Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words in semantic sets

versus semantically unrelated sets

smail Hakk Erten , a, , and Mustafa Tekina,
a
anakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Egitim Fakultesi, Ingiliz Dili Egitimi Ana Bilim
Dal, 17100 anakkale, Turkey
Received 12 November 2007;
revised 24 January 2008;
accepted 8 February 2008.
Available online 17 July 2008.
Abstract
This paper reports on a study which investigated the effect on vocabulary recall of
introducing new words via two different methods. A one-group quasi-experimental
research design with alternating time series measures was employed. A group of 60
fourth graders were taught 80 carefully selected words either in semantically related
sets or semantically unrelated sets. Also under investigation was the effect of these
methods on test completion. The statistical analysis revealed that learning words in
semantically unrelated sets yields better results than learning vocabulary in
semantically related sets. The difference persisted in the long term. Further, test
completion time was much longer for the semantically related vocabulary items,
indicating a slower recall of vocabulary. The study indicated that, contrary to frequent
practice in many course books, presenting new vocabulary that belongs to the same
semantic set together may cause interference due to cross-association and may even
hinder vocabulary learning. Such practice needs to be questioned and alternative
methods that involve presenting vocabulary in unrelated sets need to be developed to
facilitate vocabulary teaching and learning.
Keywords: Interference theory; Mental lexicon; Semantic set; Thematic set;
Vocabulary recall
1. Introduction
Vocabulary has lately gained popularity in the general field of English language
teaching and learning and become a guest of honour ([Coady and Huckin, 1997],
[Read, 2000], [Richards and Renandya, 2002] and [Bogaards and Laufer, 2004]) with
a wide range of research and pedagogical interest. Of the many dimensions of
research in this field, there does not seem to be a consensus on several issues, with
some controversial results and methodological bias. One such issue concerns whether
new vocabulary should be presented in semantically related sets or semantically
unrelated sets. This paper aims to address this controversy.
At one end of this conflict, there are authors like (Seal, 1991), (Grandy, 1992),
(Haycraft, 1993), (Stoller and Grabe, 1995) and (Wharton and Race, 1999), and
Hashemi and Gowdasiaei (2005), who speak in favour of presenting new words in
semantic sets on the basis that it is an effective way of presenting new words, and
possibly reflecting the natural organization of the mental lexicon ([Aitchison, 1994]
and [Aitchison, 1996]). On the other hand, there are those researchers ([Higa, 1963],
[Laufer, 1989], [Tinkham, 1993], [Tinkham, 1997], [Waring, 1997], [Nation, 2000]
and [Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003]), who maintain that if similar words that share
numerous common elements and a super-ordinate concept are introduced at the same

time, these words will interfere with each other and have a negative effect on their
retention due to cross-association and possible overloading in the short term memory.
1.1. Arguments FOR presenting vocabulary in semantic sets
Using word associations in vocabulary teaching has gained currency over several
decades and has found its way into materials (McCarthy, 1990). In fact, a brief
examination of some course books that are commonly used in English lessons reveals
that many of them tend to introduce new words in semantic sets (e.g. New Headway
Elementary Soars and Soars, 2000; New English File Oxenden et al., 2004).
According to Waring (1997), this common practice in vocabulary instruction derives
from a pervasive belief among course book writers that presenting new vocabulary in
semantically related groups will facilitate vocabulary building. He further points out
that this belief is not founded on research but on methodology and convenience.
Numerous SLA theorists and practitioners defend (implicitly or explicitly) the
position that teaching new L2 vocabulary in semantically grouped sets is an effective
method of vocabulary instruction. Much of the support for this position comes from
studies of the organization of the mental lexicon in L1. They claim that this method is
in compliance with various brain theories which suggest that there is a good
organization of semantic fields in the human brain ([Carter and McCarthy, 1988],
[McCarthy, 1990], [Grandy, 1992], [Aitchison, 1994], [Rogers, 1996] and [Lewis,
1997]). Furthermore, evidence has been provided for the view that words are
semantically organized in the human brain and that individuals tend to recall words on
the basis of the semantic field in which they are conceptually mapped ([Aitchison,
1994] and [Aitchison, 1996]). Therefore, it is held that teaching a large number of
words in an unrelated way can be likened to imagining a tree with no trunk and
branches, but only leaves (Haycraft, 1993). Haycraft goes on to maintain that it is
easier to teach vocabulary items that belong to the same semantic field because the
learner will be able to form a pattern of interrelated words in his mind. This is because
such an approach would have several advantages, one of which is that by learning
items in sets, the learning of one item can be reinforced by the learning of another
([Seal, 1991] and [Wharton and Race, 1999]). Recently, Hashemi and Gowdasiaei
(2005), reflecting on their own findings, assert that vocabulary should be presented in
semantic sets within an appropriate context as learners will get involved in deeper
levels of mental processing (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). Thus students make more
effort to differentiate words that belong to the same semantic set and their learning
will endure longer.
1.2. Arguments AGAINST presenting vocabulary in semantic sets
It is often contended nowadays that the belief that presenting new vocabulary in
semantic sets facilitates learning is a common vocabulary myth unsupported by sound
research results ([Waring, 1997] and [Folse, 2004]). In fact, research as early as 1931
revealed that when several similar words were introduced at the same time, it had an
interfering effect on learning and that especially synonyms were learned very poorly
by the participants (McGeoch and McDonald, 1931). This is often explained by
referring to Interference Theory ([Baddeley, 1997], [Anderson, 2003] and [Reed,
2004]).
Convincing evidence has recently been offered for this position ([Tinkham, 1993],
[Tinkham, 1997], [Waring, 1997] and [Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003]). Tinkham, in his

experiments, found that learning new words grouped in semantic sets required more
learning trials to be learnt completely. Waring confirmed Tinkhams findings. Further,
Finkbeiner and Nicols experiment illustrated that recall of words learnt in
semantically related sets is slower in both directions of translation (L1L2 or L2L1).
Finally, a recent study by Pigada and Schmitt (2006) revealed that words confused by
learners are not only the semantically related ones but words that have similar forms
(Laufer, 1997). This is probably because it takes longer to differentiate and to assign
new labels for new words in semantically related items (Nation, 2000). These findings
can be translated into an assertion which claims that semantically similar new words
might have a deleterious effect on learning (Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003, p. 376) and
actually impede rather than facilitate the learning of new vocabulary items (Tinkham,
1993).
It should also be noted, however, that there is a difference between the presentation of
new words in semantic sets and presenting them in thematic sets ([Tinkham, 1997]
and [Waring, 1997]). According to Waring, it is not possible to prevent all
semantically related words from appearing in coursebooks. In fact, a list of words in a
particular unit for some learners may trigger recall from previous learning, and for
other learners, it may constitute a list of new words to be learned. Therefore, Tinkham
and Waring advise a thematic rather than a semantic arrangement of new vocabulary
items because a thematic group which contains the words sweater, changing room, try
on, wool, striped may not cause as much confusion as the words scarf, tie, coat, pants
and skirt, which constitute a semantically related set. The words in a thematic group
are all related even though they do not form a proper semantic set with a superordinate term and co-hyponyms.
A review of research and arguments for and against presenting new vocabulary in
semantic sets is far from producing any decisive conclusions. There are conflicting
views and different research results. As Hashemi and Gowdasiaei (2005) suggest,
further research is needed to elucidate this inconsistency. This study aims at
contributing to our understanding of the phenomenon.
The study is different from previous studies ([Tinkham, 1993], [Tinkham, 1997],
[Waring, 1997] and [Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003]) that focused mainly on the
acquisition of artificial labels to L1 words. In those studies, words in the learners L1
were paired with artificial words from an alien language (e.g., mouse-kunop; pearokess) and oral repetition was used to present and practice them (Waring, 1997). They
then compared the number of trials their subjects made to learn semantically related
words with the trials they made to learn unrelated words. Finkbeiner and Nicols
(2003) study also involved real word- artificial word pairing and investigated the
length of time required for the completion of the learning task. Although these studies
shed light on the effects of semantic relationship on the acquisition and recall of
lexical items, what is perhaps needed is studies that endeavour to explore the
phenomenon with real words. One such study (Hashemi and Gowdasiaei, 2005)
reports results contradicting other studies. However, it is difficult to compare their
findings as previous studies were mainly concerned with the length of time for
completion of the learning task with a set level of success, while this study measures
depth and breadth of vocabulary gain (Wesche and Paribakht, 1996). Further,
Hashemi and Gowdasiaei do not disclose full details of the list of words they made

use of for their experiment, making it difficult to make sense of their findings.
Therefore, it is safe to propose that there is room for further research.
Another important point with the current study is that, to the best of our knowledge,
previous studies of this kind focused mainly on adult learners. This study focuses on
young learners, hoping to expand our understanding of the phenomena with different
groups of students. Thus, the aim of this study was not to replicate previous studies,
but carry out a similar study with young learners learning real English words, hoping
to better explore the question under scrutiny.
2. The study
2.1. Aims
The present study examined the effects of presenting new words in semantic sets and
in semantically unrelated vocabulary groups without a common super-ordinate
concept. The study sought answers to the following research question: Does
presenting real English words in semantically related sets versus semantically
unrelated sets make a difference in learning?The study also investigated the
difference between the length of test completion under the two conditions.
2.2. Methodology
A one-group quasi-experimental research model with an alternating time series design
was employed (Hatch and Lazaraton, 1991, pp. 9293). This model, within a time
series model, allows measuring the effect of two methods on the same group of
students. The effect can be measured by alternating the periods when one set of
materials is used with the times when another set of materials is used. In this
particular study, 60 students were presented with 80 new English words in two
different sets of instructional methods. The vocabulary items selected following
certain rigid criteria were divided into four 20-word sets: two semantically related and
two semantically unrelated sets. All the students were taught all the words and were
tested separately for related and unrelated items. Such an experimental design allowed
researchers, within ecological validity (Hashemi and Gowdasiaei, 2005), (a) to reduce
the bias that might have been posed by non-equivalence of different groups of
students (i.e., personality, learning styles, group dynamics, etc.) and (b) to control the
lexical difficulty of both the semantic sets and the unrelated sets, and thus foster
internal validity (Trochim and Land, 1982).
2.3. Setting
The study was carried out at a state primary school in western Turkey. One reason
why this particular school was chosen was that the school received students from a
neighbourhood where mostly middle-class working families lived. It was seen as
important to ensure that the participants came from similar socio-economic
backgrounds. Working with a homogeneous group would also minimize possible
student variations. The school was located centrally, which contributed to
homogeneity.
The class sizes were not very large and the students had not taken any English courses
before the year the study was conducted. Another factor was that the second author
was employed as a teacher of English at this school when the research was carried
out, which was assumed to be appropriate to ensure natural group dynamics.

2.4. Participants
The study was carried out with two intact groups of participants, all of whom were
fourth grade students. At the time of data collection, they had had very limited formal
language instruction. Therefore, their vocabulary size was relatively small and they
were very similar to each other in terms of their level of English proficiency. This
facilitated the selection of vocabulary items to control lexical variables that might
have biased the data.
Initially, there were 60 participants in two groups. 29 were female and 31 were male
students. However, five of the participants were excluded at the analysis stage since
they could not attend all sessions.
2.5. Materials and instruments
The vocabulary items used in the study were selected from an initial list of 100 words,
where students were asked to match vocabulary items to corresponding pictures. This
word list was in the form of picture-word matching to avoid any possible difficulties
in comprehension. Of these words, 80 unknown words were selected for the study. In
other words, 20 vocabulary items which were correctly guessed by the participants
were excluded from the study, leaving 80 words out of an initial list of 100 words.
The words included in the experiment were chosen and classified according to their
length ([Ellis and Beaton, 1993] and [Erten, 1998]), semantic relations ([Tinkham,
1993], [Tinkham, 1997] and [Waring, 1997]), and cognateness (Nation, 1990), while
also considering idiomaticity (Laufer, 1990) and concreteness.
The 80 unknown vocabulary items were checked for number of letters as well as
number of syllables. Vocabulary items were carefully assigned to different groups and
four sets of vocabulary items with equal number of letters and syllables were formed.
As shown in Table 1, the semantically related sets had an equal number of letter/word
and syllable/word ratio as their opposing unrelated sets.
Table 1. Mean numbers for letters and syllables of words used in the study
Mean
letters

Week

Lessons

Week 1

Lesson 1 (semantic
3.8
set)

number

of Mean
number
syllables
1.25

Lesson 3 (unrelated
set)

Week 2

Lesson 2 (unrelated
4.75
set)
Lesson 4 (semantic
set)

1.65

of

The semantic set and opposing unrelated set of the first week both had 3.8 letter/word
and 1.25 syllable/word ratios while in the second week, the vocabulary items were
slightly longer with 4.75 letter/word and 1.65 syllable/word ratios, respectively.
Only concrete vocabulary items were chosen for this study since abstract words were
considered to be inappropriate for research purposes: they would be difficult to pretest, illustrate, and measure in terms of recall using visual materials, without which a
serious literacy problem could have biased the data. Further, abstract concepts might
have been inappropriate for the target age group.
Half of the vocabulary items were chosen from two semantic fields. The first semantic
set included 20 animal words and the other semantic set contained 20 food words. The
other two sets had 20 semantically unrelated vocabulary items each.
Another criterion in vocabulary selection involved cognates. No English word that
sounded the same as or similar to a Turkish word was chosen for the study, since
using cognates might have a facilitating effect ([Nation, 1990] and [Erten, 1998]).
Lastly, words did not involve any idiomatic use, in order not to impede the learning
process (Laufer, 1990).
Such a careful selection and homogenising of vocabulary items, combined with the
diminished student variations in a one-group quasi-experimental design suggested by
Hatch and Lazaraton (1991), is believed to have formed equally learnable sets of
vocabulary items to allow testing of the effect of different methods of vocabulary
presentation with fostered internal validity (Trochim and Land, 1982).
Flashcards and activity sheets were prepared for the presentation and practice stages
of the study. Each flashcard had a big picture of the target word together with its
written form under it (see Appendix 2 for a sample flashcard). Each activity handout
contained matching type exercises that required the participants to match the written
form of the new words on one side with their pictures on the other side. The same
pictures were used at all stages of the study to avoid possible problems related to
picture identification. Practice-stage activities were also designed in a similar way to
the tests used in the study to avoid problems and confusion.
Pre-tests were given before each presentation. The same test was repeated as an
immediate post-test just after the presentation and practice stages and as a delayed
post-test with a reshuffled order to prevent any memory effects as practiced in the
field (e.g., Ellis and Beaton, 1993).
2.6. Procedures for data collection
The study was conducted as a part of the normal English course during normal class
hours. Therefore, all those present in the class participated in the activities. The new
words were presented by means of flashcards and reinforced through repetition.
The study as mentioned above was conducted with two groups of students. Both
groups of participants were taught all words. Words, however, were presented in
different ways to create two different presentations and study conditions as required
by the research design.

The study was completed within a period of three weeks. During the first week, two
sets of words were introduced to the participants in two different class hours on two
different days. The first set contained 20 semantically related words (animal words)
and this set was presented first. The second set, which was presented two days after
the first set, contained various words from different semantic fields as shown in
Appendix 1. The following week, it was vice versa: the unrelated set of words was
introduced first and the related set (food words) was introduced after the unrelated set.
Each presentation began with a pre-test of the target words to be introduced on that
day and ended with an immediate post-test to measure the short term recall of
vocabulary. If a participant could identify a word correctly, he was considered to have
learned that vocabulary item on a binary scale.
The lesson/hours lasted 40 min. Vocabulary items were presented in a controlled
manner in terms of time and actions to provide equal study conditions for each word.
A chronometer was used to check the time regularly. In each group and presentation,
every effort was made to equalize the number of repetitions, gestures, mimes, and
time allocated for each word. The activities used with both groups were the same and
included repetition drills and matching words with flashcards. Furthermore, the same
materials, namely flashcards and worksheets, were used with both groups.
Once the controlled vocabulary presentation was completed, students were instructed
to sit silently until the test papers, in which students were asked to match the pictures
with the new vocabulary, were distributed. They were told to start answering on the
researchers call and to raise their hands when they had completed the test so that the
researcher could note the time for test completion. Time was kept by using an
electronic chronometer that allowed for continual time keeping, which allowed record
of the completion time of all the students using only one chronometer. When more
than one student reported completing the test at the same time, their completion time
was recorded as such.
Considering that the testing was conducted in a natural environment, every effort was
made to prevent interaction and possible calling out of answers or even cheating
among students during the test. As the second author was the actual class teacher, it
was observed that students were all obedient to instructions and no interference was
recorded. Table 2 sums up the whole process of the study.
Table 2. Procedures for collecting data
1st Week
Session 1 (Day 1)

1st Lesson: related set 1 (animals) (pre-test, presentation, and

immediate post-test)

Session 2 (Day 2)

Revision of the 1st lesson (flashcards and oral repetition)

Session 3 (Day 3)

2nd Lesson: unrelated set 2 (pre-test, presentation, and

immediate post-test)

Session 4 (Day 4)

Revision of the 2nd lesson (flashcards and oral repetition)

2nd Week
Session 5 (Day 8)

3rd Lesson: unrelated set 1 (pre-test, presentation, and immediate

post-test)

Session 6 (Day 9)

Revision of the 3rd lesson and delayed post-test of the 1st lesson
(flashcards and oral repetition)

Session 7 (Day 10)

4th Lesson: related set 2 (foods) (pre-test, presentation, and

immediate post-test)

Session 8 (Day 11)

Revision of the 4th lesson and delayed post-test of the 2nd lesson
(flashcards and oral repetition)

3rd Week
Session 9 (Day 18)

Delayed post-tests of the 3rd lesson and 4th lesson

2.7. Procedures for data analysis

The research question of whether presenting vocabulary in semantic sets or
semantically unrelated sets yields distinctive learning outcomes was investigated by
analysing the immediate and delayed post-test results quantitatively. Next,
participants completion time of each test was calculated in order to establish whether
the type of presentation influenced the length for test completion.
3. Findings and discussion
3.1. Effects of vocabulary presentation
The mean value for each group of words on the pre-test was zero, which indicated
sample homogeneity in terms of initial vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, students
performance was assumed equal on each set of words. There were no group
differences between the two classes on any post-test measures (p < .05).
Manner of presentation seemed to exert a considerable effect on vocabulary recall.
Immediate post-test results revealed that 21.9 words (54.75%) presented in unrelated
sets were recalled by the participants whereas only 17.63 words (44.07%) presented in
semantic sets were recalled. A paired samples t-test procedure revealed that this
difference was statistically significant (p < .001). Table 3 shows the t-test results for
immediate post-tests (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Table 3. t-Test results for immediate tests
Tests (total)

Mean

Unrelated sets (SU) 21.90

Semantic sets (SE)

Mean
difference

Standard
deviation

4.27

4.4366

7.142 54 .000

1.38

3.5407

2.894 54 .005

df Significance

17.63

Week 1 unrelated 11.41

Tests (total)

Mean

Mean
difference

Standard
deviation

df Significance

2.89

3.4996

6.16

54 .000

set
Week 1 related set
10.03
(animals)
Week 2 unrelated
10.49
set
Week 2 related set
7.60
(food)
Fig. 1.Short term retention of new vocabulary.
Fig. 2.Long-term retention of new vocabulary.
To investigate the long term effects of vocabulary presentation, delayed post-test
results were analyzed. Table 4 presents the results of the paired samples t-test
procedure for the delayed tests.
Table 4.
t-Test results for delayed tests
Tests (total)

Mean

Unrelated sets (SU) 18.20

Semantic sets (SE)

Mean
difference

Standard
deviation

1.81

5.2461

2.570 54 .013

.98

4.08

1.78
54 .080
5

2.8

3.41

6.076 54 .000

df Significance

16.38

Week 1 unrelated
8.58
set
Week 1 related set
9.56
(animals)

Week 2 unrelated
9.61
set
Week 2 related set
6.81
(foods)

In a period of one week, the difference between the retention of semantic sets and
semantically unrelated sets remained statistically significant (p < .05) in the total
number of words recalled. The difference was in favour of the latter. However, the
difference observed on the first delayed post-test pair was in favour of the semantic
set (animals) although the difference was not statistically significant. The difference

between the unrelated set and related one (food) in the second delayed post-test pair
remained in favour of the semantically unrelated set (p < .000). The total figures and
higher performance of students on semantically unrelated sets on other tests indicate a
considerable effect of the manner of vocabulary presentation.
Contrary to assertions ([Seal, 1991], [Grandy, 1992], [Haycraft, 1993], [Stoller and
Grabe, 1995], [Wharton and Race, 1999] and [Hashemi and Gowdasiaei, 2005]) that
presenting new words in semantically related sets yields much better results, these
figures offer support to research findings that have shown semantically unrelated sets,
in fact, are learned faster, while the opposite can hinder speed of vocabulary learning
([Tinkham, 1993], [Tinkham, 1997], [Waring, 1997] and [Finkbeiner and Nicol,
2003]).
3.2. Type of vocabulary presentation and test completion
Although it was not the primary concern of the study, the study also investigated the
relationship between the two methods used in vocabulary presentation and each
students test completion time and found noticeable differences. Table 5 shows
arithmetic means for the students total completion time of semantic sets vs.
semantically unrelated set tests.
Table 5. Arithmetic means for the students total test completion time
Total

Mean (s) Mean (min)

Tests of semantic sets

348.58

5 min 49 s

Tests of unrelated sets 292.47

4 min 53 s

Evaluation of the data obtained through the timekeeping procedure during each
immediate and delayed post-test revealed difference between the two techniques.
During the tests of words presented in related sets, the students kept their papers
longer and, at the same time, were less successful. On the other hand, they kept their
papers for a relatively shorter time during the unrelated set tests and were also more
successful. These figures were in keeping with previous studies that reported longer
task completion time for semantically related vocabulary items ([Tinkham, 1993],
[Waring, 1997] and [Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003]).
4. Discussion of the findings
There may be several possible explanations why words presented in semantically
unrelated sets were recalled a lot better than ones presented in semantically related
sets, and why tests on such related sets took relatively longer to complete.
Firstly, although vocabulary items appear to be organized in the mental lexicon
around semantic bonds, as illustrated convincingly by many authors ([Meara, 1983],
[McCarthy, 1990], [Aitchison, 1994] and [Aitchison, 1996]), the learning of new
lexical items may involve a different route of mental processing. Semantic fields in
the mental lexicon are, perhaps, end products of the learning process and
representational properties of what is already known, rather than a fast lane of
learning new vocabulary items. Students, while learning related words in this study,
possibly had to discriminate between semantic properties to learn them, by refining
their existing lexical bonds through a restructuring process (McLaughlin, 1990) and

this may have caused confusion due to cross-association between similar items
([Higa, 1963], [Tinkham, 1993], [Tinkham, 1997], [Waring, 1997], [Pigada and
Schmitt, 2006] and [Nation, 2001]), thus resulting in the well-documented concept of
interference in memory ([Baddeley, 1997] and [Reed, 2004]). On the other hand,
dissimilar words probably did not cause much interference and confusion.
One extension of this explanation can be based on spread of activation that occurs
among mental representations (Levelt et al., 1999). The concept of spread of
activation holds that when a concept is exposed orally or visually, it activates other
semantically related concepts in the mental lexicon. These co-activated concepts
compete with each other. As has been illustrated in cognitive learning theories, human
short term memory is limited in its processing capacity ([Miller, 1956], [McLaughlin,
1987], [Baddeley, 1997] and [Reed, 2004]). Discriminating between semantic
properties of vocabulary items, coupled with the effect of spread of activation, may
have raised the task complexity (Robinson, 2001) affecting the capacity of the short
term memory. This, naturally, affects the speed of both processing and production of
language (Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003). Finkbeiner and Nicol go on to reason that
interference is heightened due to repetitive activation of lexical entries within the
same semantic set. Such interference takes longer to overcome, resulting in weaker
bonds between new L2 word, the corresponding concept, and L1 word. In this
particular study, apparently, the number of repetitions done by students with
semantically related words was less adequate than with the unrelated set of words.
Secondly, it has been proposed that deeper mental analysis of similar words, in the
form of semantic discrimination and forming new patterns of relationships, results in
better retention ([Seal, 1991], [Haycraft, 1993] and [Hashemi and Gowdasiaei,
2005]). Further, length of processing may determine the depth of processing (Craik
and Lockhart, 1972) and success in learning. With due acknowledgement of such a
robust theory, it can, however, be argued that depth of analysis in semantic sets may
have involved mostly semantic discrimination rather than consolidating vocabulary in
the memory. In other words, valuable memory space may have been used for handling
interference caused by semantic similarities between vocabulary items rather than
internalising them. On the other hand, in the semantically unrelated set, items are
distinct from each other, making the task of discrimination easier and employment of
deeper levels of processing for their consolidation in the memory more effective. It is
sensible to think that distinctiveness of vocabulary items can also contribute to depth
of analysis and retention ([Tinkham, 1997] and [Erten, 1998]). To this effect,
Finkbeiner and Nicol (2003, p. 378) conclude that heightening the level of
activation of target concepts can lead to facilitation but only if interference from
competing items is minimized. They go on to suggest that such interference can be
reduced by not presenting similar items together. Thus, in this study, minimized
interference in unrelated sets may have contributed to their deep analysis while
possible interference may have got in the way with semantically related items.
Thirdly, such a standpoint can also explain why completing tests for semantic sets
took longer. Words presented in semantic sets might have caused co-activation of
related words in the sets which requires longer mental processing to differentiate
between them. When spread of activation occurs, it requires extra effort and longer
time, because the learning load is increased ([Tinkham, 1993] and [Waring, 1997]). It
is not unwarranted, therefore, to assume that semantic similarities make retention and

language production slower and more difficult as much as they harden the duty of
initial learning of semantically related words (Finkbeiner and Nicol, 2003).
5. Conclusion and implications
Before drawing any conclusions, some limitations of the study need to be
acknowledged. Firstly, this study was limited in scope and conducted with a limited
number of young learners who studied only a limited number of words. The findings
of this study need to be verified with different age groups and a larger repertoire of
vocabulary items. Secondly, the study investigated only the impact of presenting
vocabulary items in either semantically related or semantically unrelated sets. It did
not consider the influence of thematic sets. Real words presented in thematic sets can
give us a better understanding of the phenomena. Finally, the experimental model
adopted in this study involved a single-group model. Although every effort was made
to prevent it, uncontrolled factors that may influence learnability of vocabulary items
may have biased the data.
Bearing these limitations in mind, the present study yielded significant results in
terms of vocabulary learning and teaching process. It can be tentatively concluded
from this study that presenting new words in semantic sets, rather than in semantically
unrelated word groups, can interfere with learning. Synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms,
or other such relations among words can cause confusion, and thus require extra time
and effort. Although semantically related items may call for deeper levels of semantic
analysis ([Craik and Lockhart, 1972] and [Hashemi and Gowdasiaei, 2005]), the
presumably lower workload and reduced interference from co-activated lexical items
involved in analysing semantically unrelated vocabulary items appears to outdo the
heavy workload placed upon language learners by semantically related words.
As for the implications of the present study, they are twofold. The first involves
materials development and course book writers while the second involves classroom
procedures. Principles set for producing course books need to be based upon research
findings (Richards, 2006). The findings of this particular study do not support
presenting semantically related vocabulary together. Although further research to
validate these results is still necessary, it can be suggested that rather than presenting
semantically related new vocabulary together, it would be better if words in the same
semantic group were presented separately. Moreover, we do not seem to learn words
in semantic sets but as individual items in our natural language development. This
calls for more meaningful contexts for vocabulary instruction.
The study offers indirect support to (Tinkham, 1997) and (Waring, 1997) discussion
of thematic sets. Vocabulary items that are semantically related to each other can be
introduced in different units of study and recycled frequently. Designing the syllabus
around tasks and functions within a thematic unit can be an alternative to presenting
vocabulary items with a common super-ordinate concept. For example, words for
animal names can be scattered in many different thematic sets involving a range of
different themes, ranging from going on a picnic to travelling. This approach
incorporates semantically unrelated items within a more meaningful context. Further,
many words that are seemingly unrelated can be inherent in a thematic relationship.
In the classroom, a change in the vocabulary instruction process is also required.
Teachers may consider introducing new vocabulary items independently of their
semantic bonds. However, considering that the majority of teachers follow the course

book closely in English lessons (Ur, 1996), such a change may heavily depend on a
change in course book design.
The findings of this study also indicate that semantic organization in our mental
lexicons does not warrant integration of such relationships in teaching vocabulary.
New strategies may need to be developed to present and recycle new vocabulary
items so that semantic relations cause minimal confusion (Nation, 2001). Learners
themselves may often want to learn vocabulary in semantic sets, as Nation (2000)
suggests, but they should be encouraged to avoid this practice. According to Nation,
semantic sets should be associated only after the items have been learned in isolation
and without paying attention to the semantic relations between them.
In conclusion, this study endeavoured to offer a new perspective regarding vocabulary
presentation. It illustrated that the superior performance of students in learning
semantically unrelated artificial vocabulary items holds when they learn real words.
However, as already pointed out, this study focused on young learners, whose L1 was
still in a more developmental state. Therefore, it would be informative to replicate this
study with adults for a better elucidation of the phenomena.
References
J. Aitchison, Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon (second ed.),
Blackwell Publishers, Great Britain (1994).
J. Aitchison, Taming the wilderness: words in the mental lexicon. In: G.M. Anderman
and M.A. Rogers, Editors, Words, Words, Words: The Translator and the
Language Learner, Multilingual Matters, Great Britain (1996), pp. 1526.
M.C. Anderson, Rethinking interference theory: executive control and the
mechanisms of forgetting, Journal of Memory and Language 49 (2003), pp.
415445.
A.D. Baddeley, Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum, London
(1997).
P. Bogaards and B. Laufer, Editors, Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection,
Acquisition and Testing, Benjamins, Amsterdam (2004).
R. Carter and M. McCarthy, Vocabulary and Language Teaching, Longman, New
York (1988).
J. Coady and T. Huckin, Editors, Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: a
Rationale for Pedagogy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997).
Craik and Lockhart, 1972 F.I.M. Craik and L.S. Lockhart, Levels of processing: a
framework for memory research, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behaviour 11 (1972), pp. 671684.
N.C. Ellis and A. Beaton, Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language
vocabulary learning, Language Learning 43 (4) (1993), pp. 559617.
Erten, I.H., 1998. Vocabulary learning strategies: an investigation into the effect of
sensory learning styles and modality of word presentation on the use of
vocabulary learning strategies. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Exeter, Exeter.
M. Finkbeiner and J. Nicol, Semantic category effects in second language word
learning, Applied Psycholinguistics 24 (2003), pp. 369383. View Record in
Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (4)
K.S. Folse, Vocabulary Myths: Applying Second Language Research to Classroom
Teaching, University of Michigan Press, Michigan (2004).

Grandy, 1992 R.E. Grandy, Semantic fields, prototypes, and the lexicon. In: A. Lehrer
and E.F. Kittay, Editors, Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in
Semantic and Lexical Organization, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers, New York (1992), pp. 105120.
R.H. Hashemi and F. Gowdasiaei, An attribute-treatment interaction study: lexical-set
versus semantically-unrelated vocabulary instruction, Regional Language
Centre Journal 36 (3) (2005), pp. 341361.
E. Hatch and A. Lazaraton, The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics, Heinle and Heinle Publishers, Boston (1991).
J. Haycraft, An Introduction to English Language Teaching, Longman, Malaysia
(1993).
M. Higa, Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning,
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2 (1963), pp. 170175.
B. Laufer, A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: deceptive transparency, AILA
Review 6 (1989), pp. 1020.
B. Laufer, Why are some words more difficult than others?, IRAL 28 (4) (1990), pp.
293307. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (7)
B. Laufer, The lexical plight in second language reading: words you dont know,
words you think you know and words you cant guess. In: J. Coady and T.
Huckin, Editors, Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: a Rationale for
Pedagogy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997), pp. 2034.
W.J.M. Levelt, A. Roelofs and A. Meyer, A theory of lexical access in speech
production, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (1999), pp. 175.
M. Lewis, Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice,
Language Teaching Publications, London (1997).
M. McCarthy, Vocabulary, Oxford University Press, Hong Kong (1990).
A. McGeoch and W.T. McDonald, Meaningful relation and retroactive inhibition,
American Journal of Psychology 43 (1931), pp. 579588.
B. McLaughlin, Theories of Second Language Acquisition, Edward Arnold, London
(1987).
B. McLaughlin, Restructuring, Applied Linguistics 11 (1990), pp. 113128. View
Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (34)
P. Meara, Vocabulary in a Second Language: Volume 1, CILT, London (1983).
G.A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our
capacity for processing information, The Psychological Review 63 (2) (1956),
pp. 8197.
I.S.P. Nation, Teaching and Learning Vocabulary, Heinle and Heinle Publishers, New
York (1990).
I.S.P. Nation, Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: dangers and guidelines, TESOL
Journal 9 (2000), pp. 610.
I.S.P. Nation, Learning Vocabulary in another Language, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (2001).
C. Oxenden, C. Latham-Koenig and P. Selingson, New English File, Oxford
University Press, Oxford (2004).
M. Pigada and N. Schmitt, Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: a case
study, Reading in a Foreign Language 18 (1) (2006), pp. 127.
J. Read, Assessing Vocabulary, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000).
S.K. Reed, Cognition: Theory and Application, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont
(2004).

Richards and Renandya, 2002 J.C. Richards and W.A. Renandya, Methodology in
Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge (2002).
J.C. Richards, Materials development and research making the connection, RELC
Journal 37 (4) (2006), pp. 526.
P. Robinson, Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: a triadic
framework for examining task influences on SLA. In: P. Robinson, Editor,
Cognition and Second Language Instruction, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (2001).
M.A. Rogers, Beyond the dictionary: the translator, the L2 learner and the computer
words word words. In: G.M. Anderman and M.A. Rogers, Editors, Words
Words Words: the Translator and the Language Learner, Multilingual Matters,
Great Britain (1996), pp. 6995.
B.D. Seal, Vocabulary learning and teaching. In: M. Celce-Murcia, Editor, Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language (second ed.), Heinle and Heinle
Publishers, USA (1991), pp. 296311.
L. Soars and J. Soars, New Headway Elementary, Oxford University Press, Oxford
(2000).
F.L. Stoller and W. Grabe, Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and instruction
from L1 vocabulary research. In: T. Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady, Editors,
Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning, Ablex Publishing
Corporation, Norwood, NJ (1995), pp. 2445.
T. Tinkham, The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language
vocabulary, System 21 (1993), pp. 371380
T. Tinkham, The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second
language vocabulary, Second Language Research 13 (1997), pp. 138163.
W. Trochim and D. Land, Designing designs for research, The Researcher (1) (1982),
pp. 16.
P. Ur, A Course in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(1996).
R. Waring, The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: a replication,
System 25 (1997), pp. 261274
S. Wharton and P. Race, 500 Tips for TESOL, Kogan Page, Great Britain (1999).
M. Wesche and T.S. Paribakht, Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge:
depth versus breadth, The Canadian Modern Language Review 53 (1996), pp.
1340
Appendix 1. Sets of words used in the study
1st Week

2nd Week

1st Lesson (related 2nd

Lesson 1st
Lesson 2nd Lesson (related
set- animals)
(unrelated 2)
(unrelated 1)
set- foods)
Bat

Peg

Pan

Egg

Bee

Saw

Key

Fig

Pig

Cook

Rat

Leek

Fox

Plug

Axe

Plum

1st Week

2nd Week

1st Lesson (related 2nd

Lesson 1st
Lesson 2nd Lesson (related
set- animals)
(unrelated 2)
(unrelated 1)
set- foods)
Hen

Soap

Sun

Bean

Ape

Rain

Eye

Pear

Ant

Walk

Pin

Salt

Cow

Swim

Mug

Okra

Owl

Bell

Hat

Corn

Cock

Stool

Fork

Onion

Crab

Scale

Drum

Olive

Wolf

Skull

Ring

Melon

Seal

Happy

Nail

Honey

Bear

Sleep

Comb

Grape

Goat

Circle

Kite

Garlic

Sheep

Hammer

Tooth

Pepper

Eagle

Puppet

Drill

Carrot

Snake

Button

Plane

Radish

Shark

Cookie

Chest

Cherry

Snail

Needle

Wheel

Peanut