many students Outside the ESL classroom to feel at a literal loss for words'. (Judd 1978: 72). .... way of signalling attitude and negotiating conversational topic.
A HALL1DAYAN FRAMEWORK FOR VOCABULARY TEACHING - AN APPROACH TO ORGANISING THE LEXICAL CONTENT OF AN EFL SYLLABUS Peter J. Robinson Introduction: Syntax v. Lexicon Vocabulary teaching has not, until recently, been considered a priority area in language teaching and consequently there has been little debate about how the lexical content of a syllabus might be organized and defined. What discussion has taken place has generally been restricted to the role of word lists and frequency counts in specifying items to be taught. (See Meara 1980). The traditional features of a constituency based syntax have received much more attention as the basis of specifying the units of syllabus design; sentence structure, noun and verb phrases etc., and this is no doubt a reflection of the prevailing paradigm in linguistic theory which derives from Bloomfield and is central to Chomskyan linguistics. Twaddel (1973) speaks of the 'Chomskyan legacy that leads teachers to feel that only after basic syntax is totally mastered can massive vocabulary teaching begin' (1973: 61). Judd describes what he feels is still the current view, 'vocabulary has been relegated to secondary status in favor of syntax. It is felt that students need to master basic grammatical patterns first to gain both understanding and ability to communicate in English. Learning new words or phrases is often viewed as a hindrance to this task because such study distracts the learner from observing and using the syntactic patterns of the language.' (Judd 1978: 72). The view that vocabulary instruction is a means to a syntactic end, exemplification of syntactic structure by selecting from an impoverished lexicon, one in which words are chosen simply because they exemplify lexical categories, leads many students Outside the ESL classroom to feel at a literal loss for words'. (Judd 1978: 72). McCarthy (1984) suggests that although recent functionally oriented coursebooks have tried to move away from sentence learning beginners are still presented with clause or sentence level realisation of communictive function, *. . . the assumption that vocabulary should be kept to a minimum, that the lexical relations should be of minimal relevance in activities and exercises, and that structure should still be considered the indispensable framework for practice have prevailed' (McCarthy 1984: 12). McCarthy criticizes a number of textbooks which he characterizes as having a low lexical and a high grammatical priority. (O'Neill 1973; Hartley, Viney 1978; Abbs, Ay ton Freebairn 1975). He criticizes these materials for continuing the structural tradition of predominantly presenting words which enter into Hallidayan (1966) closed-system relations and which are then used in exercises to drill 'the paradigm of closed systems' (McCarthy 1984: 13). Where open-class words are introduced they are either selected on the basis of 'disponsibilite' (See Nation 1983) or used as examples for slot and filler practice, as exemplars of lexical categories which can fill out syntactic structures. In the light of these criticisms I propose to look at some recent developments and suggestions for the teaching of lexis, in particular I will be suggesting that it is possible to adopt a Hallidayan functional framework within which the general interpersonal, ideational and textual functions of lexis can be distinguished. Individual Variation. Judd argues that massive vocabulary instruction should begin as soon as possible in ESL programs at University level and since native speaker vocabularies continue to develop throughout their lifetimes and vary from individual to individual emphasis should be placed on building up the individual lexicon through knowledge of collocation and semantic fields. This requires multiple exposure to words so that the 'socio-linguistic parameters of a word or phrase can be learnt' (1978: 73). Rivers (1983) also stresses the individual variability of semantic networks
!uuuttthhheeennntttiiicccaaattteeeddd ||| pppeeettteeerrrrrr@@@ccclll...aaaoooyyyaaammmaaa...aaaccc...jjjppp DDDooowwwnnnllloooaaaddd DDDaaattteee ||| 111222///111000///111333 888:::333111 PPPMMM
230 IRAL, VOL. XXVI/3, AUGUST 1988 which cannot be taught in the sense of inculcated, 'selection for storage is an individual act of the learner', as are learning strategies; list-memorizing, word association, contextualization, reading and note-taking leading to frequency counting. Demonstrating range and coverage is important in providing learners with the basis for making adjustments within their own semantic fields. Pragmatics of Lexical Choice.
McCarthy (1984) stresses the need to develop awareness of the pragmatic potential or valency of lexical choice and suggests various substitution exercises which might demonstrate this, e.g. reduction of intensity can be achieved by substituting a lower scaleable item for a higher one. A: Was he furious? B: He was cross. Sense relations, he suggests, need to be shown to be in constant relation with each other in order to avoid presenting them as 'fossilized relationships within the language code.' (1984: 19). One way of doing this is to develop Cruse's (1977) insights into the pragmatics of lexical specificity. As we shall see, choice from an option which presents words of varying levels of specificity is often an important indicator of attitude and can be seen as fulfilling part of Halliday's interpersonal function embodying, call use of language to express social and personal relations, including all forms of the speaker's intrusion into the speech act'. (Halliday 1973: 41). Cruse is concerned with the question — what sort of factors determine which word will be chosen, what are the semantic/pragmatic consequences of selecting from a set like animal, dog, alsatian? In both the following cases it seem clear that 'dog' is the more neutral, unmarked choice:
{
alsatian dog animal
for a walk,
à alsatian. What's that in the garden? A(n) \ dog. ' ^ animal. Choice of the marked forms — animal, alsatian — calls for special contextual features because they carry implicatures. However Grice's co-operative principle (1975) is not apparently useful here. Following the maxim of quantity, and assuming the family only has one household pet, choice of 'dog' is too specific, it carries more than the necessary information - 'animal' would appear to be a more Gricean choice. The restriction can be explained by reference to Brown's (1965) observation that in acquisition of word meaning the usual name of a thing.'categorizes at the level of maximum utility' (Brown 1965: 84) i.e. it is more usual that the fact that an alsatian belongs to a class of dogs is important than the fact it belongs to a class of alsatians or animals. This fits in with Rosch's observation that 'basic level concepts' are most usually coded as prototypes, (best examples of category membership), because they retain more features in common with - more of a family resemblance to» - other members of the category. (See Rosch 1973. 1977; Anglin 1977). If we accept that 'dog' is the natural category, or basic level concept, and so constitutes what Cruse calls the 'neutral level of specificity' or unmarked form, then Grice's maxim of quantity can take this as a point of departure for explaining the implicatures generated by the marked forms. !uuuttthhheeennntttiiicccaaattteeeddd ||| pppeeettteeerrrrrr@@@ccclll...aaaoooyyyaaammmaaa...aaaccc...jjjppp DDDooowwwnnnllloooaaaddd DDDaaattteee ||| 111222///111000///111333 888:::333111 PPPMMM
NOTES AND DISCUSSION 231 This area of lexical knowledge, as can be seen from the description above, necessitates developing awareness of the sense relations of superordinate to hyponym, and of co-hyponymy, while at the same time focusing on their potential contextual value. Mehrabian (1971) suggests that specificity forms a component of the dimension of 'immediacy'; the more specific a word is the more immediate the communication of which it forms a part, signalling 'a desire for involvement* (Cruse 1977: 162). In particular the affective dimension of 'liking' is correlated with specificity, e.g. Tom let me drive his new
{ I
Martin. Aston Ë car. vehicle.
— where the choice of the marked specific word signals a greater liking and also a willingness to continue with the topic in conversation. Choice of 'vehicle' is an underspecification which implies dislike. In the context of conversational turn-taking e.g. I thought the film was good tonight. fantastic, Yes it was nice.
{
— choice of a cohesive 'reiteration' can also be ranged along a scale of intensity, which, like the choice of marked or unmarked specificity, carries a potential for implicature and is an important way of signalling attitude and negotiating conversational topic. Obviously 'nice' signals it is better to talk about something else. Here, too, the choice of item is related to knowledge of which items are marked and unmarked — the pragmatic potential of lexical choice is related to knowledge of what item is conventionally considered more 'core' and this is then drawn on as a Gricean way of implying like or dislike, willingness or unwillingness to continue. The notion of 'coreness' brings us to the second of the Hallidayan general functions — the ideational, which serves to represent 'the categories of our interpretation of experience' (Halliday 1973: 39). A Procedural Vocabulary. A procedural vocabulary is closely related to the idea of a 'common core' vocabulary and as Carter (1986) notes there appear to be many reasons why it 'should' be possible to isolate a 'core' vocabulary. It is the basis of simplification procedures as evidenced in motherese (Snow 1973) and pidginized forms (Schumann 1978) and these procedures themselves are aspects of universal 'semantic competence', knowledge of sense relations, ability to produce and interpret paraphrase, which Blum and Levenston (1979) suggest is a resource transferable from the LI to L2. Pidgins have been described as limited or restricted to the communicative function, the ideational expression of content, and develop in accordance with the first two of Slobin's four charges (1973), 'clarity' and 'processibility', at the expense of 'expressivity' and 'quickness'. During creolization these latter aspects are developed with the interpersonal function. With reference to the discussion above a pidgin would be restricted initially to 'core' unmarked items and creolization would require an elaboration in the direction of a greater range of specificity. A procedural vocabulary, in the scheme I am developing here, is therefore logically prior to knowledge of the pragmatics of lexical specificity, forming the unmarked 'core' base around which elaboration takes place. Pedagogically it should come first arid the procedural ability to use this core vocabulary to identify the meaning of words belonging to particular frames of reference would be the basis of developing those individual lexical networks referred to above.
!uuuttthhheeennntttiiicccaaattteeeddd ||| pppeeettteeerrrrrr@@@ccclll...aaaoooyyyaaammmaaa...aaaccc...jjjppp DDDooowwwnnnllloooaaaddd DDDaaattteee ||| 111222///111000///111333 888:::333111 PPPMMM
232 IRAL, VOL. XXVI/3, AUGUST 1988 A procedural vocabulary is that which is most likely to enable a learner to break down, and so extend, the provisional semantic fields we present him with, it has a high 'indexicaF valency. (Widdowson 1983: 92). This is the basis of Hutchinson and Waters* claim that it is the subtechnical language of a subject which a learner is most likely to need, providing him as it does with the capacity to identify the highly lexicalized vocabulary of a specific subject area, and it is for this reason that I have claimed a procedural, common core vocabulary can be seen as the lexical equivalent of Halliday 's transitivity system which at the clause level, serves to represent 4the categories of our interpretation of experience' (Halliday 1973: 39), the ideational function. At the lexical level a highly indexical procedural vocabulary serves as the main element in our interpretation and categorization of specific frames of reference. This is the language of dictionary entries; ver-mi-ceMi /.varmi'seli. -'i/clifl .var-/ h (UJ a food made from flour paste (PASTA) in the form of very thin strings which have been dried and are made soft again by boiling —compare MACARONI. SPAGHETTI ver-mic-u-Hte /vaz'mikjulaitlvar'mikj?·»/ n [U] a type of MICA that is a very light material made up of threadlike parts, that can be used for keeping heat inside buildings, growing seeds in, etc. ver-mi-form /'vaimifDimfl 'varmiform/ adj shaped rather like a worm
^^ , n.-^v*,,^,, ~f (Longman s Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1978).
ft
'
and, as Hutchinson and Waters point out (1981), of classroom explanation of technical demonstrations: 'In fact teachers seem to avoid specific technical terms in favor of more general vocabulary, or, if a specific term is used, a check is made to ensure that the students know what it means. This check can take the form of a question, a paraphrase or a simple statement of the name e.g. "Now copper is a. . is very ductile. What do we mean by ductile?" "It* 11 stretch. " "We can stretch it. We can change its shape. Yes." ' (1979: 6). (See Robinson 1988c, and 1988d for a much fuller discussion).
Discourse Potential. These three areas of interest, individual variation of lexical networks, pragmatic aspects of lexical choice and the distinction between a procedural and a highly lexicalized vocabulary all represent a recent increase in interest in the area of vocabulary teaching and demonstrate an awareness of the need to elevate it from its 'service function' in relation to syntax. A further consequence of the syntactic orientation of much language teaching material is that it has been unduly restricted to clause and sentence level. The approach of Rudzka et al (1981) and Morrow (1980) to presenting words in semantic fields and collocational patterns needs to be extended to demonstrating the lexical patterning in text which contributes to lexical cohesion (Halliday, Hasan 1976; van Buren 1975; and see Philips 1983 on 'aboutness' as the product of lexical patterning in science texts.) In the work-of Winter (1977), developed by Hoey (1984) and Jordan (1984) though not in direct relation to second language learning, as well as Widdowson (1978) there is an emphasis on the need to develop awareness of the discourse potential of lexical patterning above sentence level. Winter's "vocabulary3 " items for example are an important way of signalling clause relations in text, and 'cohesion' is another important feature of 'textuality' which can become the basis of vocabulary exercises across conversational turn boundaries and 'within the broad framework of discourse organization'. (McCarthy 1984: 18). Of course the aspect of lexical knowledge we have been discussing here corresponds to Halliday's 'textual function' which in Chomskyan linguistics is considered a performance feature and ignored. !uuuttthhheeennntttiiicccaaattteeeddd ||| pppeeettteeerrrrrr@@@ccclll...aaaoooyyyaaammmaaa...aaaccc...jjjppp DDDooowwwnnnllloooaaaddd DDDaaattteee ||| 111222///111000///111333 888:::333111 PPPMMM
NOTES AND DISCUSSION 233 This is a preliminary sketch of proposals for organizing the lexical content of language teaching, which, in contrast to many existing materials, takes the procedural ability to adjust individual lexical networks and realization of functional and discourse potential as its main objectives. I have proposed a tripartite distinction between the textual, ideational and interpersonal aspects of lexical knowledge. I am now going to make more specific suggestions regarding the types of vocabulary materials which could be included under each of these headings; these suggestions do not, of course, aim to be exhaustive, they simply indicate the type of activity relevant to the three broad areas of my organizational schema. Sense Relations and the Textual Function. Awareness of potential sense relations is a valuable initial framework for further elaboration; they can be used as the basis of exercises drawing attention to the functional aspects of lexical knowledge outlined above. With respect to the textual function of lexis we can see that sense relations are central to textual cohesion, they create structural dependencies between items of co-text e.g. that aspect of lexical cohesion Halliday and Hasan (1976) call 'reiteration' (See Robinson 1984). I went for a walk. The walk was tiring, (repetition) I went for a climb. The ascent was easy, (synonym) I went to the park. The gardens were lovely, (near synonym) I ordered a Carlsberg. The lager was cool, (superordinate) As well as being based on sense relations and illustrating an important aspect of cohesion this also illustrates the shift from new to given information. However as Blum and Levenston point out in discussing synonymy, "a pair of synonyms may share the same components of meaning but differ in register and collocations. The learner, aware only of one pair, uses it regardless of collocational and stylistic restrictions' (1979: 132). In this case the implicational knowledge of sense relations needs to be supplemented by probabilistic information about register and collocation -3 e.g. 'beautiful' and 'pretty' may be synonyms in relation to 'girl', whereas 'beautiful' and 'delicious' would be in relation to 'meal'. They are not interchangeable i.e. 'pretty meal' and 'delicious girl' are unacceptable. Collocational exercises like those considered in relation to semantic fields involving the use of grids (Rudzka et al 1981, 1985; Channell 1981) are useful points of departure for considering this aspect of lexical patterning and its textual function.
e.g.
assess estimate evaluate rate value
+
+ +
•4+
+ . (+) + + -t(+)
•f
+
+ +
+
+
