 。

意

味

Ｓｃｏｒｅｓｆｏｒ tｈｅ Ｔａｒｇｅt Verbs

JACET 8000

Brown Freq･

K‑F Freq.

T‑L Freq･

hold

18

169

837

256 (n/v)

put

158

437

2,896

131 (v)

run

22

212

1,643

211 (n/v)

N ｏt
ｅ .Brown Frq.:Brown verbal frequency; K‑F.Frq. : Kucera‑Francis written
frequency; T‑L Frq･ : Thorndike‑Lorge written frequency. The numbers in
JACET8000 represent ranking,instead of frequency.

79

解

、

Ｅ

Frequency、」