first language: lexical retrieval in Dutch
CLIL students
Simone Freije S2159201
MA in Applied Linguistics Faculty of Liberal Arts University of Groningen
Primary supervisor: Prof. dr. C. L. J. de Bot Second reader: Prof. dr. M. H. Verspoor
Date: June 4, 2015
Page
Abstract i
Foreword ii
1. Introduction 1
2. Background 3
2.1 The history of bilingual education 4
2.2 Bilingual education in the Netherlands 8
2.3 Cross-linguistic influence 10
2.4 Previous research on the effects of CLIL on the native language 15
3. Method 18 3.1 Participants 18 3.2 Materials 19 3.3 Procedure 21 3.4 Analyses 23 4. Results 24 4.1 Quantitative analyses 24
4.1.1 The English results 24
4.1.2 The Dutch results 25
4.2 Qualitative analysis 27
4.2.1 Survey results 27
5.1 Limitations 30
5.2 The English results of CLIL students 31
5.2.1 Results of the independent t-tests 31
5.2.2 Results of the correlation analyses 32
5.3 The Dutch results of CLIL students 32
5.3.1 Results of the independent t-tests 32
5.3.2 Results of the correlation analyses 33
5.4 Survey results 33
5.5 Individual cases 33
5.6 Suggestions for future research 34
6. Conclusion 35
Bibliography 37
Appendix A: Paul Meara’s English vocabulary test (adjusted) 42
Appendix B: Diawoord: Dutch vocabulary test 45
Appendix C: List of pictures in English picture naming task 51
Appendix D: List of pictures in Dutch picture naming task 53
Abstract
Foreword
In secondary school, I started to become very perfectionistic in my Dutch. I knew everything about the –d and –dt’s and even listed my Dutch perfectionism as a one of my professional skills on my resume. At the end of secondary school, I developed an interest in the English language and, along with two of my classmates, wrote the final project in English. My passion for the English language eventually led to me starting an English degree at the University of Groningen. I soon noticed that it became more and more difficult for me to talk about my courses in Dutch since I had only learned the English names and it felt unnatural to use the Dutch words. I realized that I had become a bilingual. During my English degree I developed an interest in the way languages are learned. My decision to follow the Applied Linguistics minor eventually led to me pursuing a Master’s degree in Applied Linguistics. With most of the classmates being international students I had to use English a lot more than I did in the English degree (where I would have mostly Dutch classmates and friends with whom I would speak Dutch). I noticed that all of this English was starting to conflict with my Dutch. When I got home after the lectures, I wanted to tell my boyfriend what happened at the university but because everything happened in English I had difficulties translating these situations to Dutch. To make matters worse, my boyfriend does not know a lot of English which forced me to translate it to Dutch. This often resulted in me not being able to explain it in as much detail as I wanted. My own lexical retrieval problems as a result of extensive use of English (on top of some other issues which you will read about shortly) were one of the greatest motivations to carry out this study.
1. Introduction
the mother tongue. Herder & De Bot (2005) even found a positive effect of CLIL on the native language of the students. The conclusions of Huibregtse (2001) and Admiraal et al. (2007) are based on the students’ grades on the final examination Dutch. In this current study, however, it will be argued that these grades might not be an accurate descriptor of the Dutch proficiency of CLIL students. The aim of this study, therefore, is to investigate this issue by closely examining the Dutch lexicon of CLIL students. To this end, the following research questions have been formulated:
1. Is the Dutch lexicon of CLIL students negatively impacted as a result of the (partial) immersion setting in CLIL programs?
2. Do CLIL students experience more lexical retrieval problems than students in regular foreign language education?
In the next chapter some background information to this present study will be provided with an historical overview of CLIL (or bilingual education) in section 2.1, an elaboration on the situation of CLIL in the Netherlands in section 2.2 followed by section 2.3 on the beneficial and disadvantageous sides of CLIL. Lastly, the chapter will point out some of the issues found in previously conducted studies. At the end of the chapter, some hypotheses will be formulated based on the discussed literature. In order to tests these hypotheses, an experiment will be conducted, of which the methodology can be found in chapter 3. The remaining chapters will then present and discuss the results of the experiment and provide some suggestions for future research.
2. Background
effects of CLIL. At the end of the chapter, links will be made between the previously conducted studies and this current study, after which several hypotheses will be formulated.
2.1 The history of bilingual education
The idea of educating people in another language than their mother tongue has existed for ages; Genesee (1987) claims that the concept of bilingual education dates as far back as 3000 BC. In this period, most languages did not have written forms which made teaching in these languages difficult and therefore a foreign language was used in the classrooms. It should be noted, however, that in contrast to the modern conception of bilingual education, where both languages are used for instruction, only the foreign language was used at schools. Although foreign language education might have been a more suitable name, it is often referred to as bilingual education because the language used at school is different from the native language of the students and, thus, students have to know two languages in order to succeed in school. Evidence for the more conventional notion of bilingual education (i.e. schools where both languages are used for instruction) can also be found in ancient times. During this period the extensive contact between communities that did not speak the same language added to the demand for bilingual education (Genesee, 1987, p. 2). Latin became the predominant language of instruction during the expansion of the Roman (and later) Greek empire but it was gradually replaced by the more local ‘national’ languages in the sixteenth century. Still, the language of instruction at schools (standard languages or dialects) often differed from the ‘home’ language (nonstandard language varieties).
the major world languages but, still, the language had always been of minor importance to the country. In some provinces, the language was even banned for a short period of time. During the ‘Quiet Revolution’ in the 1960s, people started to oppose the inequality of the languages. It was not until 1969 that French became an official national language. In Quebec, where the majority language is French, both English and French people became concerned about the interrelationships between the English and the French. The English residents started to realize that French became increasingly important and only speaking English obscured the chances of becoming economically successful in the region. Subsequently, there was a growing need for an educational system in which students were able to learn French effectively. An experiment was initiated by English speaking middle class parents who wanted their children to become more proficient in French (p. 239). The experiment was such a success that it soon led to the implementation of early immersion programs starting in kindergarten. After a few years of complete French instruction, English was introduced as language of instruction. One of the most important preconditions to such a program is that students should have the same learning objectives as students in the regular, more traditional programs. In addition, the use of French should not impede the development of other subjects and the development of the mother tongue. The goal of these programs, apart from improving the French proficiency of the students, was also to improve the attitudes of English Canadians towards their French compatriots.
Although the Canadian immersion model is often regarded the pioneer of bilingual education, over the years many different models of bilingual education have developed. The diversity of models can be explained by the variety of different aims of bilingual education, pointed out by Ferguson et al. (1977) who provided the following list of the diverse aims of BE:
1. To assimilate individuals or groups into the mainstream of society; to socialize people for full participation in the community;
2. To unify a multilingual society; to bring unity to a multi-ethnic, multi-tribal, or multi-national linguistically diverse state;
4. To provide language skills which are marketable, aiding employment and status; 5. To preserve ethnic and religious identity;
6. To reconcile and mediate between different linguistic and political communities;
7. To spread the use of colonial language, socializing an entire population to a colonial existence;
8. To strengthen elite groups and preserve their privileged position in society; 9. To give equal status in law to languages of unequal status in daily life; 10. To deepen an understanding of language and culture
Baker (2011, p. 207-250) then provides an elaborate overview of the different types of bilingual education that adhere to these aims. He distinguishes between weak and strong models of bilingual education. In the strong models, the aim is bilingualism and, therefore, the second language is used extensively. In the weak models, the aim is not necessarily bilingualism but rather the acquisition of the second language. Some examples of weak models of bilingual education are transitional
education and mainstream education. Transitional education is similar to submersion education in
the sense that they both aim at assimilation but the two differ in terms if their use of the native language. In transitional education, the students are taught through their native language and are still allowed to use their native language until they have reached a level of proficiency that allows them to cope in submersion education (p. 215). Thus, they gradually move from using their native language to using the second language. In mainstream education the foreign language is taught as a subject similar to how History or Math is taught as a subject and the language of instruction, therefore, is the mother tongue and not the foreign language. Several studies have demonstrated, however, that in the long run mainstream education is not that effective: mainstream students do not acquire enough knowledge to become “functionally fluent in the second language” (p. 218). Examples of strong models can be found in schools where children who speak a minority language (e.g. Turkish in the Netherlands) are instructed in the majority language (e.g. Dutch), also known as
minority students in submersion programs are expected to learn the majority language as quickly as possible through a so-called ‘sink or swim’ method where only the majority language is used in the classroom (Huibregtse et al, 1994, p. 17). This model could, for example, be linked to aim 1 and 3 of the list of Ferguson et al. (1977). Other examples of strong models of bilingual education are dual
language bilingual education and immersion bilingual education. Dual language bilingual education is
2.2 Bilingual education in the Netherlands
almost 20 percent of the total number of secondary schools in the Netherlands1. In bilingual programs in the Netherlands, the target language is usually English but there are also a few schools that offer classes in German. Dutch bilingual programs can be considered late immersion programs because the students are immersed in the target language at secondary level (Baker, 2002). However, the bilingual education programs in the Netherlands are only partial immersion programs since only about 50 percent of their classes is taught in the target language. It is usually taught in grades 1 to 4 (age 12 to 15). In the final two years of upper secondary education all classes are taught in Dutch again. The main reason for stepping away from the bilingual format in the last two years of secondary education is the fact that the final examinations for all courses are in Dutch. Both schools and parents therefore believe that it is necessary that the preparation for the final examinations is in Dutch. Moreover, Admiraal et al. (2007) explain that in the final years of secondary education students choose a “personal set of seven subject matters to specialize in for the final school leaving exams [which] requires a substantial regrouping of the students making it difficult to organize bilingual education for groups that are sufficiently large” (Admiraal et al., 2007, p.). An increasing amount of Dutch BE schools, however, also offers ‘enhanced language education’ in the final years of secondary education which means that extra hours of foreign language education are offered on top of the mandatory courses in the curriculum in an effort to expand the students’ knowledge of the specific language (Europees Platform, n.d.). A significant element of bilingual education is that, even though the end goal is foreign language acquisition, the focus is on the content and not on the language (Admiraal et al., 2007, p. 76). Admiraal et al. (2007) explain that the communication in the classroom has to be meaningful, authentic, functional and relevant to the students’ needs (p. 76). It is essential that the students and teachers speak and communicate in a natural way which also means that the teachers should avoid correcting the students when they make an error in their speech. In a way, it resembles the acquisition process of one’s native language. All of this is based on
1
the assumption “that using the language for content learning will enhance implicit learning of that language leading to higher levels of proficiency than can normally be achieved” (p. 76). The research conducted by Huibregtse (2001) and Admiraal et al. (2007) has demonstrated that the CLIL programs in the Netherlands are a success: CLIL students perform better than the control group on reading comprehension and oral proficiency tests. Verspoor, De Bot & Van Rein (2010) examined the effects of language contact outside of school on the English proficiency of CLIL students. In their study, they compared reformed CLIL students to regular CLIL students (and non-CLIL control groups) because reformed students generally use less popular media (television, music, internet, etc.) than regular students which was confirmed in Verspoor et al.’s study (2010). The results revealed a negative effect of the lack of media on the English writing skills and vocabulary knowledge of the reformed CLIL students. Thus, the success of CLIL schools to a certain extent depends on language contact outside of school. The following section will demonstrate that, together with the positive effects of bilingual education, there are also negative effects.
2.3 Cross-linguistic influence
impossible since L2 users can keep the languages apart” (p. 7). Models that conform to a bit of both are called interconnection models. A first example of an interconnection model is the linked model which is rather similar to the separatist model but contains the idea of cross-linguistic influence where both languages interact with one another. The partial integration model can also be seen as an example of an interconnection model. Here, the two languages to a certain extent overlap in the mind of the L2 user. For instance, the first and the second language might share “overlapping vocabulary, syntax, or other aspects of language knowledge” (p. 8). Cook argues that, instead of using one model for each learner, all models can form a continuum in which the language learner, regardless of the direction, moves from one model to the other. Thus, at a certain point in time one individual learner could experience cross-linguistic influence whereas another language learner might not. Moreover, one learner could have no L2 influence on their L1 at one point in time but could experience this cross-linguistic influence later on in their lives.
Furthermore, learning a foreign language can have both positive and negative consequences for the development of the mother tongue. Lambert (1974) distinguishes between additive and
subtractive bilingualism where the first denotes the positive outcomes of being bilingual whereas the
activated at the same time causes them to have more difficulties in understanding and using one of their languages as the other language is constantly interfering (Marian & Shook, 2012). The bilingual brain is highly activated in order to “maintain the relative balance between two languages” (p. 3). To maintain this balance, inhibition of one of the languages is sometimes required. Linck, Kroll & Sunderman (2009) found that inhibition of the L1 takes place in immersion settings. Learning an L2, especially while being immersed, can have extremely negative consequences for L1 processing (p. 7-8). However, Linck et al. (2009) concluded that L1 inhibition only takes place in the immersion setting as students who returned to the L1-dominant context showed no signs of L1 inhibition. Still, the inhibition of the L1 can lead to deterioration and even loss of the native language (Fillmore, 1991), usually referred to as first language attrition. As De Bot (2007) explains “[f]irst language attrition is basically the interaction between a decline of the availability of [the first] language and the development of [the second] competing [language]” (p. 58). Language attrition is therefore most commonly found in migrants as they are immersed in an L2 environment. According to Köpke & Schmid (2004), word finding difficulties are found to be the most prevalent form of L1 attrition. Especially the ability to retrieve words (e.g. in a picture naming task) in the L1 can drastically deteriorate. Lexical retrieval, as described by Ammerlaan (1996), involves “lexical processes aimed at accessing linguistic information in memory for speech production” (p. 23). According to Costa, Caramazza, & Sebastian-Galles (2002) this process is divided into two stages: the first stage involves the activation of the lexical item and its intended meaning and the selection of this item “from a set of activated lexical nodes” (p. 3), and the second stage includes the phonologic process of retrieving the phonological representation of the lexical item after which the word can finally be pronounced. In the first stage, several other related nodes can be activated as well. For example, when a person has to name a picture of a book, their semantic system will also activate related nodes such as
library, and story. The node that is activated the most will then be selected. Widyalankara (2014)
Conceptual level dier (animal) huisdier (pet) blaffen (bark)
Lexical level hond kat cat dog
Phonological level /ɦont/ /kat/ /kæt/ /dɔg/
Phonological encoding ɦ d o k
a t n ɔ æ g
Syllable program node /dɔg/
Figure 1 Visual presentation of the lexical selection mechanism in L2 lexical retrieval (adapted from
Widyalankara, 2014). The boldfaced items and lines indicate the level of activation. The crossed out words are inhibited.
argument is based on the Cross-linguistic Influence (CI) framework which she proposed in earlier work (Pavlenko, 2000). The CI framework distinguishes five processes in cross-linguistic interaction:
1. Borrowing, or addition of L2 elements to the L1 (e.g. lexical borrowing)
2. Restructuring, or deletion or incorporation of L2 elements into L1 resulting in some changes, substitutions, or simplifications (e.g., syntactic restructuring or semantic extensions)
3. Convergence, or creation of a unitary system, distinct from both L1 and L2 (e.g., production of consonants that are situated at a midpoint between the L1 and L2 values)
4. Shift, or a move away from L1 structures or values to approximate L2 structures or values (e.g., a shift in typicality, category boundaries, or consonant values)
5. Attrition, i.e. loss of some L1 elements, seen in inability to produce, perceive, or recognize particular rules, lexical items, concepts, or categorical distinctions due to L2 influence. (Pavlenko, 2004, p. 47)
Thus, according to Pavlenko (2004) borrowing, restructuring, convergence and shift cannot be considered evidence for L1 attrition. Still, the loss of lexical items appears to be a vital aspect of L1 attrition. The question is, however, if the lexical items can truly be lost or if they are merely harder to retrieve because they are less frequently used or not used at all. Point of fact is that acquiring a second language can have a negative effect on the extent to which one can express themselves in their L1.
2.4 Previous research on the effects of CLIL on the native language
1. CLIL students will outperform the control group in terms of their English vocabulary knowledge;
2. CLIL students will be slower in a picture naming task because they have two competing languages;
3. CLIL students will experience more lexical retrieval problems in their mother tongue.
3. Methodology
To investigate the hypotheses and research questions posed above, an tripartite experiment was set up in which participants were required to complete two vocabulary tests, two picture naming tasks and one survey. In the following sections this experiment will be explained in more detail. Section 3.1 will provide more information about the participants, followed by an overview of the materials used for the experiment in section 3.2 after which the procedure of the experiment will be explained in section 3.3. Section 3.4 will then elaborate on the analyses that were performed in this study, followed chapter 4 and 5 in which the results will be presented and discussed.
3.1 Participants
distinction between athenaeum (ATH) and gymnasium (GYM) where GYM is similar to ATH but, in addition, has the subjects Latin and Greek. The selected students resembled the distribution of ATH and GYM students in each group. It must also be noted that a month prior to the experiment the CLIL students went to Canada and the U.S. for as part of an exchange program and, thus, received a lot of English input.
3.2 Materials
The experiment consisted of three parts: a vocabulary test in both Dutch and English, a picture naming task in both languages and a survey. In addition, the school provided a list of cumulative grades of the first three semesters of the students (henceforth the results on the English course) which was used to select a group of students that was representative for the entire class. In this selection, only the grades for the English and Dutch courses were taken into account. These grades were also used in the analysis as they indicated how the students performed on the subjects Dutch and English.
To begin with, the students’ Dutch and English vocabulary size was measured through the ‘English as a Foreign Language Vocabulary Test’. This test was developed by Meara (1992) to provide an estimate of the receptive word knowledge of foreign language learners. For the purpose of this investigation, such an estimate is important because it provides an insight into the students’ general vocabulary knowledge. It consists of five lists of 60 words each. Each list covers the basic vocabulary of about 1000 words. The first two lists are based on Nation’s (1986) Vocabulary lists: words, affixes,
stems. List 3, 4 and 5 are based on Hindmarsh’s (1980) Cambridge English Lexicon. Each list includes
Appendix A. The students were asked to check the box when they know the meaning of the word. They were told beforehand that the test also contained non-existing words but they did not know how many nor where they were located in the test. Their score is based on the number of hits (selecting real words) and false alarms (selecting pseudowords). The calculation of the scores also includes a correction for the unreliability of the students’ self-assessment (i.e. the fact that they can say they know a word when they actually do not know what the word means). This correction is based on the number of false alarms.
The Dutch vocabulary size was tested using a vocabulary test called Diawoord which was developed by Diataal bv, a company that develops tests for primary and secondary education based on scientific research. Diawoord is a Dutch vocabulary test that is based on target vocabulary lists (Hacquebord, 2013). It contains 50 multiple choice questions, one per word. The students are given a so-called ‘minimal context sentence’, a sentence that puts the word in a grammatical and substantive context but does not give away its meaning. Thus, guessing from the context is impossible. The students are asked which word can replace the underlined word in the sentence by choosing one of the three answer options. The distractors are words that could also fit in the sentence. The answer options are all more comprehensible than the underlined word. Diawoord is originally a digital test, but for the sake of this experiment a paper version was created (Appendix B). Several studies have shown that digital testing can produce lower scores (e.g. due to poor computer skills) but there appears to be no difference between digital and paper testing when it comes to multiple-choice tests (ICE, 2007). Thus, paper testing does not seem to be a less reliable testing method. Similar to Meara’s vocabulary test, Diawoord tests the receptive vocabulary knowledge of the students. The Diawoord test used in this experiment was specifically designed for third year students in vwo. Both the English and the Dutch vocabulary tests took about 5 - 10 minutes to complete.
narrowed down to two sets of 69 items by removing all cognates and by taking out all pictures that were too ambiguous. The ambiguity of the pictures was determined by looking at the dominant responses in the Severens et al. (2005) article and comparing these with the judgments of a native speaker of Dutch and a native speaker of English. The native speakers were asked to name each picture and to indicate whether the image was clear (i.e. that it clearly represented what it was supposed to represent). The latter was done by using a three-point scale where 0 = not clear at all, 3 = somewhat clear, and 5 = very clear. All items that were scored 0 or 3 were removed from the picture set as these appeared to be too ambiguous. The exclusion of cognates was necessary because they could not reveal cross-linguistic influence.
The final survey contained questions regarding the English use and the English and Dutch proficiency of the students. For example, the students were asked to indicate if they have ever experienced word retrieval problems in their mother tongue. In the survey, the students were also asked to score their own Dutch and English abilities (speaking, listening, writing and reading) on a scale of 1 to 10. Their self-assessment scores, which were used in the analysis, were the calculated averages of these four language abilities.
3.3 Procedure
they had to respond as quickly as possible. The students were also asked to speak clearly and to only utter one word (i.e. no articles, “uhm”, “that’s a…” etc.). To make sure that the students understood what they were expected to do they were given 10 items to practice. These were relatively simple items (e.g. a foot or an arm) that were deleted in the selection process because they were cognates. Each picture was shown for a maximum period of 4000 milliseconds. The picture disappeared when a vocal response was registered. The response times were registered by a voice key using the CMU button box which was connected to the laptop. During the task, the experimenter wrote down all responses that differed from the dominant names provided earlier. She also kept track of all instances where the program did not work properly (e.g. when no response was registered while the student did produce a name). The alternative responses were checked by three native speakers of Dutch and English. They were asked to indicate whether the provided responses could be considered correct in relation to the picture that was shown. A response was considered correct or incorrect when at least two native speakers indicated so. The responses were then coded as follows (adapted from D’Amico, Devescovi & Bates (2001, p. 4)):
(1) A correct response: a correct name for the object;
(2) An incorrect response: an incorrect name for the object or an invalid response time (i.e. coughs hesitations, false starts or prenominal verbalization);
(3) A non-response: any trial in which the participant made no verbal response of any kind; (4) A missing response time: the participant did produce a name, but it failed to register with the
voice key.
The word frequency of each item was calculated using WordGen, a program that uses the CELEX and Lexique lexical databases to determine word frequency in both Dutch and English (Duyck, Desmet, Verbeke, and Brysbaert, 2004).
reliability of the outcomes, all pictures that received less than five correct responses were removed from the dataset (e.g. pliers or peg proved to be too difficult for the students and where removed from the dataset). For the English test this meant that only 49 items were used in the analysis; the Dutch test did not require any removals. To add to that, response times that were more than two SDs away from the mean were removed as well. Too quick responses, for example, could be the results of hesitations or coughs that were not noted by the experimenter. On the other hand, students with extremely slow responses might have not been concentrated on the item, for example, because they named the prior item incorrectly and were still thinking of another possible answer. The list of pictures along with the name agreement, word frequency, word length and syllable length can be found in Appendix C (English) and Appendix D (Dutch).
3.4 Analyses
4. Results
The following chapter will provide the results of all the analyses. It will start with a presentation of the results of the quantitative analysis. Here, the English results will be presented followed by the Dutch results. This will be followed by an overview of the qualitative findings which is divided in a section on the survey results and a section on the individual cases. Appendix E provides a detailed table of the results per student.
4.1 Quantitative analysis
4.1.1 The English results
Table 1 provides an overview of the results of the English means analysis. Interestingly, the control group outperformed the CLIL group in their results on the English course. This difference was significant but the CLIL group showed much more variation which is demonstrated by the significant outcome of Levene’s test (F(33.48) = 4.71, p < 0.05). The CLIL group scored significantly higher on the English vocabulary test than the control group but Levene’s test revealed that the control group was more inconsistent than the CLIL group. Similarly, the CLIL group was more accurate in the English picture naming task than the control group but the control group showed much more variation. Still, this difference was found to be significantly different. In terms of the average response times, the CLIL group was significantly faster than the control group. The CLIL students also assessed their English proficiency much higher than the control students. This difference was also significant.
Group M SD p-value
Results English course CLIL 6.8 1.0 <0.05
CONTROL 7.5 0.7
English vocabulary CLIL 436.1 44.7 < 0.05
CONTROL 307.8 95.6
PNT Accuracy CLIL 45.0 7.5 < 0.05
CONTROL 32.6 11.8
PNT Response time CLIL 1293.3 152.9 < 0.01
CONTROL 1459.6 193.3
Self-assessment CLIL 8.1 0.8 < 0.01
CONTROL 7.2 0.9
The correlation analyses revealed significant positive relationships between the vocabulary score and the correct responses in the English picture naming task (r = 0.75; p < 0.001) and between the vocabulary score and the self-assessment score (r = 0.55, p = 0.001). Significant negative relationships were found between the vocabulary score and the response time (r = -0.64; p <0.001), between the correct responses and the response times (r = -0.67; p < 0.001) and between the response times and the students’ self-assessment (r = -0,46; p < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between any of the other elements.
Lastly, correlation analyses for word frequency, word length and syllable length were carried out. Word frequency had strong to moderate negative correlations with the reaction times of CLIL students (r = -0.49; p < 0.001), the reaction times of the control group (r = -0.32; p < 0.05), and the reaction times of both groups together (r = -0.47; p = 0.001). The correlation analyses revealed no significant relationships between word length or syllable length and the reaction times.
4.1.2 The Dutch results
Group M SD p-value
Results Dutch course CLIL 7.3 0.9 0.23
CONTROL 6.9 1.0
Dutch vocabulary CLIL 127.1 13.3 0.08
CONTROL 119.6 13.0
PNT Accuracy CLIL 62.2 2.9 0.08
CONTROL 60.5 3.1
PNT Response time CLIL 1050.6 94.1 >0.05
CONTROL 1092.7 112.6
Self-assessment CLIL 8.7 1.1 > 0.05
CONTROL 8.3 1.4
Table 2 Results of the means analysis of the Dutch results
The correlation analyses revealed significant positive relationships between the Dutch grades of the students and their self-assessment (r = 0.49; p < 0.01) and between the number of correct responses and the response times on the Dutch picture naming task (r = 0.31, p = 0.05). These correlations, however, only showed weak to moderate relationships. Moreover, the positive relationship between the correct responses and response times actually reveals that the more correct responses were given by the students, the slower they performed on the picture naming task. No significant relations were found between any of the other elements.
4.2 Qualitative analysis
4.2.1 Survey
In both groups, two students unfortunately failed to return the survey. In the survey, the students were asked to indicate how often (i.e. never, sometimes, often, always) they used English in the following situations: at school, at home, with friends, with family, watching television, listening to music, on the internet and in games. They could also add other situations in which they use English. A few students added ‘reading books’, ‘student exchange’ and ‘making videos’.
Figure 2 The cumulative use of English of CLIL and control students
Figure 2 shows the cumulative results of the students’ use of English. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the CLIL students (14) indicated that they often use English in school. In comparison, 13 control students said they sometimes use English in school. Most of the CLIL and control students rarely use English at home. Twelve CLIL students said that they sometimes use English with friends whereas only six control students sometimes use English with friends. Most students rarely use English with their family. Both groups do use English a lot while watching television and listening to music. On the internet and in games, English also seems to be used often.
The survey also contained several statements which the students could agree or disagree with. Figures 3a and 3b show the results of the CLIL group and the control group respectively. Overall, both groups seem to enjoy learning English; there are only a few control students who have indicated that they disagree. These students also indicated that they only learn English because it is a
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Never Sometimes Often Always
Figure 3a Responses of CLIL students
Figure 3b Responses of control students
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 I like learning English I only learn English because I have to I use a lot of English outside of school I am scared to/get nervous when I have to speak English I can express myself pretty well in English I feel that my use of English influences my Dutch Sometimes, I do not know the Dutch word, but do know the English equivalent
CLIL students
Absolutely disagreeDisagreeDo not agree, do not disagree Agree Absolutely agree 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 I like learning English I only learn English because I have to I use a lot of English outside of school I am scared to/get nervous when I have to speak English I can express myself pretty well in English I feel that my use of English influences my Dutch Sometimes, I do not know the Dutch word, but do know the English equivalent
Control students
Absolutely disagreeDisagreeDo not agree, do not disagree Agree
mandatory course. The CLIL students also seem to use more English outside of school than the control students. Their ample use of English is probably one of the reasons they show less language anxiety and are more confidence in their English skills than the control students. The majority of the control students indicate that their Dutch is not influenced by their use of English which can probably be linked to their limited use of English outside of school. Interestingly, all CLIL students experience word retrieval issues where they cannot find the Dutch word, but do know the English equivalent.
4.2.2 Individual cases
A closer look at the individual picture naming task responses also revealed some cross-linguistic influence. For example, in the Dutch picture naming task two CLIL students started with “dr-” for a picture of a drill (in Dutch called a boor or boormachine). In addition, in the same picture naming task one CLIL student said “corn” instead of the Dutch word “maïs”. After the experiment she expressed how stupid she felt because she said the English instead of the Dutch word which shows that she was aware of the mistake she made. The CLIL students also showed some cross-linguistic influence in the English picture naming task. For example, two CLIL students said “flute” for a picture of a whistle (in Dutch called a fluit or fluitje). There was also one CLIL student who said “douche” instead of “shower” and, although this is the Dutch translation of “shower”, tried to make it sound like an English word. The same happened when a CLIL student said “ananas” instead of “pineapple”. However, the control students made much more Dutch-influenced mistakes. There were five control students who also said “ananas”, four who called a map a “card” (in Dutch called kaart or landkaart), two who said “flute” instead of “whistle” and then there were a few students who just said the Dutch word: mes (knife), riem (belt), trui (jumper), douche (shower).
scored considerably lower than her classmates. On the Dutch course she scored a 5.9 compared to a class mean of 7.3, on the Dutch vocabulary test she scored 105 (class mean = 127.1) and, although her accuracy score on the picture naming task was not extremely low (60) compared to the class mean (62.2), she was the slowest of the class with an average response time of 1256 milliseconds (class mean = 1092.7). Out of her entire class, she also assessed her Dutch the lowest (6.0, class mean = 8.8).
5. Discussion
5.1 Limitations
lexicon of the students and thus cannot provide any evidence for actual first language attrition. The findings should therefore be interpreted bearing this in mind. Moreover, it should be noted that the naming latencies were fairly slow compared to other studies on lexical retrieval in bilinguals (e.g. Costa & Santesteban, 2004).
5.2 The English results of CLIL students
5.2.1 Results of the independent t-tests
bilinguals does not negativelyinfluence their latency. An important point to make, however, is that the majority of the control students in this current study should not be considered monolinguals because they indicated in the survey that they use English quite often. Moreover, it should be noted that the gap in proficiency, apart from the form of education (CLIL or regular education) can be the result of other factors such as the use of English outside of school (e.g. Berns, De Bot & Hasebrink, 2007; Verspoor, De Bot & Van der Heiden, 2008), motivation, anxiety or confidence.
5.2.2 Results of the correlation analyses
In the correlation analyses a strong positive correlation (r = 0.75) was found between the English vocabulary score and the accuracy score in the picture naming task. This finding is in accordance with Laufer’s (2004) remark that vocabulary size tests can serve as an indicator for language learners’ success in the foreign language. The relatively strong correlation between vocabulary score and response time (r = -0.64) also seems to indicate a relationship between the students’ vocabulary knowledge and their naming latency: the higher their vocabulary score the quicker their response time.
5.3 The Dutch results of CLIL students
5.3.1 Results of the independent t-tests
the findings of the studies by Huibregtse (2001) and Admiraal et al. (2007) who found that CLIL does not pose a threat to the Dutch language abilities of students.
5.3.2 Results of the correlation analyses
The correlation analyses only revealed significant positive relationships between the Dutch grades and the students’ self-assessment and the accuracy and latency scores. No significant correlations were found between the Dutch grades and the vocabulary test which is remarkable because vocabulary size tests are usually relatively good indicators of one’s language abilities and academic success (Laufer, 2004). Although this should be interpreted with caution and deserves further investigation, such findings could be an indication that the Dutch course is not a good descriptor of the Dutch proficiency of the students.
5.4 Survey results
As mentioned before, the higher English proficiency can be attributed to factors such as the use of English outside of school, motivation, language anxiety, and confidence. The survey results, for instance show that CLIL students use English outside of school more often than non-CLIL students. For example, they use more English when talking to a friend or a family member, and they watch more English television programs than the control students. The CLIL students also listen more to English music and use more English when playing games.There did not seem to be a difference in the motivation of the students as both the majority of the CLIL students as the majority of the control students said that they liked learning English. With regard to language anxiety (i.e. being nervous when speaking English) the control students were much less similar, whereas most of the CLIL students did not show any language anxiety. Accordingly, the CLIL students seem much more confident about their English skills than control students. For example, the CLIL students assessed their English proficiency much higher than the control group. All of these factors may to a certain degree have contributed to the higher English scores of the CLIL students.
Some of the CLIL students did show some cross-linguistic influence, for example, when one participant said corn instead of the Dutch maïs. The question arises if such minor influences can develop to larger lexical retrieval issues in the L1 by the end of secondary education. Moreover, vwo students are likely to go to college or university in the Netherlands and Dutch colleges and universities are increasingly providing (only) English courses which might have even more serious consequences for their Dutch proficiency.
The case of the student who had lived in Canada for four years illustrates that an immersion setting can negatively influence the native language after a quite short amount of time. However, this was a total immersion setting as opposed to partial immersion in CLIL programs so no conclusions can be drawn upon these findings apart from the fact that total immersion does affect the mother tongue.
5.6 Suggestions for further research
bachelor’s degree (and possibly even after the master’s degree). Even though such a study is quite an endeavor it will shed some light on how the increasing emphasis on English in Dutch education influences the native language. Moreover, taking into account that an important precondition of bilingual education is that it should not affect the mother tongue and the fact that previous research has only looked at the subject Dutch as an indicator of students’ proficiency, such a study could be of added value to the Dutch society. An inevitable problem in this entire issue is the fact that CLIL is not the only aspect in the students’ lives that affects their mother tongue. International friends, English television programs and movies, holidays abroad among others are all aspects outside of school that could have a negative effect on the native language as well. It is, therefore, necessary to investigate to what extent CLIL students are influenced by these factors outside of school which is quite a complex task in itself.
6. Conclusion
Bibliography
Admiraal, W., Westhoff, G., & de Bot, K. (2007). Evaluation of bilingual secondary education in the Netherlands: students’ language proficiency in English. Educational Research and Evaluation,
12(1), p. 75-93. doi: 10.1080/13803610500392160
Ammerlaan, T. (1996). “You get a bit wobbly...”: exploring bilingual lexical retrieval processes in the context of first language attrition. s.n., Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Baker, C. & Jones, S.P. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Ontario: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C. (2002). Bilingual education. In R.B. Kaplan (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Ontario: Multilingual Matters. Berns, M., De Bot, K., & Hasebrink, U. (2007). In the presence of English: media and European youth.
New York: Springer
Cook, V.J. (2003). Effects of the second language on the first. Ontario: Mulitlingual Matters. Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2002). The cognate facilitation effect:
Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 26, 5: 1283-1296. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1283
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and
Language, 50: p. 491-511.
Costa, A. (2005) Lexical access in bilingual production. In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. De Groot (eds.).
Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches: p. 308-325. New York: Oxford University
Press.
D’Amico, S., Devescovi, A., Bates, E. (2001). Picture naming and lexical access in Italian children and adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2(1); p. 71-105.
De Bot, C.L.J. (2007). Dynamic systems theory, lifespan development and language attrition. In Köpke, B., Schmid, M.S., Keijzer, M., Dostert, S. (2007). Language attrition: theoretical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). WordGen: A Tool for Word Selection and Non-Word Generation in Dutch, German, English, and French. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments & Computers, 36(3), p. 488-499.
European Commission, (2006). Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf
Europees Platform (n.d.). Versterkt talenonderwijs. Retrieved May 23, 2015 from: http://www.europeesplatform.nl/projecten/versterkt-talenonderwijs
Europees Platform (2014). Scholen. Retrieved May 23, 2015 from: http://www.europeesplatform.nl/tto/scholen/
Ferguson, C.A., Houghton, C., & Wells, M.H. (1977). Bilingual education: an international perspective. In B. Spolsky & R. Cooper (eds.), Frontiers of Bilingual education. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Fillmore, L.W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 6: p. 323-346.
Flege, J.E., Schirru, C., MacKay, I. (2003). Interaction between the native and second language phonetic subsystems. Speech Communication, 4; p. 467-491.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Gollan, T. H., Montoya, R. I., & Werner, G. A. (2002). Semantic and letter fluency in Spanish-English bilinguals. Neuropsychology 16(4); p. 562-576. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.16.4.562 Govers, M. (2009). “Wij misbegrijpen elkaar”: de invloed van tweetalig onderwijs op de Nederlandse
Hacquebord, H.I. (2013). Meer aandacht voor woordenschat en het toetsen daarvan! Tijdschrift voor
Remedial Teaching, 3; p. 6-9.
Herder, A. & Bot, K. de (2005). Vroeg vreemdetalenonderwijs in internationaal perspectief.
Literatuurstudie in opdracht van het Europees platform. Groningen: Expertisecentrum taal,
onderwijs en communicatie. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Hindmarsh, R. (1980) Cambridge English Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huibregtse, I., van der Poel. M., & Hoornweg, J., (1994). De vreemde taal als instructietaal: een
literatuurstudie naar vormen, voorwaarden en effecten van inhoud-georiënteerd vreemde-talenonderwijs. Enschede: Taakgroep NAP (SLO).
Huibregtse, I. (2001). Effecten en didactiek van tweetalig voortgezet onderwijs in Nederland. Utrecht, The Netherlands: IVLOS Universiteit Utrecht.
ICE (2007). Staatsexamens NT2: Literatuurstudie digitalisering schrijven I en II. Culemborg: Bureau ICE.
Keijzer, M. (2007). Last in first out? An investigation of the regression hypothesis in Dutch
emigrants in Anglophone Canada. (PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam).
Retrieved from: http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/handle/1871/13268/6654.pdf?sequence=5 Keijzer, M. (2014). Are good learners also good forgetters?: A retrieval induced forgetting perspective
of L1 attrition in an L2 immersed context. Paper presented at Language development across the
lifespan lecture series (LANSPAN), Groningen, Netherlands.
Köpke, B. & Schmid, M. S. (2004) First language attrition: The next phase. In M. S. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer, M. & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (p. 1-43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lambert, W.E. (1974) Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F.E. Aboud & R.D. Meade (eds.), Cultural factors in learning and education. Bellingham, WA: 5th Western
Laufer, B. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: size, strength and computer adaptiveness.
Language Learning, 54(3); p. 399-436.
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., & Sunderman, G. (2009). Losing Access to the Native Language While Immersed in a Second Language Evidence for the Role of Inhibition in Second-Language Learning. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1507–1515. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x Marian, V. & Shook, A. (2012). The cognitives benefits of being bilingual. Retrieved May 27, 2015
from http://dana.org/Cerebrum/2012/The_Cognitive_Benefits_of_Being_Bilingual Meara, P. (1992). EFL vocabulary test. Swansea, UK: Centre for Applied Language Studies. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (2014). Kerncijfers 2009-2013. Retrieved from:
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ocw/documenten-en-publicaties/jaarverslagen/2014/05/21/ocw-kerncijfers.html
Nation, I.S.P. (1986) Word Lists (revised edition). Wellington: Victoria University English Language Centre.
Obadia, A.A. (1996). French immersion in Canada. Frequently asked questions. Ontario: Canadian Parents for French (CPF).
Paradis, M. (1985). On the representation of two languages in the brain. Language Sciences, 7(1); p. 1-39.
Pavlenko, A. (2000). L2 influence on L1 in late bilingualism. Issues in Applied Linguistics 11(2); p. 175-205. Retrieved from http://astro.temple.edu/~apavlenk/pdf/IAL_2000.pdf
Pavlenko, A. (2004). L2 influence and L1 attrition in adult bilingualism. In M. S. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Keijzer, M. & L. Weilemar (Eds.), First language attrition: Interdisciplinary perspectives on methodological issues (p. 47-59). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
PISA (2000). Retrieved April 4, 2015 from: http://pisaweb.acer.edu.au/oecd_2003/
Sahadar, I. (2013). Hoogleraren verbijsterd over examen Nederlands. Retrieved April 7, 2015 from
http://www.volkskrant.nl/dossier-onderwijs/hoogleraren-verbijsterd-over-examen-nederlands~a3451539/
Schmid, M. S. (2013). First language attrition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4(2), p. 117-123. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1218
Severens, E., Van Lommel, S., Ratinckx, E., Hartsuiker, R.J. (2005) Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychologica, 119; p. 159–187. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.01.002 University of Michigan, (n.d.). French immersion in Canada. Retrieved April 4, 2015 from:
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/356.hess/quick_facts_for_students_and_parents
Van Wilgenburg, O., Hotje, S., Deelder, E. (2013). Tto, LinQ, vvto: versterking van het talenonderwijs.
Levende Talen, 100(7): p. 32-35.
Verspoor, M., De Bot, K. & Van der Heiden, F. (2007). Engels in het voortgezet onderwijs, de rol van buitenschools taalcontact. Levende Talen, 8; p. 3-10.
Verspoor, M., De Bot, K. & Van Rein, E. (2010). Binnen- en buitenschools taalcontact en het leren van Engels. Levende Talen, 11; p. 14-33.
Westhoff, G.J. (1994). Tweetalig onderwijs in de praktijk: verslag van een studiereis. Utrecht: IVLOS. Widyalankara, R. C. (2014). Does Proficiency in the Second Language Influence Bilingual Word
Retrieval and Pronunciation? International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(11), p. 1-12.
Appendix A: Paul Meara’s English vocabulary test (adjusted)
Vocabulary Test
What do you have to do?
This test contains five lists of 60 words each. Read through the list and tick the box ONLY if you know what it means. If you don’t know what it means or if you aren’t sure DO NOT tick the box. Note: the lists contain real English words and non-existing words.
List 1
1 high 21 probable 41 autumn
2 building 22 ordinisation 42 shoe
3 possible 23 soldier 43 boil
4 fear 24 spedding 44 justal
5 rope 25 roscrow 45 cruel
6 attard 26 trimble 46 bethell
7 nice 27 local 47 wray
8 neighbor 28 end 48 chance
9 general 29 family 49 youde
10 lazy 30 table 50 cotargent
11 equalic 31 turley 51 stove
12 cordle 32 pick up 52 water
13 milne 33 mabey 53 magazine
14 continue 34 friend 54 wake
15 lester 35 page 55 podiast
16 elode 36 mixture 56 read
17 iron 37 hear 57 ballotage
18 do 38 allow 58 birth
19 difficulty 39 tonight 59 thin
List 2
List 3
1 look on 21 tail 41 juice
2 well-made 22 shoulder 42 seclunar
3 distantial 23 let down 43 nod
4 precious 24 candish 44 gentle
5 glad 25 behave 45 churchlow
6 suffer 26 admire 46 put down
7 lavery 27 army 47 venable
8 refer 28 think of 48 neutration
9 independent 29 judd 49 slip
10 feeling 30 fairly 50 refurge
11 bullet 31 laudalize 51 vain
12 drag 32 cough 52 salary
13 steam 33 amagran 53 carotic
14 contramand 34 farinize 54 kearle
15 hold on 35 movement 55 educate
16 miserable 36 deserve 56 turn out
17 surman 37 aunt 57 prepare
18 leopradate 38 pint 58 castle
19 serve 39 asslam 59 collect
20 rhind 40 eldred 60 pass out
1 regard 21 view 41 flamboyment
2 invention 22 prelatoriat 42 uniform
3 calendar 23 concerned with 43 hyde
4 guest 24 angle 44 obtain
5 communist 25 hermantic 45 rare
6 amagran 26 failure 46 fodoration
7 galpin 27 lecture 47 substance
8 hudd 28 mine 48 property
9 construct 29 disportal 49 swithin
10 disturb 30 ashill 50 ahead
11 astin 31 however 51 cheatle
12 cylinder 32 bowring 52 specialize
13 able to 33 spring 53 case
14 influence 34 mynott 54 ensure
15 nowadays 35 sensation 55 nichee
16 sacrifice 36 percentage 56 being
17 albucolic 37 sedgebeer 57 delay
18 amphlett 38 essential 58 request
19 perrin 39 funny 59 assume
List 4
1 daily 21 mollific 41 border
2 mastiphitis 22 associate 42 contortal
3 essential 23 conduct 43 wonder
4 wallage 24 relative 44 cloakroom
5 pat 25 have round 45 route
6 appertonal 26 duffin 46 distinguish
7 style 27 waygood 47 court
8 snowy 28 vital 48 carriage
9 remonic 29 upward 49 landing
10 boundary 30 get through 50 tailor
11 hawther 31 reference 51 glue
12 vardy 32 peritonic 52 microphone
13 genderation 33 previous 53 lang
14 effect 34 manager 54 ashment
15 typewriter 35 squeeze 55 selfish
16 coppard 36 muscle 56 publish
17 variety 37 savery 57 deliction
18 schismal 38 origin 58 boobier
19 identify 39 final 59 airmail
20 biforcal 40 leisure 60 insult
List 5
1 tune 21 sneeze 41 snell
2 glory 22 cundy 42 whitelock
3 porlock 23 restore 43 around
4 cicatration 24 sip 44 batstone
5 forecast 25 pungid 45 fade
6 doll 26 catholic 46 awkward
7 powling 27 haque 47 cut out
8 stove 28 bee 48 incarminate
9 dessert 29 producer 49 accord
10 rod 30 graphic 50 saratogal
11 knock out 31 investebrate 51 rake
12 nursery 32 mechanic 52 provided
13 technology 33 inn 53 morality
14 limp 34 buttonhole 54 overlook
15 look into 35 arkless 55 peebles
16 permission 36 headlong 56 enclose
17 opponent 37 logam 57 confidential
18 aspection 38 mourant 58 screen
19 conceitful 39 weaken 59 thicken
Appendix B: Diawoord: Dutch vocabulary test
Diawoord: Woordenschattoets
Wat moet je doen?
De toets bestaat uit 50 vragen. Iedere vraag is een zin met daarin een onderstreept woord. Onder de zin staan drie mogelijke antwoorden. Kies het antwoord dat het dichtst in de buurt komt van de betekenis van het woord.
Naam: ……… Leeftijd: ……… 1. De leraar doet wat extra's om zijn leerlingen te behagen.
a. een plezier te doen b. te trakteren c. te vermaken
2. Gewone lampen zenden licht uit dat sterk divergeert. a. afneemt
b. afwijkt c. uiteengaat
3. Door kleuren, materialen en vormen af te stemmen, ontstaat een harmonisch geheel. a. goed bij elkaar passend
b. goed klinkend c. zuiver
4. De infrastructuur van Rotterdam is dringend toe aan verbetering. a. de bewegwijzering
b. de plattegrond c. het wegennet
5. Met die actie verspeelt hij zijn krediet bij de directeur! a. geld
b. mogelijkheid c. vertrouwen
6. De reductie van het broeikaseffect is voor deze regering een belangrijk doel. a. de stopzetting
7. Consumenten vergelijken vaak de prijzen van producten. a. Mensen die producten kopen
b. Mensen die producten verkopen c. Mensen die zuinig zijn
8. Hij is onder meer bekend van televisie. a. alleen
b. ook c. vooral
9. Het is een must om die film te zien.
a. Het is een film die je echt moet zien. b. Het is een film die leuk is om te zien. c. Het is een film die spannend is om te zien. 10. Je moet je vriendin niet zo verheerlijken.
a. begroeten b. behandelen c. prijzen
11. De leerlingen moeten de planten determineren. a. de planten snoeien
b. de planten natekenen
c. de naam van de plant vaststellen 12. Wat heb jij achtereenvolgens gedaan?
a. daarna
b. de afgelopen tijd c. na elkaar
13. Hoe moeten studenten deze tekst interpreteren? a. omschrijven
b. onthouden c. opvatten
14. De uitkomst van de proef is aannemelijk. a. zoals verwacht
b. belangrijk c. positief
15. Wat wordt er gedaan met de relevante gegevens? a. onbenullige
16. Meneer Jansen heeft baanbrekend onderzoek gedaan. a. vernieuwend
b. gevaarlijk c. moeilijk
17. De opzet van het onderzoek is goed. a. de bedoeling
b. het plan c. de stijl
18. Zij trachten te bewijzen dat die botten heel oud zijn. a. proberen
b. hopen c. denken
19. De verscheidenheid aan schroeven is groot. a. Er zijn veel schroeven.
b. Er zijn veel verschillende schroeven. c. Er zijn weinig schroeven.
20. Laten we systematisch te werk gaan. a. met een computersysteem b. stap voor stap
c. netjes
21. Kunnen wij het dossier inzien inzake de verdachte? a. samen met
b. zonder c. aangaande
22. Wil jij het gedicht analyseren? a. ontleden
b. voordragen c. herschrijven
23. Wat is de procedure bij het aanvragen van een paspoort? a. regelgeving
b. tijdsduur c. gang van zaken
24. Waarschijnlijk kun je de regels vinden in die sectie. a. dat deel
25. De knikkers zijn aselect gekozen. a. op grootte
b. willekeurig c. onjuist
26. Je kunt contact opnemen met de afdelingen in district Noord. a. gebied
b. gebouw c. kantoor
27. De vergadering zorgde voor veel beroering. a. vreugde
b. onrust c. agressie
28. Zorg ervoor dat het feest niet escaleert voordat ik er ben! a. stopt
b. start
c. uit de hand loopt
29. Het is van groot belang dat de arts efficiënt met tijd omgaat. a. nauwkeurig
b. effectief c. juist
30. Als we zo doorgaan, kunnen we de voorraden uitputten. a. opmaken
b. aanvullen c. gebruiken
31. Stuur het concept maar op. a. kladversie
b. eindversie c. samenvatting
32. Voor deze leerlingen zullen sancties volgen. a. regels
b. verplichtingen c. straffen
33. Marijn schreef een beknopt verslag van de vergadering. a. duidelijk
34. De twee toetsen zijn identiek. a. van hoog niveau b. uniek
c. precies gelijk
35. Hij was verrukt van harde muziek. a. Hij werd er gek van.
b. Hij was er enthousiast over. c. Hij werd er boos van.
36. Er was dit seizoen veel tumult binnen de club. a. onbegrip
b. ziekte c. opschudding
37. Harry behandelt de urgente zaken op zijn werk. a. spoedeisende
b. kleine c. langlopende
38. Na vijf jaar voelt hij geen rancune meer. a. angst
b. pijn c. haat
39. Er zijn veel indicaties dat deze methode werkt. a. vermoedens
b. bewijzen c. aanwijzingen
40. Op de beurs waren veel potentiële klanten. a. mogelijke
b. rijke c. ervaren
41. De jongen voelt genegenheid voor zijn nichtje. a. Hij is gesteld op zijn nichtje.
b. Hij is woedend op zijn nichtje. c. Hij heeft een afkeer van zijn nichtje. 42. Onbekommerd hebben ze de dieren achtergelaten.
43. Dat bewijs is onomstotelijk. a. oncontroleerbaar b. onweerlegbaar c. niet rechtsgeldig
44. Er zullen altijd onvolkomenheden zijn. a. mankementen
b. onverwachte zaken c. onwaarheden
45. Hij heeft dat gezegd in een opwelling. a. Hij had er niet over nagedacht. b. Hij zei het toen hij kwaad was. c. Hij zei het uit verdriet.
46. De geavanceerde technologie biedt veel mogelijkheden. a. uitgebreide
b. ver ontwikkelde c. medische
47. Heb jij affiniteit met taal? a. Ben je er goed in? b. Heb je er interesse in? c. Vind je het moeilijk?
48. Dat doet hij op een manier, zoals het een echte heer betaamt. a. zoals een heer dat behoort te doen
b. zoals een heer dat meestal doet c. zoals een heer dat nooit zou doen 49. De laatste twee zinnen moet je elimineren.
a. onderstrepen b. verwijderen c. inkorten
50. Johan weigerde te capituleren. a. Hij wilde zich niet overgeven. b. Hij wilde zijn kapitaal niet delen. c. Hij wilde niet samenwerken.
Appendix C: List of pictures in English picture naming task
File name Dominant name Name agreement Frequency Syllable length Word length
Appendix D: List of pictures in Dutch picture naming task
File name Dominant name Name agreement Frequency Syllable length Word length
