Educafl 2022. Vol 5 No 2
Doi: 110.21776/ub.educafl.2022.005.02.07
EFL Learners’ Morphological Awareness and Lexical Knowledge (a Correlational Study)
Muhammad Andrean Syahsurya Kazan Federal University, Russia
msyakhsurya@stud.kpfu.ru
Russia
Article Info ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received July 25, 2022 Revised Dec 12, 2022 Accepted Dec 18, 2022
Lexis or vocabulary is one of the important components of the language. Without knowing the vocabulary, learners of a language cannot be able to understand the language itself because vocabulary establishes the frame of language. It is important for learners to enhance their lexical knowledge.
Morphological awareness has significant role on the lexical knowledge. This study aims to find out the correlation between morphological awareness and lexical knowledge among Indonesian EFL learners who possess Indonesian language as their first language. Indonesian is an agglutinative language which relies much on prefix and suffix. This study employs quantitative approach with correlation statistics design. The participants of this study are 89 first-year students of English Language Education Program Universitas Brawijaya. The findings revealed that the majority of the participants are in the medium level of morphological awareness and lexical knowledge. The findings show that there is a significant correlation between morphological awareness and lexical knowledge with .842 correlation degrees. Learners with high morphological awareness will have high lexical knowledge. The relationship applies in Indonesian EFL learners who possess Indonesian language as their first language that belongs to agglutinative language which contains several morphemes per word. It is suggested for the future researchers to look greater depth into morphological awareness and lexical knowledge in causal relationship.
Keywords:
Morphological Awareness, Lexical Knowledge, EFL Learners
Corresponding Author:
Muhammad Andrean Syahsurya Kazan Federal University, Russia
msyakhsurya@stud.kpfu.ru
Russia
1. INTRODUCTION
Lexis or vocabulary is one of the important components of the language. Without knowing the vocabulary, learners of a language cannot be able to understand the language itself because vocabulary establishes the frame of language. Vocabulary plays an important role in language learning since it is considered as the central aspect of language affecting the L2 fluency (Kaweera, 2013; Jornlin, 2015). Additionally, the threshold necessary to tap other language skills is the knowledge of around 3000-word families (Nation, 1993). Without this threshold, learners confront problems in understanding the language they are exposed to (Alderson and Banerjee, 2002).
Therefore, it is important for learners to enhance their vocabulary knowledge as Ellis (1997) stated that vocabulary knowledge is an indicator of learners’ discourse comprehension which grants grammatical rules to be patterned in learners’ minds. Nevertheless, there are various problems faced by Indonesian EFL learners to master new vocabulary, one of them comes from the grammatical aspect. Umam & Mubarok (2014) found that learners are struggling to decompose derived word form.
In terms of morphology, derivation is the process of forming a new word from an existing word by adding a prefix or suffix to the word root (Crystal, 2008; Maag, 2007). Bertram (2000) stated that derivational morphology has a significant role in the vocabulary knowledge since learners’
understanding about prefix and suffix in English assists learners to determine word meanings.
Therefore, the knowledge of morphology is important for EFL learners to enhance lexical knowledge.
Morphological awareness is defined as the ability to reflect on and manipulate morphological units in word structures according to Carlisle (2003). Al Farsi (2008) stated that there is increasing interest in morphological awareness as a crucial dimension of vocabulary knowledge. A key to the component to be able to acquire and understand new vocabulary is the understanding of how every word is created. The word formation process employs derivation process in which morphological process is involved. With morphological awareness, learners are able to identify morphemes, the smallest unit of meaning which constructs words (Freitas, 2018), and morphemic boundaries by disassembling complex word into meaningful parts (e.g. childhoods = child + hood + s), learning the meanings of roots, affixes (child = baby, -hood = state of being, -s = to indicate plural nouns) and reassembling the meaningful parts into new meanings (motherhood, fatherhood, brotherhood). This process of dissembling and reassembling is called morphological analysis (Al Farsi, 2008). Moreover, if learners acquire and understand that a word contains morphemes, they can be able to determine words although they have not seen those words (Tarat, 2019). Therefore, morphological awareness is progressively significant as a substantial predictor of vocabulary knowledge (McBride, 2009). It can be inferred that learners who pose morphological awareness are able to extract and understand words although those words are unfamiliar to them. It implies that lexical knowledge links to morphological awareness.
Morphological awareness relates to language acquisition as it leads to literacy skills as well as vocabulary knowledge. Deacon et al (2014) found that morphological awareness impacts reading comprehension directly and indirectly through the language systems. Osborne and Mulling (2001) found that Spanish-speaking ESL learners have limited knowledge of English inflectional and derivational morphology. This finding conveys that there is a negative effect of lacking morphological awareness towards English vocabulary acquisition of Spanish-speaking ESL learners.
Tarat (2019) also found that a sufficient level of Thai EFL learners’ morphological awareness allows them to have vocabulary knowledge of English. The major participants could separate words into morphemes correctly although they have not seen those words. A study conducted by Choi (2015) revealed that L2 morphological awareness affects L2 reading comprehension since Korean EFL learners struggling in decoding new words. It implies that inflectional and derivational morphological
processing is problematic since the process of L2 vocabulary acquisition is affected by L2 morphological awareness. Moreover, research conducted by Masrai (2016) found that there are some significant relationships between regular inflection form and derivation knowledge and L2 lexical knowledge among Arabic EFL learners as they face difficulties to extract irregular base words.
Afore mentioned discussion related to the relation of EFL learners on English morphology and their mastery of English Vocabulary from various countries. English and Indonesian share different characteristics. Both languages involve different morphological processing because they are not in the same language family. English is an analytical and fusional language while Indonesian is an agglutinative language which relies much on prefix and suffix. These different language characteristics might interference learners in processing L2 morphology. Thus, this study aims to find the relationship between morphological awareness and lexical knowledge of Indonesian EFL learners.
Morphological Awareness
Morphological Awareness is defined by Carlisle (1995:194) as the conscious awareness of the morphemic structure of words and their ability to reflect on and manipulate that structure. Similarly, morphological awareness is also defined as the learners’ ability to analyze the smallest unit which is morpheme of word structure according to (Berninger, Abbott, Nagy, & Carlisle, 2010). According to McCutchen and Stull (2015), morphological awareness is an insight of metalinguistic which means that words can be isolated into small meaningful units. Meanwhile, Kuo and Anderson (2006) defined morphological awareness as the knowledge about the sound and meaning pairing in a particular language and the rules for the formation of word which govern the possible combination of morphemes. In addition, Bellomo (2009: 45) argued that morphological analysis, then, is the process of breaking down morphologically complex words into their constituent morphemes which means word meaning parts. It means that morphological awareness refers to the ability to analyze, identify, and break words down into morphological units or morphemes. These definitions accommodated by several experts somehow illustrate that learners who have morphological awareness might be aware of the relationship between the word „grate‟ and suffix –ful. Thus, it is expected that they might understand the parallel to other words with suffix –ful such as wonderful, beautiful, etc.
Lexical Knowledge
Lexical knowledge is defined as the sum of interrelated sub-knowledge or a continuum consists of several levels of knowledge starting with superficial familiarity with the word and ending with the ability to use the word correctly in language production (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004). In addition, lexical knowledge is also often considered as a crucial tool for second language learners because a limited lexis in second language disrupts successful communication. Therefore, if learners are not exposed to a systematic lexical knowledge, their vocabulary or lexical size will not expand (Alqahtani, 2015; Caro & Mendinueta, 2017).
Measuring Morphological Awareness
Studies of morphological awareness development have employed a variety of tasks to measure this important skill. The major types are judgement task, production task, and identification task. A large number of investigations have included judgement task in which learners are asked to make decision about the relation between two words (e.g., “does moth come from the word mother?”) this task typically needs a yes or no answer (Berninger, 2010; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Nagy et al; 2006).
Judgement in semantic accuracy is also involved. It typically uses multiple-choice items (e.g.,
“direct, directing, directions, directed. Did you hear the ____?). In addition, the production task is also involved to measure morphological awareness. The commonly used production task includes a cloze procedure (e.g., “Teach. Mr Smith is a ____). In the example, student is provided by the root word ‘teach’ and then they are asked to answer the blank sentence by providing the correct derived
form that is ‟teacher‟. Broad of research has reported the results on morphological awareness test.
One of the test is developed by Coggins (2016) by combining the test used by several research (Mahony et al, 2000; Goodwin et al, 2013; Carlisle, 2000).
Measuring Lexical Knowledge
An attempt to undertake the measurement of lexical knowledge is represented by The Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 1983). This instrument is designed to assess knowledge of vocabulary. It includes samples of words at four frequency levels which are 2.000 words, 3000 words, 5000 words, and 10.000 words. Those words were selected on the basis of the frequency data with cross-checking against the General Several lists for the 2000 word level (Thorndike & Lorge, 1994; Kucera &
Francis, 1967). The test involves a word-definition matching format. (e.g, 1. Birth; 2. Dust; 3.
Operation; 4. Row; 5. Sport; 6. Victory. ___ game, ___ winning, ___ being born.) At each of the levels, there are 60 words and 30 definitions. All of the words in each group are in the same part of speech in order to avoid giving any clues to meaning based on form. The test has been proved to be a very useful tool to measure lexical knowledge (Read, 1988). It measures knowledge of written form, and the form-meaning connection. The test also measures learners’ breadth lexical knowledge that deals with the quantity of words that learners know.
2. METHODS
The research design used in this research is correlational statistics design. Correlational research design is a design used to investigate and measure the relationship between two or more variables. In this design, the researcher does not attempt to control or manipulate the variables, but relate the variables using the correlation statistic (Creswell, 2012:338). This research employs two continuous variables. Continuous variables are variables which can take on quantitatively different values even in decimal points. The first variable of this research is learners’ English morphological awareness (EMA) and the second variable is learners’ English lexical knowledge (ELK). This research applies quantitative approach because correlational research design is under the umbrella of the quantitative approach. Quantitative approach is based on the measurement of quantity or amount. It applies to the phenomenon which can be expressed in terms of quantity. It means that the researcher will analyze the data which is statistically collected to gain the findings.
In this research, the researcher chooses the first-year students of English Language Education Program in Universitas Brawijaya as the participants because the participants have not attended English Morphology class so it is assumed that they are less exposed to English morphological knowledge so it is inferred that they will score better if they have known some knowledge on morphological units. There are 100 students who join the test as Creswell (2012) suggested that correlation study involves at least 30 participants but unfortunately there are only 89 data that can be used because some participants did not join one of the two tests. The data of this research is the score of students’ English morphological awareness and English lexical knowledge.
Test administration is done to collect the data of EMA and VLT scores of Indonesian EFL learners.
The test was administered at a different time to avoid the bias of the score result. The first test is EMA test which was administered on October 28, 29, and 30, 2019 online in the classroom with 60 minutes for 78 items due to the technical consideration because the lecturer of the class allowed the researcher to administer the test in 60 minutes. The second test is printed VLT which was administered on November, 13 – 15, 2019 in the classroom with 60 minutes for 120 items due to the technical consideration as the lecturer of the class provided 60 minutes for the researcher to
administer the test.
Data analysis employs descriptive and correlational statistics using SPSS. The descriptive statistics is used to know the summary of EFL learners EMA and ELK in general. The correlational statistics is used to measure the correlation between learners’ morphological awareness and learners’ lexical knowledge, this research used Pearson Correlation Coefficient technique or commonly known as Pearson Product Moment Correlation. The correlation statistics is analyzed by using correlation statistics calculation in SPSS to calculate the data for deciding whether there is a correlation between morphological awareness and lexical knowledge.
3. RESULTS/FINDINGS
EFL learners’ Morphological Awareness
The descriptive data of EMA covers the interpretation of data to see the summary of EFL learners’
EMA and the data categorization to show the category of EMA of the English Language Education Program Universitas Brawijaya. Here is the table that shows the descriptive statistics of EFL Learners Morphological Awareness:
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of EFL Learners Morphological Awareness
According to the table, it revealed that the mean score of EFL Learners Morphological Awareness is 31.3 and the SD (Standard Deviation) is 12.1 with the minimum score is 18 out of 100 and the highest score is 66 out of the total score 100. The level of EFL Learners Morphological Awareness is categorized into poor, medium, and advanced level using hypothetical statistics that is used to categorize the data into low, medium, high Azwar (1993). The level is categorized as an advanced level if the mean is higher than 43.4 and categorized as poor if the mean is lower than 19.2. The categorization is shown below:
Table 2. The level of EFL Learners Morphological Awareness
According to the table, 1 % of the participant is on the poor level with a score ranging between 10 and 19, 83 % of participants are on the medium level with scores ranging between 20 and 42, and 16% of participants with scores ranging between 43 and 66 are on the advance level of EMA.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
MA 89 18 66 31.30 12.141
Valid N (listwise)
89
Category Frequency Percentage
Poor 1 1%
Medium 74 83%
Advanced 14 16%
EFL learners’ Lexical Knowledge
The level of EFL Learners Lexical Knowledge is also categorized into poor, medium, advanced level using hypothetical statistics. Data categorization is determined based on the data calculation done by using SPSS with the same formula used to categorize the level of EFL Learners Morphological Awareness. Here is the table that shows EFL Learners Lexical Knowledge:
Table 3. EFL Learners Lexical Knowledge
According to the table, it revealed that the mean score of EFL Learners Lexical Knowledge is 48.9 with the SD (Standard Deviation) is 15.4. It also revealed that the highest score is 95 out of 100 and the lowest score is 25 out of 100. The level is categorized as an advanced level if the mean score is higher than 64.3 and categorized as poor if the mean score is lower than 33.9. The categorization is shown below:
Table 4. The Categorization of EFL Learners Lexical Knowledge
According to the table, 9% of the participant is on the poor level with scores ranging between 10 and 32, 72 % of participants are on the medium level with scores ranging between 33 and 63, and 19% of participants with scores ranging between 64 and 95 are on the advanced level of EMA.
The Relationship of Morphological Awareness and Lexical Knowledge
Involving 89 EFL learners, this research aims to find the correlation between Morphological Awareness and Lexical knowledge. The findings show that the correlation between two variables which are Morphological Awareness and Lexical Knowledge among EFL learners performs significant results. A significant correlation between Morphological Awareness and Lexical Knowledge is shown in the table below.
Table 5. The Significant Correlation between Morphological Awareness and Lexical Knowledge Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
LK 89 25 95 48.96 15.424
Valid N (listwise) 89
Category Frequency Percentage
Poor 8 9%
Medium 64 72%
Advanced 19 19%
As seen in the table above, it can be concluded that the correlation coefficient between Morphological Awareness (X) and Lexical Knowledge (Y) is .842 categorized having high correlation as the correlation considered significant at the level 0.01. While the P values is .000<0.05 which shows that the two variables show significant correlation. The results accept the Alternative Hypothesis (H1) that there is a significant relationship between morphological awareness and lexical knowledge.
4. DISCUSSION
In some non- English speaking country, English mastery is still challenging. Learning English as a foreign language is apparently affected by the differences between the first language and the second language. One of the important aspects in learning foreign language is lexis or vocabulary. Learners cannot be able to acquire a new language successfully if they are lack of vocabulary because vocabulary itself is the battery of a language. It is important for learners to have sufficient understanding of lexical knowledge because it is significant in foreign language learning as it assists learners to enhance their vocabulary acquisition. One of the factors contributing to gain lexical knowledge is morphological awareness.
Broad researches show that English Morphological Awareness is influential to contribute to English Lexical Knowledge. The first previous study conducted by Tarat (2019) found that Morphological Awareness influences Thai EFL Learners Lexical Knowledge. This finding indicates that the development of Lexical Knowledge seemed to be related with Morphological Awareness in a specific and predictable way. The learners’ understanding of their Morphological Awareness contributes to their ability to process lexical acquisition and lexical knowledge. According to McBride-Chang et al (2005), Morphological Awareness could apparently predict the ability in perceiving lexis and lexical knowledge on Chinese EFL Learners. Similarly, the research conducted by Zhang & Koda (2013) also revealed that Morphological Awareness allows Chinese EFL Learners to understand and acquire new words to be utilized in reading and writing successfully. Moreover, Alsaeedi (2017) found that Arabic EFL Learners with a better understanding on morphological units have better improvisation towards lexical knowledge. In addition, Wolter & Pike (2015) also found that learners can reflect on knowing morphological units and they can successfully infer the meaning of new unknown words. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant relationship between Morphological Awareness and Lexical Knowledge.
The aforementioned research involved EFL learners from various countries. Does it apply to the Indonesian EFL Learners? This research deals with the correlation between Morphological Awareness and Lexical Knowledge which reveal interesting findings. The findings which involve 89 students of English Language Education Program show a significant result with the correlation coefficient .842 and P Value .000. The finding of this research replicates the previous study conducted by Tarat (2019) involving Thai EFL Learners. In this study, 1% of the participant is on the poor level, 83% of the participants are on the medium level, 16% of the participants are on the advanced level of EMA. It can be concluded that the majority of the participants are on the medium level of EMA.
It applies the same way as the previous study involving Thai EFL learners that the majority of the participants (55%) is on the medium level. Thai EFL learners could separate words into morphemes while in this study Indonesian EFL learners could identify the morphemes in the form of affixes because the instrument did not require learners to separate the words into morphemes. Based on the result of the present research, it can be discussed that EMA links to the ELK. In other words, there is a significant relationship between EMA and ELK. It means that learners with high morphological awareness will have high lexical knowledge. The results of this research are consistent with several
studies investigated the relationship between EMA and ELK of EFL Learners as this present study is conducted in the EFL context.
It is concluded that morphological awareness of EFL is relatable to their lexical knowledge as it is beneficial for EFL Learners than memorizing the meaning of the words because once learners understand how to identify morphological units, how to derive and decompose words, they can make up new unknown words and guess the meaning of new or unfamiliar vocabulary. Thus, morphological awareness helps learners to memorize the meaning of newly acquired words. If learners know the meaning of English Affixes, then they can guess the meaning of the derived form. For example, if learners know the meaning of –ee, then they can guess that the word ‘examinee’ is the person who is being examined.
Additionally, Lam et al (2012) revealed that lexical knowledge had a significant relationship with derivational morphological awareness among Korean EFL Learners. It is similar to the result of this study that knowledge about derivational morphology is related to lexical knowledge of Indonesian EFL learners. Moreover, lexical knowledge can be elaborated by higher degrees of metalinguistic awareness which includes explicit knowledge of morphological segments according to Hayashi &
Murphy (2011).
Previous research reported that EMA and ELK perform significant relationship in Thai EFL learners, Arabic EFL learners, and Korean EFL learners though it performs different correlation degrees. Thai EFL learners perform .560 correlation degrees, Arabic EFL learners perform .613 correlation degrees, and Indonesian EFL learners perform .842 correlation degrees. Language typology seems affecting the relation between EMA and ELK in EFL learners.
It applies differently in the different language typology. There is a significant relationship between EMA and ELK in Thai EFL learners who possess Thai as their first language, Thai is an analytical language which contains low morpheme per word. EMA and ELK also have relationship in Indonesian EFL learners who possess Indonesian language as their first language, Indonesian is an agglutinative language that contains several morphemes per word and tend to have a high number of morphemes per word. While in Arabic EFL learners, only inflection processing that has relationship on vocabulary as Arabic is a fusional language that employs much inflectional process to denote grammatical, syntactic, or semantic features. On the other hand, only derivational processing that has relationship with lexical knowledge because the test did not employ task that contains inflectional process. In addition, the majority of the participants are on the medium level of ELK. It means that they are on the 3000-word until 6000-word level. The relationship applies in three language typologies though there are differences on affixation process in every language.
5. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, English Language Education Program Universitas Brawijaya involved as the participants in this study have a sufficient level of EMA which enables them to have ELK. The relationship between EMA and ELK is considered significant in Indonesian EFL learners who possess Indonesian language as their first language that belongs to agglutinative language which contains several morphemes per word. The majority of the participants is on the medium level of EMA and ELK. EMA appears to be an important factor contributing to ELK. It indicates that the awareness towards morphological units of EFL Learners will significantly relate to their ELK. Learners should enhance their EMA in order to have sufficient understanding towards ELK. The relationship between
EMA and ELK applies although they are differences in language typologies.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Alderson, J. C., & Banerjee, J. (2002). Language testing and assessment (Part 2). Language Teaching, 35, 79-113.
[2] Alsaeedi, Wugud A. (2017). The Role of Morphological Awareness in Vocabulary Acquisition in English of Saudi EFL Learners. Seattle Pacific Library.
[3] Alquahtani, M. (2015). The importance of vocabulary in language learning and how to be taught. International Journal of Teaching and Education 3.3, 21-34.
[4] Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39, 141–163.
[5] Barcroft, J., Schmitt, N., & Sunderman, G. (2011). Lexis. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics (p. 571-583). Abingdon, UK / New York: Routledge.
[6] Bellomo, T.S. (2009) Morphological analysis as a vocabulary strategy for L1 and L2 college preparatory students. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. 13(3).
[7] Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291–332.
[8] Caro, Keiby. Mendinueta, Nayibe Rosado. (2017). Lexis, Lexical Competence and Lexical Knowledge: A Review.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 205-213.
[9] Coggins, J. V. (2016). Measurement of Morphological Awareness of Fourth Grade and Fifth Grade Students with Reading Difficulties. Retrieved from https://jewlscholar.mtsu.edu/handle/mtsu/4988
[10] Crystal, David. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/23349059/A_Dictionary_of_Linguistics_and_Phonetics_David_Crystal
[11] Choi, T-H. (2015). The impact of the teaching English through English’ policy on teachers and teaching in South Korea, Current Issues in Language Planning, 16.3, 201-220.
[12] Chapelle, C.A. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In Bachman, L.F. and Cohen, A.D.
(Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
[13] Creswell, John W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson.
[14] Ellis, N. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: word structure, collocation, word-class and meaning. In N. Schmitt & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (122-139). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[15] Finegan, E. (2008). Language: Its Structures and Use. Boston: Wadsworth.
[16] Freitas Junior, P. V., Mota, M. M. P. E., & Deacon, S. H. (2018). Morphological awareness, word reading and reading comprehension in Portuguese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39.3, 507-525
[17] Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics 11.4, 341–
363.
[18] Hayashi, Y., & Murphy, V. (2011). An investigation of morphological awareness in Japanese learners of English.
Language Learning Journal, 39.1, 105-120.
[19] Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3, 303- 317.
[20] Jornlin, Michael. (2015). The Role of Morphological Awareness in Vocabulary Acquisition. Langues et Linguistique, 35, p. 57 – 63
[21] Kamil, M., & Hiebert, E. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary: Perspectives and persistent issues. In E. H. Hiebert and M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 1–23). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
[22] Kaweera, C. (2013). Writing error: A review of interlingual and intralingual interference in EFL context. English Language Teaching, 6(7), 9-18.
[23] Lam, K., Chen, X., Geva, E., Luo, Y. L., & Li, H. (2012). The role of morphological awareness in reading achievement among young Chinese-speaking English language learners: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 25, 1847-1872.
[24] Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness.
Language Learning, 54.3, 399-436.
[25] Linse, C., & Nunan, David. (2005). Practical English language teaching: young learners. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill/Contemporary.
[26] Maag, Lisa Kay. (2007). Measuring Morphological Awareness in Adult Readers:Implications for Vocabulary Development
[27] Masrai, A. (2016). The influence of morphological knowledge on lexical processing and acquisition: The case of Arab
EFL learners. Ampersand, 3, 52-60.
[28] Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and writing, 12(3), 191-218
[29] McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W. -Y., & Shu, H. (2005). The role of morphological awareness in children's vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26.3, 415-435.
[30] McBride-Chang, C., Tong, X., Wong, A. M-Y. (2009) Morphological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and spelling errors: Keys to understanding early Chinese literacy acquisition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13.5, 426-452.
[31] McCutchen, D., & Stull, S. (2015). Morphological awareness and children's writing: Accuracy, error, and invention.
Reading and Writing, 28.2, 271-289.
[32] Miller, G. (1999). On knowing a word. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1999. 50, 1-19.
[33] Milton J. Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Multilingual Matters; 2009.
[34] Moghadam, S., Zaidah, Z., & Ghaderpour, M. (2012). A review on the important role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 66, 555-563.
[35] Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English?. Reading Research Quarterly, 19.3, 304-330.
[36] Nation, I. S. P. (1990a). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
[37] Nation, I.S.P. (1993.) Vocabulary size, growth and use. In. R. Schreuder, & B. Weltens (Eds). The bilingual lexicon (115-134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[38] Nation ISP. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
[39] Osborne, A., & Mulling, S. (2001). Use of morphological awareness by Spanish L1 ESOL learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 153-159.
[40] Qian, D.D. (1998). Depth of vocabulary knowledge: assessing its role in adults' reading comprehension in English as a second language (doctoral thesis). University of Toronto, Canada.
[41] Qian, D.D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance:
an assessment perspective. Language Learning 52. 3, 513–536.
[42] Read J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing; 10. 3, 355-371.
[43] Richards, J. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. Tesol Quarterly. 10. 1, 77-89.
[44] Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics (4th edition).
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
[45] Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. SSLA, 20, 17-36.
[46] Shen, Z. (2008). The Roles of Depth and Breadth of Vocabulary Knowledge in EFL Reading Performance. Asian Social Science. 12, 135-137.
[47] Tarat, Sarunya. (2019). The Relationship between Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary Knowledge of Thai EFL Students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 34-39.
[48] Wolter, J.A., & Pike, K. (2015). Dynamic assessment of morphological awareness and third-grade literacy success.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 112-126.
[49] Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2013). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension in a foreign language: A study of young Chinese EFL learners. System, 41, 901-913
