The instructional emphasis on etymology—and, sometimes by extension, cog-
nates—is based in large part on the implicit assumption that lexical knowledge trans-
fers from Spanish into English. That is, educators assume that vocabulary profi-
ciency in Spanish actually transfers to vocabulary proficiency in English. There is a
tacit belief in the transferability of vocabulary knowledge across languages—in this
case, Spanish and English. (For a related discussion of transfer, see, for instance, Au-
gust 2004.)
Lamentably, although roots and affixes, along with their etymology, play a cen-
tral role in the California Reading and Language Arts Standards, in California high
school English textbooks the instruction of etymology is rarely presented with ex-
plicit linking to the implications for teaching Spanish-speaking students. Instead, it
has mainly been presented as though all students were native speakers of English.
Only recently, with the production of new textbooks designed for L2 learners, have
such linkages been made in ESL instruction. In these new books, Spanish-English
cognates are identified and taught explicitly.
Regrettably, little can be inferred about the transfer of vocabulary knowledge
from Spanish to English from California assessment data. Despite the heavy empha-
sis on assessment in California, scores on the vocabulary sections of standardized ex-
ams do not yield useful information about students’ specific vocabulary strengths
and weaknesses. Although the California Test of Standards and California Achieve-
ment Test-Version 6—required of children enrolled in public schools in California—
assess knowledge of roots and affixes, these tests do not yield detailed information
about students’ vocabulary knowledge. Standardized tests such as the ones given in
California do not include a sufficient number of test items pertaining to specific as-
pects of the students’ vocabulary knowledge to provide valid data.
Unfortunately, because of methodological difficulties involving the challenge of
investigating naturally occurring language and controlling confounding variables
(such as avoidance, discussed below), even researchers have had difficulties explor-
ing lexical transfer. Consequently, research on the nature of lexical transfer has been
quite limited. Much of the existing research focuses on the transfer of phonological
properties of words rather than syntactic or morphological features (see Durgunoglu
1997, 1998; Durgunoglu, Snow, and Geva 2001; Durgunoglu and Öney 1999); recep-
tive rather than productive knowledge (see Jiménez, García, and Pearson 1996; Nagy
et al. 1993); concrete, high-frequency words rather than abstract, academic words
(for a review, refer to Nation 2001); and management of vocabulary instruction (such
as the best teaching methods and handling specific difficulties encountered by par-
ticular groups of learners) rather than on the development or use of vocabulary in an
L2. (For discussion, see Laufer 1998.)
Arguments Supporting the Usefulness of
Cognate Knowledge
In brief, the importance of cognates to reading ability has been well documented.
Considerable research has focused on the effect of cognitive knowledge on Span-
ish-speaking students’ reading ability in English. Several researchers have reported
that Spanish-speaking children who are skilled readers in English exploit their
124
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: