User:Keithcheng27/sandbox

Introduction
A critical review of Fitzpatrick and Izura, 2011, Word Association in L1 and L2: An Exploratory Study of Response Types, Response Times, and Interlingual Mediation. This topic is related to the Second Language Acquisition, which focus on the word association in L1 and L2. The two authors should be working in the Swansea University, because the paper provided the name and address of this university. Moreover, these two authors may not have a high authority, because this article had been reviewed by the editor and other five SSLA reviewers. Nonetheless, the audiences of this paper are researchers and teachers, who are interested in the field of Second Language Acquisition.

Body

 * To begin with, the authors intended to discuss the word association in Spanish (L1) and English (L2), which measured by response types, response times and interlingual mediation. According to Fitzpatrick and Izura (2011), there is a connection between the response latencies and types of associative response. Therefore, speaker may respond quickly in some response type.


 * Secondly, the authors tried to build on past research. They included other past research towards this issue in the article, which those articles have different point of views towards word association in L1 and L2. Moreover, the main research that the authors emphasized on is the revised hierarchical model from Kroll and Stewarts in 1994. This is due to the model is related to one of the main objectives in this article, which is mediation of L2 responses through the L1.

As for the research objective, it has been stated clearly in this article. According to Fitzpatrick and Izura (2011), they want to find out the speed difference of response types and whether the participants’ L2 associations were mediated through the L1. As for the define terms and definitions, the paper provided some define terms or definitions. There is a table to show the categories and descriptions, which it helps readers to understand the types of word associations and descriptions. However, there is some exceptional case, which the authors did not provide enough explanation for some abstract terms, such as “prime”, the authors only provide some example but without any definition. Therefore some of the abstract terms need to provide more definition, so that readers can fully understand the concept.

As for the referencing, the references were enough for this research article. There were over 30 references in the reference section. For a research article, the quantity of references is enough. However, the quality of the reference may need to improve. Although some of the articles are recent, for example, some of them were written in 2008 or 2009, there are some articles are out-dated. The authors include articles which were written in 1966 and the 1980s. As a result, some of the evidence were not strong enough, due to some of the articles were too old. Therefore the authors should exclude those old articles. Most of the references are being used to support authors’ ideas. For example the Kroll and Stewart’s (1994) revised hierarchical model.

Moreover, the methodology of this research article was being included. This is a qualitative research, which only contained 24 native Spanish speakers. The authors mentioned the subjects used in this research, which also included the selection of the participants. Another point, the authors have discussed the factors that may affect the research, such as naming errors and computer failure. Furthermore, the measuring result procedures have been stated in the procedure part, which the authors have clearly talked about the way to conduct this research, and the measuring scheme was appropriate for this research. However, there is a limitation for the selection of participants. This is due to most of the participants were females, thus the result may not be objective enough for both sexes.

In addition, tables and graphs have been used to present the tests result from the participants. However, there are some weaknesses in table. In this article, table 3 and 4 are used to mention the result of time difference and response time, but the authors used numbers and equations to indicate the result. Therefore they are also difficult for readers to understand. Moreover, those equations and tables are unnecessary, because those data could be presented in words. Despite the weaknesses in tables, the graphs are necessary. The graphs in this article are useful in illustrating the data, because they can simplify the tests result, and they can help to compare different tests result.

All in all, the authors’ main findings and conclusions are provided at the end of the article. The main findings are if L1 and L2 speakers respond to more than one type of activation route the quickest, whereas nonequivalent meaning link to a cue word is the slowest (Fitzpatrick & Izura, 2011). Secondly, L2 response times became smaller because of proficiency increased (Fitzpatrick & Izura, 2011). Lastly, L2 word associations are reconciled through L1 translation counterparts (Fitzpatrick & Izura, 2011). These main findings and conclusion were supported by authors’ findings, which the data in this article shows the difference. Furthermore, the findings in this paper can also support the Kroll and Stewarts’s (1994) development model of SLA (Fitzpatrick & Izura, 2011).

Nevertheless, the authors’ have achieved their objectives in the article. The findings of the article have proved that the speed difference of response types and L2 associations were mediated through the L1. Another point, the authors also suggested further research and discussion in this area. Although those research findings broadly support Kroll and Stewarts’s (1994) revised hierarchical model, there are still some areas need further discussion, such as new approaches to modeling and understanding the bilingual lexicon (Fitzpatrick & Izura, 2011).

Conclusion
To conclude, the article may need to improve in some areas, such as referencing, the method of presenting data, and the selection of participants. However, overall this is an exploratory study, which the authors have proven the issue appears among L1 speakers.