The etymology of modern English vocabulary content introduction

Subject of the work: This paper will deal with yet another factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning which will be referred to as 'deceptive transparency'. Though de-ceptively transparent words can be problematic both in comprehension and in production, this paper will focus on deceptive transparency as a factor of dif-ficulty in reading comprehension only. In section two of the paper, deceptively transparent words will be defined and classified; in section three, an experiment will de described which tested several hypotheses about
deceptively transparent words.[1]
Chapter I. A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: deceptive transparency
Ullman discusses three types of transparent words¹. The most frequent
ones are morphologically transparent words (or morphologically motivated) those words whose meaning can be determined from the meanings of their parts, e.g. 'doorman', 'unavoidable'. The second type includes words whose sense can be understood from the sound form e.g 'bang', 'snore', 'crack'. These are the onomatopoeic words, the ones that are phonologically motivated. The third type of transparent words are the semantically motivated ones, whose figurative meaning can be understood from their relation to the literal meaning, e.g. 'coat of paint', 'jacket potato'.
If the above definitions of transparent words are considered from the point of
view of understanding words in non-native languages, they are in-complete, since the clues of interpretation in Ullman are intralingual only. In the attempt to detect the meaning of a word in a foreign language, readers/listeners will often use inter-lingual clues, or a combination of intra- and inter-lingual clues
Thus, a word can be transparent because of its resemblance to its translation equivalent in another language familiar to reader/listener (whether it is his/her LI, or not), e.g. 'liberte'is transparent to anyone who is familiar with the english 'liberty'. A word can also be transparent if a part of it resembles a familiar word in an-other language and another part is meaningful in the language of the new word, e.g. 'appeltje' in Dutch is transparent if you know 'apple' in English and the diminutive meaning of the suffix -tje in Dutch. Because of the different clues used in interpreting words in foreign lan-guages, I suggest that in the context of foreign language learning, words should be considered transparent if they can be interpreted on the basis of intra" and/or inter-lingual clues in the word itself.[2]
Deceptive Transparency While some new words in a foreign language may be genuinely trans-parent and may therefore be easy to understand and remember, others, on the other hand, only LOOK transparent but are not. For example, 'infallible' looks as though it were composed of in+fall+ible and meant 'something that cannot fall'; 'shortcomings' looks like a compound of 'short' and 'comings', meaning 'short visits'. 4 These words are therefore 'deceptively transparent'. We could define a deceptively transparent word as a word which seems to provide clues to its meaning but does not. Put differently, deceptively transparent words are words which learners think they know but they do not.
______________
^ Vygotskiy, Vann Parreren

1.