seem to be a little easier to answer the question raised earlier: if an L2 learner correctly understands ...... written in large letters, e.g. âJohn, put JUSTICE on Charlie's headâ. ...... to enrich the language input as well as to illustrate the linguistic features of the ...... pass rate of Band 4/6; otherwise they risk a drop in salary. It is no.
Contents
List of abbreviations .................................................................................13 List of figures............................................................................................15 List of tables .............................................................................................16 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................17 Introduction...............................................................................................19
Part I: Issues Related to Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition Chapter 1. Vocabulary Knowledge and Use...........................................27 1.1. What is vocabulary knowledge?.......................................................27 1.1.1. Vocabulary knowledge .................................................... 27 1.1.2. Vocabulary use ................................................................ 30 1.1.3. Declarative vs. procedural knowledge ............................. 31 1.2. Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge ..................................33 1.2.1. A clear picture vs. a blurred picture ................................. 33 1.2.2. Breadth of vocabulary knowledge ................................... 35 1.2.3. Depth of vocabulary knowledge ...................................... 36 1.2.4. Breadth vs. depth ............................................................. 37 1.3. Receptive and productive vocabulary ..............................................39 1.3.1. Introduction ..................................................................... 39 1.3.2. Receptive and productive vocabulary: A continuum or a dichotomy? ......................................... 41 1.3.3. Relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary in empirical studies ............... 42 1.4. Testing vocabulary knowledge and use............................................44 1.4.1. Introduction ..................................................................... 44 5
1.4.2. Breadth and depth tests .................................................... 45 1.4.2.1. Breadth tests .......................................................... 45 1.4.2.2. Depth tests............................................................. 45 1.4.2.3. Breadth test vs. depth test ...................................... 46 1.4.3. Receptive and productive tests ........................................ 47 1.4.4. Tests combining the breadth/depth dimension and the reception/production dichotomy .......................... 47 1.4.4.1. Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) .................... 48 1.4.4.2. CATSS (Computer Adaptive Test of Size and Strength) .............................................. 49 1.5. Conclusion .........................................................................................50 Chapter 2. The L2 Lexicon: Development and Organisation ................53 2.1. The development of the L2 mental lexicon .....................................53 2.1.1. A separate or unified system? .......................................... 53 2.1.2. The development of a lexical entry .................................. 54 2.2. Organisation of the L2 mental lexicon .............................................63 2.2.1. Relations between lexical entries ..................................... 63 2.2.1.1. Possible relations between lexical entries.............. 64 2.2.1.2. Elaborating semantic relations between English words .......................................... 65 2.2.2. Review of empirical studies investigating the differences in organisation between the L1 and the L2 mental lexicon: word associations ................. 67 2.3. Conclusion .........................................................................................73 Chapter 3. The Role of Listening in SLVA ............................................75 3.1. The historical background ................................................................75 3.2. Listening: A dynamic language activity ..........................................76 3.3. Listening as the basic skill in SLA ...................................................78 3.3.1. Activation of both brain hemispheres .............................. 79 3.3.2. L1 acquisition as a model for L2 acquisition ................... 80 3.3.3. The transfer effects of listening to reading and speaking . 80 3.4. The importance of listening in vocabulary acquisition ...................82 3.5. Conclusion .........................................................................................83
6
Chapter 4. Vocabulary Learning Difficulty ............................................85 4.1. Cultural difference.............................................................................85 4.1.1. Language learning: A culture bound phenomenon .......... 85 4.1.2. Lexical concept gaps ....................................................... 87 4.1.3. Culturally loaded words................................................... 89 4.2. Linguistic distance ............................................................................91 4.2.1. What is linguistic distance? ............................................. 91 4.2.2. Measuring linguistic distance .......................................... 91 4.2.2.1. Approximating the distance via language family trees...................................... 91 4.2.2.2. Minimum learning time needs to reach a basic level ............................................ 92 4.2.2.3. Measuring the distance by language proficiency level achieved..................... 92 4.2.3. How does linguistic distance affect SLVA? .................... 93 4.3. Lexical form confusion .....................................................................97 4.4. Conclusion .........................................................................................98
Part II: Approaches to L2 Vocabulary Acquisition Chapter 5. Implicit and Explicit Approaches ........................................103 5.1. What do these terms mean? ............................................................103 5.1.1. Implicit and explicit learning ......................................... 103 5.1.2. Incidental and intentional learning ................................. 104 5.1.3. Implicit and explicit memory ......................................... 106 5.1.4. Implicit/explicit learning vs. incidental/intentional learning .................................. 107 5.1.5. Implicit/explicit learning vs. implicit/explicit memory .. 107 5.1.6. The meaning of implicit/explicit approaches adopted in this book....................................................... 108 5.2. The implicit learning/teaching paradigm .......................................108 5.2.1. Word inferencing studies ............................................... 110 5.2.2. Lexical glosses and dictionary use studies ..................... 111 5.2.3. The main drawbacks of incidental learning ................... 113 5.3. The explicit learning/teaching paradigm ........................................114 5.3.1. Reading plus exercises................................................... 115 7
5.3.2. Explicit instruction/learning .......................................... 116 5.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................118 Chapter 6. Approaches to Multi-Word Items .......................................119 6.1. Background information .................................................................119 6.1.1. Language: lexis or grammar based?............................... 119 6.1.2. Corpora .......................................................................... 120 6.1.2.1. Native English corpora ........................................ 121 6.1.2.2. Learner English corpora ...................................... 123 6.1.3. Identifying and defining formulaic sequences ............... 123 6.2. Approaches to L2 formulaic sequence acquisition ........................127 6.2.1. Learning difficulties of L2 formulaic sequence acquisition ...................................................... 127 6.2.2. Proposals for the acquisition of formulaic sequences .... 129 6.2.2.1. Classroom teaching/learning activities ................ 129 6.2.2.2. Syllabus design ................................................... 130 6.2.2.3. The lexical approach ........................................... 131 6.2.2.4. Data-driven learning............................................ 133 6.2.2.5. Conclusion .......................................................... 134 6.2.3. Empirical studies on the acquisition of formulaic sequences .................................................. 135 6.2.3.1. Classroom settings .............................................. 135 6.2.3.2. Socio-cultural interaction .................................... 137 6.3. Approaches to the acquisition of idioms ........................................138 6.3.1. The acquisition of idioms by raising learner awareness of idioms using a cognitive approach ........... 138 6.3.2. The mnemonic effect of alliteration on the acquisition of idioms ........................................... 141 6.5. Conclusion .......................................................................................142 Chapter 7. A Learner-Focused Approach .............................................143 7.1. Learner differences..........................................................................143 7.2. Motivation .......................................................................................144 7.2.1. What is motivation? ....................................................... 144 7.2.2. Motivation for learning the L2....................................... 145 7.3. Style .................................................................................................149 7.3.1. What is learning style? .................................................. 149 8
7.3.2. Learning style assessment tools ..................................... 150 7.3.2.1. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ....................... 150 7.3.2.2. The Perceptual Learning Style Preference Survey 151 7.3.2.3. The Style Analysis Survey .................................. 152 7.4. Strategies..........................................................................................154 7.4.1. Language learning strategies ......................................... 154 7.4.2. Vocabulary learning strategies ....................................... 156 7.4.3. Vocabulary learning strategy instruction ....................... 158 7.4.4. Classifying vocabulary learning strategies..................... 159 7.4.4.1. Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire .................... 159 7.4.4.2. Taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies ....... 161 7.4.4.3. A learning process oriented approach ................. 163 7.5. Towards an integrated framework for SLVA .................................165 7.6. Conclusion .......................................................................................168
Part III: Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning (CAVL) Chapter 8. CAVL: Past, Present, and Future ........................................173 8.1. An overview ....................................................................................173 8.2. Factors shaping CAVL development .............................................174 8.3. Four stages of CAVL development................................................176 8.3.1. Simple tutor ................................................................... 177 8.3.2. Intelligent tutor .............................................................. 177 8.3.3. Tool ............................................................................... 178 8.3.4. Tutor and tool ................................................................ 180 8.4. Constructing a framework for categorising CAVL applications ..182 8.4.1. The overview of the framework ..................................... 182 8.4.2. Lexical resources/aids.................................................... 183 8.4.3. Lexical programs/tasks .................................................. 185 8.4.4. The applicability of the framework ................................ 187 8.5. Conclusion .......................................................................................188 Chapter 9. Two Evaluation Studies of CAVL Programs .....................189 9.1. CALL/CAVL evaluation ................................................................189 9.2. Constructing the CAVL evaluation criteria ....................................190 9.3. The evaluation of research-based CAVL programs .......................194 9
9.3.1. Electronic reading/listening comprehension with lexical glosses ........................................................ 194 9.3.1.1. Reading comprehension ...................................... 194 9.3.1.2. Listening comprehension .................................... 195 9.3.1.3. CMC lexical-based tasks ..................................... 197 9.3.1.4. Computerised vocabulary exercises .................... 200 9.3.2. Dedicated CAVL programs ........................................... 202 9.3.2.1. Lexica ................................................................. 203 9.3.2.2. CAVOCA............................................................ 205 9.4. The evaluation of commercial CAVL/CALL programs ................208 9.4.1. Three major types of commercial programs .................. 208 9.4.2. Electronic dictionaries/flash cards ................................. 209 9.4.2.1. SuperMemo ......................................................... 210 9.4.2.2. Rosetta Stone ...................................................... 212 9.4.2.3. Intelligent Miracle English .................................. 214 9.4.2.4. Memorising Vocabulary Effortlessly .................. 218 9.4.3. Computerised vocabulary exercises ............................... 221 9.4.3.1. Tell Me More ...................................................... 221 9.4.3.2. English+ .............................................................. 223 9.4.4. Dedicated-like vocabulary programs ............................. 225 9.4.4.1. Language Interactive Culture .............................. 225 9.4.5. Summary of the evaluation results ................................. 228 9.4.5.1. Research-based programs .................................... 228 9.4.5.2. Commercial programs ......................................... 230 9.5. Conclusion .......................................................................................232
Part IV: L2 (English) Vocabulary Acquisition in China Chapter 10. English Teaching and Learning in China .........................239 10.1. Historically identified distinct periods of ELT in China .............239 10.2. Features of ELT in China .............................................................242 10.2.1. High motivation ........................................................... 242 10.2.2. Chinese culture of learning .......................................... 243 10.2.2.1. What is culture of learning? .............................. 243 10.2.2.2. Chinese culture of learning: perception and practice..................................... 243 10
10.3. Approaches to ELT........................................................................247 10.4. Other constraints of ELT in China................................................250 10.5. Recent reform in ELT in China: focus on higher education and the non-language specialist ....................................................253 10.6. Conclusion .....................................................................................257 Chapter 11. Vocabulary Learning Difficulties for Chinese Learners ..259 11.1. Three areas likely to cause learning difficulties...........................259 11.2. Difficulties due to cultural difference...........................................260 11.3. Difficulties due to linguistic distance...........................................262 11.3.1. Errors due to meaning confusion ................................. 263 11.3.2. Errors due to other areas .............................................. 264 11.4. Difficulties due to confusion of lexical forms .............................269 11.5. Exploring lexical errors from a psycholinguistic perspective .....271 11.6. Conclusion .....................................................................................273 Chapter 12. Two Empirical Studies of Chinese Learners’ Approaches to Vocabulary Acquisition ...............................................275 12.1. An overview from the literature ...................................................275 12.2. Questionnaire: Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding vocabulary teaching .....................................................................278 12.2.1. Constructing a questionnaire of teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding vocabulary teaching ............... 278 12.2.2. Results and discussion of the questionnaire ................. 279 12.3. Questionnaire: Students’ approaches to vocabulary learning .....284 12.3.1. Constructing a questionnaire of process-oriented vocabulary learning strategies ..................................... 284 12.3.2. Results and discussion of the questionnaire ................. 285 12.4. Conclusion .....................................................................................291 General Conclusion ................................................................................293 References...............................................................................................297 List of CAVL/CALL programs/tasks reviewed ...................................323 List of useful online lexical tools...........................................................324 11
Appendices .............................................................................................325 Appendix 1: A questionnaire for English teachers at Chinese Three Gorges University (translated from Chinese) ....325 Appendix 2: A questionnaire for students at Chinese Three Gorges University (translated from Chinese) ....328 Index........................................................................................................331
12
List of abbreviations
ACT AWL BNC CALICO CALL CATSS CAVL CAVOCA CIC CL CLC CLEC CMC CTGU DDL EAP EFL ELT ESL FL FLL ICLE ILV IME ITS L1 L2 LFP LINC LINDSEI
Adaptive Control of Thought Academic Word List British National Corpus Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Computer Assisted Language Learning Computer Adaptive Tests of Strength and Size Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning Computer Assisted Vocabulary Acquisition Cambridge International Corpus Culture of Learning Computer Learner Corpora Chinese Learners’ English Corpus Computer-mediated Communication China Three Gorges University Data Driven Learning English for Academic Purposes English as a Foreign Language English Learning/Teaching English as a Second Language Foreign Language Foreign Language Learning International Corpus of Learner English Institut de Langues Vivantes Intelligent Miracle English Intelligent Tutoring Systems First Language Second Language Lexical Frequency Profile Language Interactive Culture Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage 13
LSS MBTI MVE P PLSP R SAS SLA SLVA TMM UCL UWL VKS VLQ
14
Learning Style Survey Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Memorising Vocabulary Effortlessly Productive Lexical Items/Lexicon Perceptual Learning Style Preferences Receptive Lexical Items/Lexicon Style Analysis Survey Second Language Acquisition Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition Tell Me More Université Catholique de Louvain University Word List Vocabulary Knowledge Scale Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire
List of figures
Figure 1. A simplified mental representation of breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge .................. 34 Figure 2. A hypothetical association network (Meara, 1990: 152) .... 42 Figure 3. The internal structure of the lexical entry (Jiang, 2000: 48) ..56 Figure 4. Lexical development in L2: from the formal stage to the integration stage (adapted from Jiang, 2000: 54) ..... 57 Figure 5. Word-knowledge continuum and main organisational features of words in the mental lexicon (Namei, 2004: 382) ......................... 73 Figure 6. Phraseological categories (Howarth, 1998: 27)................ 126 Figure 7. A learner-focused model of SLVA.................................... 168 Figure 8. A framework for categorising CAVL ............................... 183 Figure 9. Vocabulary processing procedure in Words in your ear ... 195 Figure 10. Vocabulary processing procedure in the program by Smidt and Hegelheimer ...................... 196 Figure 11. Vocabulary processing procedure in the CMC lexical-based task of De la Fuente ............... 199 Figure 12. Vocabulary processing procedure in the computerised exercises by Allum .......................... 202 Figure 13. Vocabulary processing in Lexica.................................... 205 Figure 14. Vocabulary processing in CAVOCA .............................. 207 Figure 15. The new teaching mode combining classroom teaching and language software (The National Education Ministry, 2004: 8) .................. 257 Figure 16. Lexical comprehension/production model (adapted from De Bot et al. 1997: 315) ............................ 272
15
List of tables
Table 1. Ten categories of synforms (assembled from Laufer, 1990: 294) ................................... 98 Table 2. Cognitive style listed in LSS (Cohen et al., 2005) ............. 154 Table 3. Vocabulary learning strategies listed in VLQ (Gu/Johnson, 1996) ........................................................... 161 Table 4. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Schmitt (1997) .... 162 Table 5. Historical development of CAVL ...................................... 182 Table 6. Criteria for evaluating CAVL programs/tasks .................... 191 Table 7. Summary of the evaluation of research-based programs ... 234 Table 8. Summary of the judgemental evaluation of commercial programs.................................................... 235 Table 9. Examples of Chinese learners’ meaning errors (adapted from Gu/Leung, 2002: 133) ................................ 264 Table 10. Examples of Chinese learners’ form and meaning errors (adapted from Gu/Leung, 2002: 134-135) ......................... 264 Table 11. Examples of Chinese learners’ part of speech errors (adapted from Gu/Leung, 2002: 135) ................................ 264 Table 12. Raw frequencies of connectors in CLEC (1.07 million words) and the academic component of BNC (in per million running words) ........................... 268 Table 13. Form errors classified according to Laufer’s categories (Gu/Leung, 2002: 131) .................................................... 269 Table 14. Examples of Chinese learners’ form errors based on syllables (adapted from Gu/Leung, 2002: 132) .......... 270 Table 15. Confusion of Chinese characters in Chinese equivalents (adapted from Gu/Leung, 2002: 133) ........... 270 Table 16. Percentage of vocabulary teaching beliefs and practices . 281 Table 17. Average of vocabulary learning strategy use frequency ... 287 Table 18. Mean of use frequency of group strategies ...................... 290 Table 19. Mean of use frequency of codified strategies .................. 290
16
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to Peter Kelly who gave me so many valuable comments in respect of content and mode of expression and Sylviane Granger, who showed me the right approach to carrying out my earlier research which partially resulted in this book. I am grateful to my former colleagues and friends at the University of Namur and the Catholic University of Louvain for their constant support and exchange of ideas. I am also indebted to the teachers and students at China Three Gorges University who gave me feedback and participated in my studies. Finally I would like to thank The Hong Kong Institute of Education for providing financial support for the proof-reading of the book.
17
18
Introduction
The term “second language acquisition” (SLA) covers all the main areas of language, systematized by time-honoured terms like syntax, grammar, lexis, pronunciation, etc., and covers the mass of research that endeavours to discover how a language is acquired, what is acquired and what is not acquired. The study of SLA can be conducted from different angles. As Bialystock (1995) has pointed out, there is a neurolinguistic, a linguistic and a psycholinguistic approach; each approach can be used to explain different aspects of SLA with a different end in view. Increasingly, attention is now being drawn to the socio-cultural approach where the influence of individual background can very much influence the way a language is learned and the extent to which it is learned. All this clearly shows that the study of SLA has become, in keeping with so many other areas of scientific study, an interdisciplinary field. Researchers into SLA will find themselves plunging into reviews of linguistics, psychology, sociolinguistics and education, to mention but the most salient disciplines. All these approaches can be applied to second language vocabulary acquisition (SLVA), one of the most important components of SLA. The term SLA has gained considerable currency in recent years and it occurs now much more frequently in the literature than foreign language learning (FLL), the term that was previously more widely used. We can see why this has come about. Until two decades ago, people used to speak of FLL to refer to the study of another language. This language study usually took place in a formal educational setting and in one’s own country; the focus was on the written language and there was little contact with the people or the culture. Today, due to the many political and social changes that have taken place, to the vastly increased contact between peoples with the focus of learning shifting to oral communication, the foreign language has become far less foreign in the sense that it may be spoken officially, i.e. for administrative purposes, or unofficially, i.e. by increasingly large groups of people 19
within a country or community who have a different L1. The term “second” is more neutral and is totally free of the negative nuances that might be associated with “foreign”1. Block (2003: 32–91) discusses the “S” in SLA in great detail. He cites Mitchell/Myles (1998) who consider it “sensible to include ‘foreign’ languages under our more general term of ‘second’ languages” (cited in Block, 2003: 32). Gass/ Selinker (2001: 5) also view SLA as a broad umbrella term: “L2 can refer to any language learned after learning the L1, regardless of whether it is the second, third, fourth, or fifth language.” Apart from the difference between “second” and “foreign”, a distinction can be made between “acquisition” and “learning”. If “acquisition” is to be preferred over “learning” in my choice of terminology, it is probably less on account of Krashen’s arguments (1981) and more due to the emphasis in current language teaching methodology on the need for students of the language to interact and to focus on meaningful activities rather than on form, as was the case in the past. Also, enjoyment and fun are more readily associated with such an approach than conscious and often arduous learning. I could argue along the lines of cognitive linguistics and situate “learning” and “acquisition” at the two poles of a continuum. Like most linguists, I shall use the terms interchangeably. If syntax or grammar is the overall structure of the building, then vocabulary is the bricks that are to be fitted into that structure. This is an obvious metaphor and it has doubtless occurred to other researchers. We can say that the appearance of the “building” depends on the size and the combination of the structure and the bricks: the 1
20
This term implied lack of contact with the people and culture, which very much characterized the society and school environment of earlier generations. Recently an English native speaker mentioned his negative reaction on seeing incoming passengers at Shanghai airport at the passport control divided into “Chinese nationals” and “Foreigners”; on the pattern of elsewhere in the world, he would have expected: “Chinese passport holders” and “non-Chinese passport holders”. Non-Chinese teachers in Chinese universities are referred to as “foreign teachers” whereas elsewhere they would more likely be called “expatriate teachers”. As so often in non-native English speaking countries, the English being learned is already outdated because of the old language textbooks being used.
more spacious and refined it appears, the greater the level of language proficiency; the more restricted and crude it appears, the lower that level. Without considering at this point the way structure and bricks relate and how they integrate, we can see at a glance that the elements that form the structure are far more limited in number than the bricks. No linguist today would seriously contest the fact that, quantitatively, vocabulary dominates in the language field and that vocabulary acquisition is the main obstacle to language acquisition. As one of the most influential psycholinguists in the past fifty years expresses it (Miller, 1996: 5): It is not the speech sounds or the rules for generating grammatical sentences that require the most extensive learning. It is the vocabulary: thousands of words, each with its own sound, its own spelling, its own meaning, its own role, its own use, its own history.
The building I have been describing is a modern one; up until less than three decades ago the bricks were relatively few in number, as it was believed that this small number would suffice. Now it is known that well over double that number are needed to have a finished building. We now know that bricks of different sizes are also needed. Leaving aside the metaphor, we can say that not just individual words but multi-word items that are stored as independent units feature prominently in any language. Attention will be given to these in this book. This book is divided into four sections. The first part looks into a number of important issues pertaining to SLVA, in the light of the linguistic, psycholinguistic, socio-cultural and, to a lesser extent, neurolinguistic points of view. I attempt to clarify certain frequently occurring lexically related notions which tend to cause confusion, such as breadth/depth vs. reception/production, possible stages of lexical development or ways of organizing lexis, and to pull research findings from different areas together to form an updated synergy for SLVA. I first focus on what constitutes vocabulary knowledge and what the L2 learners need to learn in order to comprehend and produce the L2 vocabulary items, which I present largely from a linguistic angle. This is followed by an enquiry into how that lexical knowledge is acquired and organised, from a psycholinguistic standpoint. Next, I underscore 21
the important role of listening in acquiring the L2 vocabulary items. Essentially neurolinguistically and psycholinguistically motivated, the research findings cited regarding this issue are based on a substantial amount of empirical data. Finally I investigate the potential vocabulary learning difficulties that the L2 learners may encounter. This last point is dealt with mainly within a socio-cultural framework. In the second part, some approaches that highlight vocabulary and are geared to its acquisition are examined. One of the current hotly debated issues is whether vocabulary should be learned implicitly or explicitly, which of the two better promotes its acquisition and the learning effort needed to sustain it. Recent studies show that lexis consists of not only individual words but also many thousands of multi-word lexical items which native English speakers will draw on frequently in daily communication (e.g. Pawley/Syder 1983; Wray, 2002). The acquisition of these multi-word items is perceived as an important component of vocabulary learning (Lewis, 1993), even though research into this area is still in its infancy. No matter how effective some vocabulary learning approaches appear to be, they may not always turn out to be so. Learner groups are not homogenous and learners differ in many respects, such as motivation, learning style, learning strategies, etc. These learner variables are of vital importance to the success of language acquisition. The third part investigates computer assisted vocabulary learning (CAVL), in keeping with the current wide application of computer technology in the educational area. Although computer assisted language learning (CALL) programs have generally covered most areas in L2 learning, a substantial number of them have been designed specifically for vocabulary learning since the initial developmental stage of CALL. However, very little effort has been made to construct a comprehensive framework for conceptualising CAVL systematically, despite the paramount importance of vocabulary acquisition in acquiring an L2. An attempt is made to construct such a comprehensive framework for investigating CAVL so that SLVA can fully benefit from new technology. I first present an historical overview of CAVL; through this review we shall see clearly what factors have influenced CAVL development. Then I propose a framework, on the basis of which currently available CAVL applica22
tions can be meaningfully conceptualised. Using this framework, I have carried out an evaluation of a number of selected CAVL programs which are research-based or commercially available, the aim being to see to what extent these programs are geared to vocabulary learning and what needs to be done to improve CAVL efficiency. Since Chinese learners make up the largest learner population (currently estimated at around 300 million) in the world for learning English as an L2, a systematic investigation into this learner population should prove to be a worthwhile endeavour. The last part of this book describes how L2 (English) vocabulary acquisition is treated in the language educational system in China and provides an up-to-date picture of the overall situation, including the language policies adopted, the traditional, orthodox approach to language learning, and the recent reforms that have been implemented in Chinese universities. In addition, some general and specific vocabulary learning difficulties encountered by Chinese learners are documented and analysed. Finally, two empirical studies are conducted and reported on how Chinese learners approach the L2 vocabulary in terms of strategy use: one from the point of view of the students and the other from the point of view of their teachers.
23
24
Part I: Issues Related to Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition
25
26
Chapter 1. Vocabulary Knowledge and Use
1.1. What is vocabulary knowledge? 1.1.1. Vocabulary knowledge It is necessary to establish what is meant by the term vocabulary knowledge. Different proposals have been made as to what is involved in knowing a word (Richards, 1976; Nation, 1990, 2001; Qian 1999, 2002). Instead of talking of vocabulary knowledge or lexical knowledge, some researchers speak of “lexical competence” (e.g. Henriksen, 1999), while others talk of a “vocabulary knowledge framework” (e.g. Meara, 1996a) or a “vocabulary knowledge scale” (e.g. Wesche/ Paribakht, 1996). An intuitive answer to the question of what vocabulary knowledge entails for many people, particularly native speakers, would be knowing the meaning of the word and how to use it appropriately in different contexts. This reply certainly contains a large amount of truth. For example, Miller (1999) identifies two essential criteria for word knowledge: meaning and contextual use. Authors working in SLA, particularly in SLVA, believe that there are additional aspects of word knowledge that need to be known. It is, however, very difficult to reach a consensus among them as to what these aspects are and how those aspects should be included in word knowledge. Richards (1976), taking the research findings of the 1960s– 1970s as his basis and in consideration of what current theory could offer for language classroom teaching, set out eight classic assumptions in respect of word knowledge. These assumptions are concerned with frequency, register, syntax, derivation, association, semantic values, and polysemy. These eight assumptions served as the main reference for describing vocabulary knowledge for most subsequent research. The assumptions are by no means exhaustive; Qian (2002) 27
notes some missing aspects of this framework, such as pronunciation, spelling, and collocation. Fundamentally, Meara (1996a) criticises these classic assumptions by claiming that they are intended to inform classroom teaching rather than to serve as a sound theoretical model for describing vocabulary knowledge. Meara (1996a) suggests that it is intrinsically impossible to specify everything that learners know about the L2 lexicon and advocates a global approach. He proposes a three-dimensional model for categorizing a learner’s lexical knowledge: (1) a size dimension, (2) a lexical structure dimension, and (3) a lexical access dimension. He writes (1996a: 5): We would need to be able to specify how big learners’ lexicons are; we would need to be able to specify how automatically the items in a lexicon could be accessed; and we would need to find a simple measure of how rich a lexical structure linked the words in the lexicon.
Chapelle (1998a) proposes a four dimensional framework of vocabulary knowledge which includes: (a) vocabulary size, (b) knowledge of word characteristics (similar to Richards’ eight assumptions), (c) lexicon organisation and (d) lexical access. It is similar to Meara’s description of vocabulary knowledge except that Chapelle includes various aspects of vocabulary, such as those in Richards (1976), which Meara tried to avoid. In a similar vein, Qian (2002) evolved a conceptual framework of vocabulary knowledge which contains four dimensions: (a) vocabulary size, (b) depth of vocabulary knowledge (various word characteristics), (c) lexical organisation and (d) automaticity of receptive-productive knowledge (referring to how words are accessed for receptive and productive use). Nation (2001: 27) suggests a three-category framework of what is involved in knowing a word at both the receptive and productive level: Word form: including the spoken form, the written form, and the word parts (affixes). Word meaning: including connecting form and meaning (of a word), concepts and referents, and associations.
28
Word use: including grammatical functions, collocations and constraints on use (register, frequency, etc.).
In conclusion, when offering the proposals or models for describing vocabulary knowledge, authors seem to have been driven by three main considerations: 1.
2.
3.
A descriptive knowledge framework is produced to describe various features of L2 vocabulary based on our knowledge of the L1 (e.g. Richards, 1976). Vocabulary knowledge is described according to the reception/ production distinction (Nation, 1999, 2001) or by stages (Wesche/Paribakht, 1996; Waring, 1999). This approach is often oriented towards the teaching or the testing of vocabulary. Vocabulary knowledge is presented in theoretical models (Meara, 1996a; Henriksen, 1999) which attempt to describe the global vocabulary learning process and development and to do so dynamically.
It should be added that authors would sometimes mix up these considerations when describing vocabulary knowledge. It is a very demanding, often impossible task to have complete knowledge of a word: it involves both item knowledge, the individual word, and system knowledge, the various features of the word, the relationship with other words in the mental lexicon (Nation, 2001), along with progressive changes in the two (Henriksen, 1999). This might be a very long process. Kelly (1985) pointed out that the initial stage for learning an L2 word is to connect the word form with one of its meanings and fix the two in the mind, leaving the acquisition of other aspects (other meanings, usage, associations, etc.) to a later stage. This fits in with the incremental nature of vocabulary acquisition, namely, that different aspects of word knowledge will be mastered at different stages at different rates (Schmitt, 2005). The very beginning of the incremental process consists in knowing the meaning and form of a word and connecting the two together.
29
1.1.2. Vocabulary use One controversial issue in vocabulary acquisition is whether vocabulary use is a part of vocabulary knowledge. The majority of the researchers cited above seem to agree that vocabulary use is a part of vocabulary knowledge. Others hold a different opinion, e.g., Bialystok/Sharwood Smith (1985) and Henriksen (1999). Bialystok/ Sharwood (1985) draw a distinction between knowledge and control. In discussing learner’s interlanguage, they developed a theoretical framework based on the assumption that learners’ linguistic knowledge systems and the control of these systems were two separate components; language output may be subject to varying degrees of control. They made an analogy with a library. The knowledge is in the books and in the way they are organised. Gass (1988: 95) gives a good summary of this view of control: in order to control this knowledge, the user needs the information to find the books and to get the information in the most efficient way possible. Although this knowledge-control dichotomy is for general linguistic competence, it is naturally assumed that it is applicable to lexical competence. According to Gass (1988), the distinction between knowledge and control regarding vocabulary is useful since it crosses the boundaries of the traditional receptive-productive notions. However, Gass and Selinker (2001) note that the main problem in the library analogy for L2 learners’ linguistic knowledge and control is that it is not able to take into account the dynamic changing nature of the L2 lexicon. Henriksen (1999: 304) adopts a similar approach, constructing a three-dimensional framework for lexical competence in which knowledge and control are separated. These three dimensions include: (1) a partial-precise knowledge dimension, (2) a depth of knowledge dimension, and (3) a receptive-productive dimension. She (1999: 314) made the following statement regarding the distinction between vocabulary knowledge and control process: […], it might be argued that dimensions 1 and 2, which are related to acquiring word meaning (i.e., labelling and packaging) and developing an understanding of sense relations (network building) are basically knowledge continua, in which levels of declarative word knowledge may be tapped or
30
operationalized as levels of word understanding or comprehension. Dimension 3 is essentially a control continuum that describes levels of access or use ability, which may be operationalized through different types of receptive and productive tasks.
Laufer/Paribakht drew the logical conclusion from Henriksen’s separation of vocabulary use from vocabulary knowledge: “According to Henriksen, the fact that learners cannot use a word correctly nor access it freely for production does not mean they do not ‘know’ the word; it only means that they have not yet achieved adequate control over word access” (1998: 367). Although in theory the separation of knowledge and use sounds plausible, insufficient empirical work has so far been carried out to investigate its feasibility.
1.1.3. Declarative vs. procedural knowledge Fundamentally, vocabulary knowledge stored in our memory, like many other human cognitive representations, can take the form of two types of knowledge: declarative and procedural knowledge. These two terms were first introduced by Anderson (1983) as the basis for constructing his well-known “Adaptive Control of Thought” (ACT) theory to model human cognitive processes. Declarative and procedural knowledge make up our long-term memory. The difference between the two is the question of what or how: declarative knowledge comprises what we know about the world and all factual knowledge; procedural knowledge refers to skills and how to perform various activities. Traditionally, in psychology declarative knowledge/memory can be further divided into two sub-categories: episodic memory and semantic memory. Episodic memory is associated with a particular time and location where the events took place, e.g. what we did to celebrate our last birthday. In contrast, semantic memory contains our general knowledge of the world, which can be dissociated from the original context where it was learned. For example, most of us know that Paris is the capital of France but we would not remember where 31
we first learned it. The two systems seem to work independently and to have a different neural basis (Roediger, 2005: 5). Examples of procedural knowledge or memory include typing, driving, swimming, riding bicycles, playing tennis, etc. Procedural knowledge is not only limited to physical skills but also includes abstract skills such as reading and writing. We acquire procedural knowledge best by practising according to the power law of practice. We learn to drive essentially by driving; we learn to speak a language by using the language frequently. One important characteristic of procedural knowledge is that it can be retrieved rapidly, automatically without any conscious effort on the part of our memory. In this sense, procedural knowledge is very similar to implicit knowledge; on the other hand, declarative knowledge is retrieved by conscious and deliberate effort, in much the same way as explicit knowledge2. It should be noted that we draw on the two types of knowledge simultaneously in carrying out most activities instead of solely relying on one of them. According to the ACT theory of Anderson (1983), we start learning everything in declarative forms, termed chunks, and some of the knowledge will eventually become procedural forms, which we refer to as production. For most of us, speaking and listening in our L1 is procedural knowledge as most of the time we use our language automatically and spontaneously, although occasionally we need to consciously search for some words or expressions. For educated people, automatic, procedural language use can be extended to reading and writing. In this sense, most of our L1 vocabulary knowledge has become proceduralised and this happens after using the vocabulary for years. Theoretically, L2 vocabulary knowledge development goes through the same process whereby we start with declarative knowledge and this subsequently becomes procedural knowledge, although not every L2 learner can acquire such procedural knowledge 2
32
From the literature on cognitive psychology, it is not difficult to discover that declarative/procedural knowledge means more or less the same thing as explicit/implicit knowledge in respect of the similar ways in which they are retrieved, although rarely do authors equate these two pairs of terms directly. (See Chapter 5 for more information about implicit/explicit knowledge.)
and not every L2 word can be fully proceduralised. It is very likely that part of the knowledge of a given L2 word is proceduralised and part of it is still declarative, depending on how well we know the word or how well we can use it. Even for L1 speakers, some technical terms are only known in declarative form or are not known at all. For most L1 speakers, the language is represented as procedural knowledge as they have lost the awareness of the language structure or specifications of lexical items which they use automatically every day. For most L2 (particularly adult) learners, the situation is rather different. The L2 is first learned as declarative form and, due to insufficient L2 input or output (practice) and the interference of the existing semantic system (L1), the lexical knowledge may remain declarative for a long time. Yet this is not to deny that L2 learners can often achieve a certain fluency or automaticity in language use, including vocabulary use, which sometimes would be or be close to being procedural knowledge.
1.2. Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge 1.2.1. A clear picture vs. a blurred picture Anderson/Freebody (1981: 92−93) first made a distinction between two dimensions of vocabulary knowledge: The first may be called “breadth” of knowledge, by which we mean the number of words for which the person knows at least some of the significant aspects of meaning. […] [There] is a second dimension of vocabulary knowledge, namely the quality or “depth” of understanding.
According to this description, I draw a simple picture, shown in Figure 1.
33
Figure 1. A simplified mental representation of breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge.
In this picture, the surface of the bottom board is the size, or breadth, of one’s vocabulary, while the individual blocks of different height can be regarded as the quality, or depth, of understanding of each individual word, or lexical item. Obviously, the larger the surface of the bottom, the larger the size of one’s vocabulary; the higher each block, the deeper the knowledge one has for that individual item. Nevertheless, the picture in a real situation will be far more complex than this simplified representation. First of all, whether the bottom board has clear, fixed lines is highly questionable. Second, it is not clear when we can say that one knows a word in breadth. For example, one might be able to recognise a word as “déjà vu” on encountering it while failing to retrieve the correct meaning in the context. In this case can we say that we know this word (in breadth)? If one knows a word only in breadth or, in other words, superficially, there is a great chance that this word will be forgotten, dropping off the board. New words might come forward to replace it. As to the degree of depth each word has reached, this is even more controversial since there are no commonly accepted norms. Thirdly, the individual blocks are not isolated; instead, they should be viewed as being interconnected by links representing their lexical organisation. So eventually the picture we get is the following: the lines of the bottom board are blurred, moving and changing all the time; there is no precise summit for the height of each individual block and the higher the top, the more blurred it is; furthermore, there are numerous links
34
between the blocks which are in a dynamic state. We could draw some conclusions from this picture: the borders in both dimensions, vertical and horizontal, are fuzzy; for the bottom board, the more central a word is, the more chances there are of it acquiring stability; regarding the blocks, each of which represents a word, the lower they are, the more they will be influenced or undergo change (grow or diminish), while as they grow in height, the more stable and numerous will be their connections with other words.
1.2.2. Breadth of vocabulary knowledge Breadth of vocabulary knowledge means the size of a language learner’s L2 mental lexicon or, according to Qian (2002), the number of words whose meaning the learner only knows to a superficial degree. This implies that one essential feature in defining breadth of vocabulary knowledge is that one only needs to know (some of) the meaning(s) of the lexical item without necessarily knowing other lexical features. This definition is somewhat problematic. What are the criteria for determining the meaning of words of which “one has at least some superficial knowledge” (Qian, 2002: 515) or “the significant aspects of meaning” (Anderson/Freebody, 1983: 92−93) that determine whether one has breadth of knowledge of a word? In its pedagogical application, breadth of vocabulary knowledge is naturally extended to refer to how many words an L2 learner needs to know or the vocabulary size they need to reach. For a long time, the amount of vocabulary that enables a learner to cope with relevant ease in normal situations whether for speaking or reading purposes was seriously underestimated by producers of language learning materials. This notion can be traced back to more than 70 years ago when Ogden (1937) demonstrated that one can express millions of ideas using a mere 850 words. Compared with the normal size of a native speaker’s vocabulary, around 20,000 word families (Nation, 2001), we might consider this to be something of a miracle and wonder if those 850 words can really fulfil the learner’s productive requirements. Researchers have held a different view. In the 1960s, Lado (1964) carried out studies in which he concluded that the foreign language 35
learner needs a productive vocabulary of 3,000 words and a receptive vocabulary of 7,000. Carroll et al. (1971) arrived at a similar figure, giving 7,000 as the number of words which will appear at least five times in every million words of randomly chosen English. Keller (1978) also talks vaguely about the 6,000 to 10,000 words that are required for everyday communication in Russian or German. Both Twaddell (1973) and Keller (1978) mention the sudden shock experienced by intermediate learners when they cannot cope with the great amount of vocabulary they meet. Studies carried out by Schouten-Van Parreren/ Van Parreren (1979) and Ostyn et al. (1985) have shown that 5,000 words is a minimal figure to be able to understand 95% of the lexical items of a news text. Investigations carried out by Sciarone (1979) and Laufer (1997) further corroborated this figure, which will ensure a full understanding of such a text. Sometimes these 5000 words will be replaced by 3000 word families. With 8,000 words, learners can read for pleasure (Hirsh/ Nation, 1992). A few authors (e.g. Judd, 1978) even claimed that there is a need for early vocabulary expansion, not waiting until the intermediate stage. This seems to be the tendency nowadays. From the above studies, it is quite evident that when authors talk about how many words an L2 learner needs they mean the vocabulary required for an adequate comprehension of text reading. It would now seem to be a little easier to answer the question raised earlier: if an L2 learner correctly understands the meaning of a word in a given context, then s/he can be said to have breadth of knowledge of the word.
1.2.3. Depth of vocabulary knowledge While breadth relates to the quantitative aspect of vocabulary knowledge, depth is concerned with its qualitative aspect. The criteria for determining the quality of vocabulary knowledge tend to be a list of numerous features of word knowledge similar to the work discussed earlier (e.g. Nation, 2001; Chapelle, 1998a; Richards, 1976). In defining the depth dimension of vocabulary knowledge, Qian (1999, 2002) includes various word characteristics, such as phonemic (pronunciation), graphemic (spelling), morphemic, syntactic, semantic,
36
collocational and phraseological (register, frequency) properties as opposed to the mere meaning aspect of breadth of knowledge. Henriksen’s (1999: 305) depth dimension stresses the “rich meaning representation” of words. In addition to knowledge of a word’s meaning, depth also involves the different “intensional” or “sense relations”3 with other words, particularly, “paradigmatic relations (antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy, gradation) and syntagmatic relations (collocational restrictions)”. She used the expression “semantization process”4 (1999: 308) to refer to the ongoing, dynamic nature of the semantic development of words, claiming that development in depth of knowledge consists in network building, i.e. creating intensional links between words, a notion similar to Meara’s (1996a) lexical organisation. Vermeer (2001) also holds the view that words are represented as nodes in a network and they are interconnected in different ways; the nodes can be linked with each other by meaning, by sound, by affixes, by concept, or by register. In Vermeer’s words, the depth of vocabulary knowledge depends on the density of the network surrounding the word (2001: 218). In spite of this, it seems to be difficult to answer the question “At what point can we claim to have depth of knowledge of a word?” As we saw in Figure 1, there is no real fixed boundary for the breadth or the depth of individual words. We could answer the question by saying that the degree to which a word is known depends on how well the learner knows the various characteristics of the word and its links with other words.
1.2.4. Breadth vs. depth Although breadth and depth represent quite distinct dimensions of vocabulary knowledge, a few recent studies suggest that the two are in fact closely related to each other. Qian (1999, 2002) argued that both vocabulary breadth and depth dimensions are important for reading 3 4
The sense relations between words are dealt with in great depth by Miller (1996, 1999) and Miller/Fellbaum (1991). The term semantization was first introduced by Beheydt (1987).
37
comprehension. In these two studies, he showed that the Pearson correlations between the depth vocabulary knowledge test and the reading comprehension test were 0.82 in 1999 and 0.77 in 2002; both correlations were slightly higher than those between the vocabulary size test and the reading comprehension test (0.78 in 1999 and 0.74 in 2002). In addition, the depth vocabulary knowledge tests were reported to have good correlations with the vocabulary size tests (0.82 in 1999 and 0.7 in 2002). These results seem to indicate that the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge are closely associated with each other and they are at least equally important to reading comprehension. Vermeer (2001: 217) argues forcibly that there is no “conceptual distinction” between breadth and depth of word knowledge and that the two are strongly related to each other; the greater one’s vocabulary, the deeper one’s vocabulary knowledge or vice versa. He states (2001: 222): […] a deeper knowledge of words is the consequence of knowing more words, or that, conversely, the more words someone knows, the finer the networks and the deeper the word knowledge. Hence, the ability to demarcate the precise meaning and usage of a word is based on the knowledge of the other words that are needed to categorize, classify, and delimit that word more precisely. […] In this way, depth is connected with breadth of vocabulary.
Vermeer (2001: 231) claims that breadth and depth of vocabulary should be regarded as two dimensions of the same phenomenon instead of opposites; the growth of two dimensions should be subject to the same condition: frequency of input5. He (2001: 231) concludes from his studies of the acquisition of Dutch by L1 and L2 children (5-year olds) that a breadth test can be as good a measure of language proficiency in vocabulary as a depth test on condition that the breadth test includes words from various domains and frequency levels. Another study of Dutch primary school children by Schoonen/
5
38
According to N. Ellis (2002), frequency of input is the most important factor that accounts for language acquisition in all aspects of learning: phonology, reading, spelling, vocabulary, morphology, multi-word items, grammar, syntax, etc. The process involves both implicit and explicit learning, depending on the type of language knowledge to be acquired.
Verhallen (1998, cited in Read 2004) also shows that the breadth test and the depth test are strongly correlated. Additional evidence that supports this view is from the study of Nurweni and Read (1999) in which breadth and depth of knowledge are more closely related with each other for advanced learners than for low level learners. Like Vermeer, Read attributes the close relationship between breadth and depth to the network building of the mental lexicon: “This parallel development of vocabulary size and depth is particularly pertinent if we adopt a network building perspective on depth, in that vocabulary growth also entails the building of more extensive linkages between items in the mental lexicon” (2004: 221).
1.3. Receptive and productive vocabulary 1.3.1. Introduction Following the distinction made by Henriksen (1999), receptive and productive vocabularies involve the control process or use of vocabulary knowledge. Although she sees vocabulary use as separate from vocabulary knowledge, I treat vocabulary use, whether receptive or productive, as part of vocabulary knowledge, as the ability to use that knowledge. According to Melka (1997: 84), the two notions of reception and production in vocabulary acquisition are never clearly or satisfactorily defined and this might explain why many other terms such as passive/active vocabulary, comprehension/production, understanding/speaking are used to replace the two notions. However, a definition that is particularly suitable for characterising learners’ vocabulary use for pedagogical purposes can be made by relating the terms to the four basic language skills: reading, listening, speaking and writing (Nation, 1990). According to Nation (1990), receptive vocabulary is the vocabulary that one can recognise when it is encountered either in reading or listening while productive vocabulary is the vocabulary that one is able to use correctly either in speaking or 39
writing; productive knowledge of a word includes receptive knowledge and extends it. This definition implies a number of assumptions: 1. 2. 3.
The receptive vocabulary is larger than the productive vocabulary. Reception precedes production. Production is more difficult than reception.
Indeed, there is considerable evidence in support of these assumptions, e.g. Melka (1997) for (1) and (2); Laufer (1998) and Laufer/Paribakht (1998) for (1); Mondria and Wiersma (2004) for (3). It should be noted that the term receptive or productive vocabulary not only refers to the status of individual words but also to the mental lexicon as a whole – there is a receptive lexicon (R) and a productive lexicon (P) 6. The distinction between reception/production and breadth/depth needs to be clarified before going further. There is considerable similarity between these two pairs in defining vocabulary knowledge and use. Knowing a vocabulary item receptively is likely to require only shallow knowledge as covered by breadth; to know a word productively is likely to involve deep knowledge which may include various components covered by depth. While it may be true that receptive vocabulary more or less corresponds to breadth of vocabulary, being able to produce a word does not necessarily involve very deep word knowledge – a word can be used productively in a narrow context without knowledge of other meanings or inflected forms. Fundamentally, breadth/depth is concerned with describing vocabulary knowledge and reception/production deals with how the knowledge is accessed and used. In other words, the former pair belongs to the paradigm of declarative knowledge and the latter pair to the procedural knowledge paradigm which, in my view, has a more practical pedagogical application in assessing vocabulary skills or use. This is not to say that when a learner can recognise or produce a word correctly the word is fully represented as procedural knowledge in memory. If this is done automatically without conscious effort to retrieve the word, at least some aspects of the word, the phonological and formal informa6
40
The abbreviations R and P are used to refer to the lexicon as well as to individual items.
tion, and the meaning, have reached the status of procedural knowledge. If conscious effort is needed to retrieve the word, it is still represented as declarative knowledge. Knowledge can be either retrieved implicitly as procedural knowledge or explicitly as declarative knowledge independently, or, more often, by using the two systems simultaneously. To understand the interaction of breadth/depth and reception/production is crucial in understanding the language learning process.
1.3.2. Receptive and productive vocabulary: A continuum or a dichotomy? Should R and P be viewed as separate entities in the traditional way or as a continuum where location is determined by degrees of familiarity or knowledge, as proposed by Melka (1982, 1997)? As the two terms R and P suggest, it is convenient to conceptualise the two as distinct from each other. However, the crucial evidence to support this will be to find a kind of boundary that can tell us when a lexical item is not R but P; such a clear-cut boundary is never found in the literature (Melka, 1997). Knowing a word is not an all-or-nothing process: some aspects may be productive while other aspects are still at the receptive level (Melka, 1997: 87). It would seem practical to use a bi-polar dichotomy to conceptualise R and P with degrees of familiarity or knowledge in between. Melka (1997: 89) proposes four possible stages which can be distinctly identified along the continuum: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Imitation: perceptual motor skill regardless of comprehension (Fraser et al., 1963, cited in Melka, 1997) Comprehension (of the message) Reproduction with assimilation: involving active reconstitution of the message Production
The basic assumption of the continuum of R and P is: (1) R may precede P, (2) the gap between R and P is not wide and is subject to changes and, most importantly, (3) R and P are based on the same underlying system (Melka, 1997: 92). 41
Meara (1990) proposes a different framework for conceptualising R and P, making two separate, independent systems and uses a hypothetical association network to describe R and P as follows:
Figure 2. A hypothetical association network (Meara, 1990: 152).
Every node is a lexical item in the overall network of the lexicon. All the nodes are connected to the network by two arcs, except node H. If you start from H, you can access all the other words in the network, but you cannot reach H if you start somewhere else. Obviously, node H is a receptive lexical item which belongs to the whole lexicon, but it can only be reached by appropriate external stimulation. On the basis of this, Meara (1990: 153) suggests that the distinction between R and P is not a gradual one but a marked one; P clearly operates on a kind of continuum but not R which is qualitatively different from P. This view would seem to support the dichotomous view of R and P; however, this is only a hypothetical proposal and has never been subjected to empirical investigation.
1.3.3. Relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary in empirical studies Laufer (1998) focuses on the development of R and P of English by two groups of secondary school students in the 10 th and 11th grades. 42
There are actually three types of vocabulary knowledge that are under investigation: receptive knowledge and two types of productive knowledge: controlled and free. This construct clearly reflects the continuum of R and P. Receptive knowledge is defined as understanding the core meaning of a word, assessed by the Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 1990); controlled productive vocabulary is measured by a type of cued recall test such as: They will restore the house to its orig________ state (Laufer, 1998: 260); free productive knowledge is measured by writing an essay of 200 or 300 words based on the Lexical Frequency Profile (Laufer/Nation, 1995). It should be noted that this is a cross-sectional study, as opposed to a longitudinal study, focusing on the difference between the three types of receptive/productive knowledge of 10th and 11th grade students. The main findings include: (1) an additional year of study leads to a much larger R, (2) the gap between R and controlled productive vocabulary (controlled P) widens after one year’s study, but (3) the free productive vocabulary (free P) remains the same despite an additional year’s study. She provides two possible explanations for this static free P: (a) the gains are not sufficient to account for free P and (b) the classroom instruction may not have obliged the learners to produce the words productively that they had been taught. The study by Laufer and Paribakht (1998) looked at the relationship between R and P in two different learning contexts: EFL (learning English in the classroom in an L1 environment) and ESL (learning English in an English-speaking country). The procedure and instruments were very similar to the first study: the same three types of vocabulary knowledge were tested with the same three types of measures. The main findings were: (1) in both learning contexts, R, controlled P and free P develop at different rates, with R the fastest, followed by controlled P and with free P the slowest; (2) the EFL learners have significantly better knowledge in both controlled P and free P than ESL learners while ESL learners have a richer R; (3) two years of residing in an L2 environment leads to significant gains in controlled P but not free P; (4) for the ESL learners, knowledge of a related language (French) has a positive effect on controlled P when R is at the intermediate level but the effect decreases as R increases; however, no effect is found for free P regardless of R levels. 43
In conclusion, the two studies confirm that R is always larger than P and that the gap between the two changes in the course of language study. It would seem that R could relatively easily enter controlled P but that it is not easy for controlled P to enter free P, suggesting a big gap between controlled P and free P as this implies a jump from cued recall of vocabulary to complete free use of vocabulary. The two authors recommended that future studies investigate how to turn controlled P into free P.
1.4. Testing vocabulary knowledge and use 1.4.1. Introduction Learners’ vocabulary knowledge and use need to be assessed in order to decide how large their vocabulary is, how well it is known and whether lexical items can be recognised or produced. We are thus referring to breadth, depth, reception and production. Vocabulary measures tend to be applied either on the breadth/depth dimension or on the receptive/productive continuum, though sometimes it is difficult to make such a distinction as some measures, e.g. the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) developed by Wesche and Paribakht (1996) and the Computer Adaptive Test of Size and Strength (CATSS) by Laufer et al. (2004), tend to mix the two. Unavoidably, there is some overlapping of what is tested between the measures based on breadth/ depth and reception/production. The Lexical Frequency Profile developed by Laufer and Nation (1995) can be used as a measure of free recall of lexical items in writing. It is obviously a type of free production test, but to produce a word also requires the learner to show various degrees of lexical knowledge such as meaning, syntactic category, grammatical functions, collocations, and perhaps register constraints. In this sense, it is also a test measuring depth of vocabulary knowledge. We shall now look at the four types of measures from the two perspectives of breadth/depth and reception/production.
44
1.4.2. Breadth and depth tests 1.4.2.1. Breadth tests If we stick to the definition of breadth given by Anderson and Freebody (1981), what should be tested in breadth tests or vocabulary size tests is a superficial indication or partial knowledge of meaning (Read, 2004; Schmitt, 2000), e.g. word recognition, supplying a definition, etc. To make the results representative, a large sample is needed, usually from frequency lists or dictionaries; meanwhile some selection needs to be made to keep the number of items manageable. Common test formats include multiple choice, which tests the recognition of L2 synonyms or L1 equivalents; a list which requires a Yes/No response to a given item (or sometimes a pseudo-word) to check whether the word meaning is known or not (e.g. Meara/Buxton, 1987; Eyckmans et al., 2002); dictation tests in which a word is read out and the learner has to identify the corresponding drawing (Dunn/ Dunn, 1981); matching words with definitions or translations, e.g. Nation’s (1990) Vocabulary Levels Test, etc. 1.4.2.2. Depth tests What is measured in depth tests is the quality of vocabulary knowledge, as opposed to the superficial or partial knowledge measured by breadth tests. Read (2004: 221) identifies three distinct approaches to depth tests that focus on: (1) precision of meaning, (2) comprehensive word knowledge, and (3) network knowledge. The first approach is based on the assumption that the meaning of a word can be known ranging from a minimum to a maximum degree. Test formats include multiple-choice questions that require more than an understanding of word meanings, self-report knowledge scales such as Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, and evaluating the quality of the definitions given by learners. The second approach tries to tap various components of word knowledge (see Chapter 1). Tests taken from this approach (e.g. Schmitt, 1998) usually take a long time to complete and the number of items tested is limited. Read (2004) questions the value of such tests and proposes alternatives such as the scaling system developed by Drum (Drum/Konopak, 1987) or Nation’s framework of word knowl45
edge which can be used as a checklist to decide what word knowledge should be focused on for testing. The third approach is to conceptualise depth of vocabulary knowledge in terms of building a network of lexical knowledge. The most popular measure for this approach is perhaps the word association test developed by Read (1993, 1998). In this type of test, learners are required to choose three word items (out of six or eight) for a given word, which should demonstrate three basic relationships between the target word and the associated words: paradigmatic (superordinates, synonyms), syntagmatic (collocates) and analytic (the prototypical meaning of the target word). Read states clearly that it is impossible to find a measure that can tap all aspects of “depth” of vocabulary knowledge: “Whether we focus on individual lexical items or the mental lexicon as a whole, we are setting out to describe something that is inherently ill-defined, multidimensional, variable and thus resistant to neat classification” (2004: 224). He thus proposes that the dimension of word knowledge to be measured should be carefully designed rather than covered by the general term depth. He also points out that what is typically measured in depth tests is declarative knowledge (conscious and can be described) and calls for measures that tap procedural knowledge (vocabulary use) as complementary tests. 1.4.2.3. Breadth test vs. depth test Generally speaking, breadth of vocabulary is more frequently measured than depth of vocabulary. This phenomenon is criticised by some authors (e.g. Schmitt/Meara, 1997; Wesche/Paribakht, 1996) on the grounds that measuring breadth of vocabulary or vocabulary size is of limited value as it does not take into account the fact that words can be known to various degrees. On the other hand, Read (2000, cited in Laufer et al. 2004: 209) believes that although vocabulary size tests may seem to be superficial they could give a more accurate picture of learners’ overall vocabulary than depth tests that only tap a small number of words. Laufer et al. hold the same view: “Knowing many words (units of meaning) is more important than knowing few words in depth. Hence, a good vocabulary test should test how many
46
words are known, or try to provide a picture of the learner’s overall vocabulary” (2004: 209). Qian (2002) is perhaps right in suggesting that it would probably be more valid, accurate and efficient to use a combination measure that taps both depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge rather than a single measure of either breadth or depth.
1.4.3. Receptive and productive tests The most popular type of test for R seems to be multiple-choice questions which require the learner to recognise an L2 word by choosing a definition in the L2 or an equivalent in the L1. The commonly used measure for P is recall tests of different formats. The simplest is to ask for a translation of an L1 word; other more complicated measures include cued recall such as the controlled productive vocabulary test presented earlier. A special type of test for P is to ask learners to write an essay and then measure the quality of the vocabulary used. The Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) (Laufer/ Nation, 1995) is such a test; it enables us to assess lexical richness as well as the relationship between free productive vocabulary and vocabulary size in a piece of writing. The LFP reveals the percentage of words a learner uses at different frequency levels in writing. The LFP uses the 1000 word frequency list, the 2000 word frequency list, the University Word List (UWL), and the less frequent words that are not on the two lists. Thus, a learner may produce a piece of writing totalling 250 word families of which 100 belong to the 1000-word level families, 100 belong to the 2000-word level families, 30 belong to the UWL, while the remaining 20 are not on any list. As a result, the LFP of the learner would be 40% - 40% - 16% - 8%.
1.4.4. Tests combining the breadth/depth dimension and the reception/production dichotomy Some measures do not emerge clearly as following either the breadth/ depth dimension or the reception/production distinction and seem rather a combination of the two. We shall have a look at two measures 47
of this type: Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) and Computer Adaptive Test of Size and Strength (CATSS). 1.4.4.1. Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) The VKS developed by Wesche and Paribakht (1996) combines a self-report rating and performance on lexical items that measure initial vocabulary development over short periods in educational settings. There are five scale ratings that range from nil knowledge, recognition, some faint idea of the meaning, to the ability to use the item correctly both grammatically and semantically in a sentence. The two authors formulate them as follows (1996: 30): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
I don’t remember having seen this word before. I have seen this word before, but I don’t know what it means. I have seen this word before, and I think it means ______ (synonym or translation). I know this word. It means _______ (synonym or translation). I can use this word in a sentence: ________________________________. (If you do this section, please do section 4)
The VKS is frequently reported as a type of depth measure as it shows a progressive degree of word knowledge, particularly the various degrees of understanding of the meaning of an item represented by the first four categories. However, the last category that tests the highest degree of knowledge requires not only a deep knowledge of the item but also the ability to use it productively. In addition, the third and fourth categories require learners to recognise the item by supplying synonyms or translations. Thus the scale also includes elements of receptive and productive knowledge. The two authors suggest that VKS be viewed as a practical instrument for capturing initial stages or levels in vocabulary learning instead of a sophisticated measure for overall vocabulary knowledge. Nevertheless, Read (1997: 317) questions the validity of the scale; the main problem is whether the five levels of scale can adequately represent the five key stages in the acquisition of a lexical item or not. Another problem is whether supplying synonyms or composing sentences are the most appropriate ways to tap learners’ word knowledge. Despite these criticisms, Read
48
points out that the VKS seems to have served its initial purpose by providing a workable instrument for testing a reasonable number of words (1997: 317) and to be sensitive to capturing the increase in vocabulary knowledge (2000: 135). 1.4.4.2. CATSS (Computer Adaptive Test of Size and Strength) The CATSS, developed by Laufer et al. (2004: 209), aims to provide a construct for tapping both vocabulary size and strength (quality) of word meaning. The basic assumptions of the test are: (1) the central point of word knowledge is to link the word form and the word meaning; (2) knowledge of meaning can have different degrees of strength; (3) a size test can present an overall picture of a learner’s vocabulary better than a depth test. The strength of word meaning is constructed based on two distinctions: (a) supplying the form for a given concept vs. supplying the meaning for a given form, and (b) recall vs. recognition (of form or meaning). To retrieve the word form when the meaning is given is more difficult than to retrieve the meaning when the form is given, and hence the former is called “active” knowledge and the latter “passive knowledge”. The interaction between active/passive knowledge and recall/recognition leads to four modalities (types) of vocabulary knowledge in descending order of strength: active recall, passive recall, active recognition, and passive recognition. The following four examples illustrate the four degrees of strength for the item melt (Laufer et al., 2004: 206−207): Active recall: Passive recall: Active recognition: Passive recognition:
Turn into water m_________ When something melts it turns into _____________ Turn into water a. elect b. blame c. melt d. threaten7 Melt a. choose b. accuse c. make threats d. turn into water8
The test is obviously a construct for measuring one type of depth of word knowledge, the meaning, and also a useful construct for measuring production and reception (recognition) of various levels. 7 8
The three distracters are taken from the same frequency level as the target item. Distracters are taken from a higher frequency level than the target item.
49
In operation, 30 lexical items are randomly selected from five word-frequency levels: the 2000 most frequent words, the third 1000, the fifth 1000, the tenth 1000 and the Academic Vocabulary List (AWL) (Nation, 1990, 2001). Laufer et al. (2004) claimed that 30 items can represent each frequency level of 1000 words. If a learner gets an item right in one strength modality, it will not appear in the lower strength modalities. If the learner gets the word wrong, the computer will remember it and present it again in a lower strength modality after all the other words at the same frequency level have been tested. The pilot study confirms the hypothesized strength hierarchy but only distinguishes three instead of four different modalities: active recall is demonstrated to be more difficult than passive recall, followed by recognition (active or passive). In other words, active and passive recognition are indistinguishable from each other in terms of degree of difficulty or strength. Despite this, the three other degrees of strength of knowledge of word meaning may still be good enough to capture learners’ vocabulary knowledge stages at a particular time.
1.5. Conclusion It is generally agreed that knowing a word entails knowing its various aspects and features and how to use it, although a few linguists tend to separate the two. The fact that vocabulary knowledge, like other human knowledge, is stored in declarative and procedural forms lends support to the view that vocabulary use, which essentially involves the procedural channel, is actually part of vocabulary knowledge. Linguists tend to describe vocabulary knowledge either according to the “breadth/depth” dimension or the “reception/production” dimension. Breadth and depth essentially concern declarative knowledge whereas reception and production are fundamentally concerned with procedural knowledge. The learner is consciously increasing the number of words and the features needed in order eventually to be able to use them automatically both receptively and productively. In addition, the evidence points to the two dimensions 50
being related, although we saw that further research is needed to discover their degree of proximity. This would be useful in predicting the depth of learners’ vocabulary knowledge at a productive level or the breadth of their vocabulary at the receptive level, and vice versa. We looked at the different types of tests used for each dimension and saw that measures used for testing reception and production are similar to those used for breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. This is particularly true in respect of reception and breadth as the tests for these two only need to measure superficial knowledge of the item at the recognition level. This clearly reflects the interaction between declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge.
51
52
Chapter 2. The L2 Lexicon: Development and Organisation
2.1. The development of the L2 mental lexicon 2.1.1. A separate or unified system? One controversial issue in psycholinguistics concerning the mental lexicon is whether there is a separate or unified system for each language acquired, e.g. the L1 and the L2. In a discussion of mental representation of languages, Bialystok (1995) proposes that lexicons for different languages are distinct from each other although they are attached to a unified language system. Singleton (1999: 167) points out that the proposal for separate systems is based on (1) the modularity hypothesis9 and (2) the studies of formal differences between languages. The proponents of the modularity hypothesis believe that the L1 mental lexicon is essentially intramodular while the L2 lexicon developed after childhood is largely extramodular. Results from the formal difference studies show that morphological structure analysis is performed within a particular language rather than between different languages. Thus the L1 lexicon and the L2 lexicon should function independently of each other as separate systems. On the other hand, from research into bilingualism and cross-linguistic influence evidence exists in favour of a unified system (Singleton, 1999). Yet it may seem that either a completely separate or a completely integrated lexicon is too simplistic a solution since neither can provide an adequate explanation for the counter examples of each proposal. De Bot (1992: 10) points out: “Now the question is no longer whether the 9
The modularity hypothesis assumes that each human cognitive activity is controlled by a given location of the brain, as is language which is governed by the language module.
53
systems are separated or not, but under what conditions and for which parts of the lexicon they are separated.” Paradis (1987, cited in De Bot, 1992: 10−11) summarized four proposals as to how the bilingual lexicon might be stored: 1. 2. 3. 4.
A single storage. Separate storages. A single storage for common information such as cognates and separate storages for language-specific information. A single storage for all languages in which links between lexical entries are strengthened by use.
The last two go beyond the simplistic debate of an either/or situation. The fourth proposal implies that lexical entries from the same language tend to be stored together as subsets since the links between those entries will be greatly strengthened by frequent use; in addition, the links between entries of different languages can also be strengthened given that bilinguals constantly code-switch. Likewise, by conducting a comprehensive literature review, Singleton (1999: 190) concludes that neither complete separation nor integration of the L1 and L2 lexicons is possible and that the truth lies in between: It appears from the evidence reviewed that L1 and L2 are separately stored, but that the two systems are in communication with each other – whether via direct connections between individual L1 and L2 lexical nodes, or via a common conceptual store (or both).
2.1.2. The development of a lexical entry There are several metaphors to describe the mental lexicon, such as a library, a computer, a dictionary, etc. One common metaphor is a network composed of numerous nodes and links: each node represents a lexical item with the necessary lexical information attached and is associated with other nodes by links. We can say that each node is a lexical entry which contains a set of information to distinguish it from
54
or associate it with other nodes. To develop an L2 lexicon means inserting numerous L2 lexical entries and linking them together. I shall first focus on how a lexical entry enters the network and then see how the network is arranged. The most important way to build a lexical entry is to make a connection between a word meaning and its referent and map the meaning with its corresponding morphophonological form (or the word form). In other words, to acquire the meaning is the first step in building a lexical entry. How do we acquire the word meaning? According to Aitchison (1994: 170−180), a child acquires an L1 word meaning by performing three tasks: (1) labelling, (2) packaging, and (3) network building. In labelling tasks, children have to associate a word form (a sequence of sounds) with a particular object or event. For example, a child can accurately call a dog by its name no matter when and where s/he sees it. To do so, the child has to dissociate the word from the environment or event in which the word occurs and learn to abstract the actual concepts represented by the word. The packaging task is to discover a range of possible meanings under a given label. This process typically involves two types of errors, underextension and overextension. Children also develop a sense of the prototypical meaning of a word. Aitchison puts it this way: “Children, like adults, look for clusters of properties which belong to a prototype” (1994: 175). The third task refers to the process of how to fit words into a semantic network. I shall deal with this issue later. We may assume that the way adults acquire the L2 word meaning is similar to the way children acquire the L1 word meaning. However, the two processes may be quite different. Bialystok (1995) cites evidence that children discover and acquire meaning while they are maturing cognitively and this process is partially supported biologically; whereas adults already have a conceptual and meaning system from their L1, with the result that acquiring the L2 meaning is essentially a reconstruction process of their original conceptual system. This process can be very slow and is sometimes never fully completed, which explains why so many L2 learners stop progressing at a certain level. How is a lexical entry developed in a learner’s L2 lexicon? In his influential speech production model, Levelt (1989) sees each lexical entry containing two components, the lemma and the lexeme. 55
The lemma consists of the semantic and syntactic information and the lexeme includes the morphophonological information (or the word form). Based on this lemma-lexeme distinction, Jiang (2000) presents a graphic description of a lexical entry; see Figure 3.
semantics
syntax
lemma
morphology
phon/orth
lexeme
Figure 3. The internal structure of the lexical entry (Jiang, 2000: 48).
The semantic information includes word meaning and other possible meaning related information such as word associations; the syntactic information includes word class, grammatical functions, and constraints on use, etc.; the morphological information contains variants of word forms such as inflected forms; the phonological information contains spelling and pronunciation. It is seen that most of the lexical knowledge discussed in Chapter 1 can be united in such a lexical entry, or in a node in the mental lexicon. Jiang notes that for L1 speakers “these different types of information are highly integrated within each entry, such that once the entry is opened, all the information automatically becomes available” (2000: 49). He refers to this as “lexical competence” as opposed to lexical knowledge which he views as conscious knowledge about the word (form, meaning, use, etc.) stored in the semantic memory but outside the lexical entry. Jiang’s conceptualisation of lexical competence is similar to procedural knowledge and that of lexical knowledge is similar to declarative knowledge. He (2000: 50−54) points out that, due to the inadequate genuine L2 input and the
56
pre-existing conceptual system, an L2 lexical entry has to undergo three stages to be fully developed with all four types of information being integrated. The three stages are illustrated in Figure 4.
L2 phon/orth
L1 semantics
L1 syntax L2 phon/orth
L2 semantics L2 morphology
L2 syntax L2 phon/orth
Figure 4. Lexical development in L2: from the formal stage to the integration stage (adapted from Jiang, 2000: 54).
In the initial stage of learning an L2 word, the learner’s main task is to connect the L2 word form with an existing meaning in the mind, taking the form of an L1 translation or a definition. Learning the new word form is the priority at this stage while other information (semantic, syntactic and morphological) is largely ignored. Thus an L2 entry only contains the L2 word form and can be referred to as the “formal stage” (Jiang, 2000: 51) of the development of a lexical entry. At this stage 57
only the word form is registered in the lexical entry. Each retrieval will strengthen the link between the word form and the associated L1 translation or the definition. Thus the word form may be retrieved automatically as procedural knowledge after sufficient use, while other types of information are declarative and need to be retrieved consciously. Comprehension or production of the L2 word is achieved by activating the link between the L2 word form and the L1 equivalent or translation, termed “lexical association” (Jiang, 2000: 51). Via lexical association, other lexical information, such as semantic, syntactic and morphological information, can be accessed. In the second stage, continued use of the L2 word strengthens the link between the L2 word form and the lemma information of the L1 equivalent. In other words, the L1 lemma is “copied or attached to L2 lexical forms to form lexical entries”; this is called the “L1 lemma mediation stage” (Jiang, 2000: 52). The link between the L2 word form and the L1 lemma information is direct without the mediation of the L1 word form. In this sense, it is possible to achieve a certain fluency and automaticity in L2 use, which may seem to be proceduralised. What is still absent in the lexical entry is morphological information because “morphological information is usually language-specific, and thus less susceptible to transfer” (Jiang, 2000: 52). However, in language use morphological information can be retrieved consciously as declarative knowledge. In the final stage, the four types of information, semantic, syntactic, morphological and phonological (formal), are all integrated into the lexical entry and the developing process is completed; this is known as “the integration stage” (Jiang, 2000: 53). By the time this stage is reached, all types of lexical information have become proceduralised and can be retrieved for use automatically, as in the case of L1 speakers. This three-stage development model of L2 lexical entries has two major advantages: (1) it offers a feasible model to account for L2 lexical development and captures the possible status of a given lexical item at a given time; (2) it provides information that can explain lexical errors and lexical stalemate. Before reaching the final stage, a learner will probably make lexical errors of all four types, although the degree of error for each type will be varied. We can also roughly predict what types of lexical 58
errors are likely to occur or decrease at each stage. As a learner’s proficiency advances, the formal errors tend to decrease soonest since the word form is the first thing attended to by the learner. It is possible that certain words persist in being difficult to spell or pronounce even for native speakers due to their intrinsic complexity: the English word diarrhoea is a classic example. The morphological errors might be the last to disappear since, up to the second stage, the L1 mediation stage, L2 morphological information is largely absent in the lexical entry but needs conscious retrieval from declarative memory. Compared with other languages, the morphological rules of English are not complicated and can be mastered in a short period as declarative knowledge. Therefore, morphological errors might seem to be decreasing in learner language use at an earlier stage and at a rapid rate, particularly in written language when learners have enough time to use the conscious declarative knowledge to monitor their output. For example, in the study of a 150,000-word corpus of English written by French learners, both intermediate and advanced learners made far fewer morphological errors than other types of errors such as formal or grammatical errors (Dagneaux et al. 1998). But in oral language use, learners may not have the opportunity to use their conscious knowledge and this may lead to morphological errors. It is not surprising for an advanced learner to utter a sentence like: He become mature, especially during long, continuous, interacting speech when s/he has less time or opportunity to monitor his/her utterances by applying declarative knowledge. Obviously the learner knows the inflected rules of the word become but fails to produce the correct form in spontaneous speech. Jiang (2004: 603) cites evidence from several studies that the accuracy rate is low “in the use of inflectional morphemes by adult ESL users in spontaneous communication across different first language (L1) backgrounds and different second language (L2) proficiency levels”. Jiang (2000: 63) attributes morphological errors to the failure to integrate the lexical knowledge into the lexical entry for automatic use; in other words, declarative knowledge has not turned into procedural knowledge which can be accessed automatically. Thus, learners’ morphological competence is deficient in lexical entries. To prove this we need to find “a research method that allows us to examine L2 learners’ performance under a condition in which their use 59
of explicit, nonautomatic knowledge is minimised” (Jiang, 2004: 607−608). Jiang rejected the research method involving L2 production on the basis of the assumption that language production cannot exclude the use of explicit or declarative knowledge. Instead, he (2004: 608) opted for a receptive task in which “the morphological form available in the input should activate the related knowledge through a bottom-up process if the knowledge has been internalised”. The task is a selfpaced word by word task to check the sensitivity to subject-verb agreement in a series of sentences, like the two given below. Singular (S) or plural (P) is indicated for the head noun, the local noun, and the verb. (1)
The key to the cabinet was rusty from many years of disuse. (SSS) (Jiang, 2004: 609)
(2)
The key to the cabinets was rusty from many years of disuse. (SPS) (Jiang, 2004: 609)
Previous research (Pearlmutter et al., 1999) shows that native speakers take longer to read sentences in SPS condition, as in sentence 2, than those in SSS condition, as in sentence 1. In SPS condition both the head noun and the verb are in the singular and the two are separated by the local noun in the plural; this disagreement has somehow made the subjects spend a little more time reading the sentence. Pearlmutter et al. (1999: 435) attributed this phenomenon to native speakers’ “sensitivity to agreement violations and head/local NP (noun phrase) mismatches”. In other words, lexical processing will be disrupted when such disagreement occurs, which Jiang (2004: 609) calls the “broken agreement effect”. Following this finding, Jiang (2004) carried out a series of experiments to pin down this broken agreement effect. I only report the first experiment here. Native English speakers and Chinese learners of English 10 were compared to find out whether the latter would be sensitive to the plural morpheme in a self-paced reading task. Two lists of sentences were constructed, each containing either sentences in SSS condition or SPS 10
60
These Chinese subjects are considered as proficient English learners: they had an average TOEFL score of 608 and had lived and worked in the U.S.A for an average of 1.4 years.
condition. Each subject read the sentences in either SSS condition or SPS condition word by word in front of a computer screen. Three locations of each sentence were measured: the local noun, the verb be, and the word immediately after be. The results show that native speakers took significantly longer to read the verb be and the word that came immediately after be in SPS condition than in SSS condition, indicating that they noticed the number disagreement between the local noun and the verb be. However, no significant difference was observed for Chinese learners on both locations between the two conditions except that they took longer to read the local noun (plural) in SPS condition. The other two follow-up experiments replicated and strengthened this finding by excluding other interfering factors that might explain the result differently. The experimental results seem to indicate that non-native speakers, or at least Chinese learners of English, are not sensitive enough to the number morpheme in processing reading texts. Jiang suggests: “The plural morpheme -s might have been perceived and processed, as shown by their reading time difference at the first position, but only as an orthographic unit, with little morphological ramification for sentence processing” (2004: 615). However, more research needs to be done to determine whether this finding can be generalised to other learners of different L1 or whether it can be applied only to a language like Chinese which does not have inflected morphemes. The common semantic errors include inappropriate word choice; syntactic errors often consist of inappropriate use of the word (wrong collocates, wrong tenses). This is largely due to the fact that an L2 word does not have the same overlap of semantic or syntactic properties with the L1 word, which is partially covered by the notion lexical concept gap discussed later (see Chapter 4). Consider the two examples: (3)
She baked a chicken for dinner.
(4)
John participated to the project.
The first sentence is likely to be produced by a native Chinese speaker since the words roast and bake are both translated by one word kao, as 61
in Chinese there is no conceptual distinction made between cooking meat in the oven with or without fat or oil. The second sentence is commonly produced by native French speakers since the French equivalent of participate in is participer à, literarily translated into English as participate to. These errors belong to the category of negative L1 transfer. Not only a very different but also a close L1 language may lead to negative L1 transfer whenever the lexical information is not completely identical in the two languages. For two languages sharing many cognates, “false friends” constitute frequent pitfalls for learners regarding lexical meaning and use. According to Jiang (2000, 2002), most words stop at the second stage without further development. The main cause of lexical stalemate is the L1 lemma mediation, an innate feature of the second stage. Jiang puts it this way (2002: 619): […] once L1 semantic information has entered L2 entries and occupied the lemma space, it is very hard for new meanings to get in. The semantic information that is copied from the L1 translation stays in the L2 lexical entry and continues to mediate L2 word use even with continued exposure to the L2. As a result, even highly proficient L2 users will use L2 words on the basis of the semantic specifications of their L1 translations. […] That is, the form-meaning remapping suggested by some researchers or the recombination of conceptual features envisaged in de Groot’s (1992) model may not always take place successfully.
The three-stage development model of L2 lexical entries implies that L1 lemmas (the semantic and syntactic information) are playing an important role in helping the learner acquire the new L2 words. It is inevitable that learners, either intuitively or by taking short-cuts, will map L1 word information, particularly the word meaning to the L2 word form, indicating that L1 lemma mediation is indeed an important feature of learner lexical development at a certain phase. This feature of lexical development constitutes part of vocabulary learning difficulty, and will be discussed later. Although very promising, the three-stage development model of L2 lexical entries is not problem-free. One major problem is the fairly large gap between the second and the third stage, i.e. from the L1 lemma mediation stage to the integration stage. There is a big jump
62
between the two stages and no satisfactory explanation is provided as to how to explain the transition from the second stage to the third stage. Although very small in number compared with the vast number of L2 learners, some adult L2 learners do achieve native-like language competence, including lexical competence. How do most words get beyond the second stage and complete the lexical development process? Will there be more sub-stages during this transitional period? We do not have the information to answer these questions. In addition, the three-stage lexical development model is intended to describe lexical development in a formal educational setting where the L1 is perhaps the most important mediator for L2 acquisition when authentic L2 exposure is limited. What about learners who learn the language in the L2 country? Will they experience the same three stages in terms of lexical development? If not, how? The model might not be able to account for lexical development satisfactorily in a natural L2 acquisition environment, as Jiang himself admits (2000: 72). In this sense the generalisability of the model is limited. On the other hand, it could be argued that this model is very useful since the majority of L2 learners are learning the L2 in a formal educational setting usually in their own country and have limited opportunity to stay in the L2 country. Lastly, this model seems to be more suitable for learners who are learning a more distant language from their L1 (e.g. English and Chinese). One wonders whether it would be in any way applicable to two closely related languages (e.g. Spanish and Italian) where there is considerable semantic, grammatical and cultural overlapping.
2.2. Organisation of the L2 mental lexicon 2.2.1. Relations between lexical entries We have seen how a lexical entry is developed in the L2 lexicon and described the possible stages. We may assume that all lexical entries enter the lexicon this way, though not all L2 entries, or perhaps only a small proportion, will be fully developed. Lexical entries are not 63
isolated and they are connected or linked with each other in different ways. Now we shall look at the inner structure of the lexicon: how it is organised. We need to ask what the relationship is between individual lexical entries. 2.2.1.1. Possible relations between lexical entries We first take a look at how entries in the L1 mental lexicon are related to each other. Levelt (1989: 183−185) distinguishes two basic types of lexical relations: relations within and between entries. The former refers to the inflected forms of a lexical item, for example, go, goes, went, gone, and going all belong to the same lexical entry: go. In other words, all these items are related within an entry. However, derivations such as happy, happiness, unhappy belong to different entries. Relations between entries can be further divided into two types: (1) intrinsic and (2) associative relations (Levelt, 1989). A lexical item can be intrinsically linked with another in four ways according to the four types of information contained in a lexical entry, i.e. semantically, morphologically, phonologically, and syntactically. Semantic relations include hypernyms, synonyms, antonyms, etc. Lexical items can be morphologically linked to each other by sharing the same morphological stems, such as class, classify, classification, etc. Morphologically related words are likely to be semantically related as they share a common meaningful word part. Lexical items can be connected on the basis of similarity of phonological forms. Finally, lexical items can be related according to syntactic features, such as word class, grammatical functions, etc. Intrinsic relations can be direct or mediated. Associative relations between entries are not based on semantic features but on frequent co-occurrence or collocations of lexical items; for example, funny and joke, blue and sky, sea and beach, tend to occur together. An associative relation is similar to what is commonly called a syntagmatic association in applied linguistics. Sometimes intrinsic relations can also be associative as meaning related items often occur together. It seems that the evidence given by Levelt to demonstrate these lexical relations, particularly intrinsic ones, comes largely from speech errors. Sometimes native speakers make slip-of-the-tongue lexical
64
errors that can be attributed to similarity (or confusion) of meaning, phonology or pragmatic properties of lexical items (see also Channel, 1988). The following are some examples: (5)
Irvine is quite clear. (blending of close and near) (Fromkin, 1973, cited in Levelt, 1989: 184)
(6)
Open → over (Fay and Clutter, 1977, cited in Levelt, 1989: 184)
(7)
Week → work (Fay and Clutter, 1977, cited in Levelt, 1989: 184)
Such lexical errors do present themselves in native speakers’ speech, although at low frequency as the statistics show that there is a lexical error every one thousand items (Levelt et al., 1999). The same errors occur in L2 learners’ speech, probably at higher frequency but this would very much depend on L2 language proficiency. It sounds reasonable to assume that lexical entries are connected with each other by one or more of the relations discussed above; however, the assumption would be more powerful if it were substantiated by more convincing evidence. More research needs to be done in this area. 2.2.1.2. Elaborating semantic relations between English words According to Miller and Fellbaum (1991: 197−229), semantic relations are innate to English words and may characterize the underlying structure of the mental lexicon. They point out that (1) synonymy is the most common semantic relation and (2) words of different classes such as nouns, adjectives, and verbs have their own preferred semantic relations and are organised differently according to their functions. In addition to synonymy, common semantic relations between lexical items include antonymy, hyponymy/hypernymy, meronymy, troponymy, and so on. Most people are familiar with synonymy and antonymy. Hyponymy and hypernymy describe a kind of synonymy which indicates subordinate or superior relations between words, e.g. rose is a hyponym of flower or flower is a hypernym of rose. Meronymy depicts a kind of part-whole relation between words, e.g. finger is a meronym of hand. Troponymy is a kind of hyponymy, typically between verbs, e.g. to devour is to eat quickly and eagerly. 65
Words can be put together by one or more of these relations and form a “synset” (synonym set) (Miller/Fellbaum, 1991: 201), e.g. [suit, dress], [cat, animal], [good, bad], and so on, which expresses a different underlying lexical concept. Thus the mental lexicon is organised according to these five or more types of relations, with links from one synset to another. Nouns are basically organised in hierarchies produced by hyponymy, e.g. greyhound → dog → canine → carnivore → mammal → animal. All English nouns can be categorised into 26 broad categories (Miller/Fellbaum, 1991: 204−205) and each noun can find itself somewhere in a hierarchical chain in one of these 26 categories: [act, action, activity] [animal, fauna] [artifact] [attribute, property] [body, corpus] [cognition, ideation] [communication] [event, happening] [feeling, emotion] [food] [group, collection] [location, place] [motive]
[natural object] [natural phenomenon] [person, human being] [plant, flora] [possession, property] [process] [quantity, amount] [relation] [shape] [society] [state, condition] [substance] [time]
A distinction is made between adjectives: they can be predicative or non-predicative. Predicative adjectives can be used after the verb to be and non-predicative cannot. Non-predicative adjectives are organised like nouns in hierarchies, and are hyponymous in nature. In contrast, predicative adjectives are basically organised antonymously, and can be direct or indirect. For example, deep and shallow are direct antonyms; abysmal and shallow are indirect antonyms mediated by deep. It is assumed that adverbs are organised in a similar way to adjectives since most adverbs are derived from their adjectival forms. Verbs can be put into 14 categories that depict actions or events: verbs of body care and functions, change, cognition, communication, competition, consumption, contact, creation, emotion, motion, perception, possession, social interaction, and weather verbs (Miller/Fellbaum, 66
1991: 215−216). The basic relation among verbs is troponymy; other possible relations include meronymy, entailment (e.g. eating entails chewing), opposition, etc. Miller and Fellbaum’s work elaborated one important aspect of the lexicon, the semantic relations or, to be more specific, the paradigmatic associations between English words and how they are organised. These lexical relations have been employed to produce a large-scale electronic English lexical tool called WordNet (Miller, 1990). The purpose is to simulate the human lexical memory with computer applications in order to better understand lexical semantics. In a sense, WordNet is a dictionary with features of a thesaurus to enable users to quickly find a lexical item and its semantic relations with other words. It groups English words into synsets, provides short definitions, and records the various semantic relations between these synsets. What is produced is based on what has been understood from lexicography and psycholinguistics. The question is whether the simulated mental lexicon really resembles the virtual mental lexicon 11. Second, only semantic relations between words are dealt with, while other types of relations could also play a role in organizing the mental lexicon. These two questions need to be addressed to have a better understanding of how the mental lexicon might be organised.
2.2.2. Review of empirical studies investigating the differences in organisation between the L1 and the L2 mental lexicon: word associations Word association studies are the most common means for gathering evidence about the way words are connected with each other in the lexicon. Introduced by Francis Galton in the 19th century, word association was soon adopted by psychologists as a way to explore human thoughts and became popular in lexical studies (Miller, 1996). In the classic word association study, a list of words is given and 11
The mental lexicon is often talked about and exists as a kind of metaphor, such as network, library, computer, dictionary, thesaurus, encyclopedia, etc. But nobody knows what it might actually look like.
67
subjects are asked to respond with the first word that springs to mind for each word in the list. The most famous list contains 100 prompt words and is named the Kent-Rosanoff list after the two researchers who produced it in 1910. The list was given to a large population (1000 men and women) and the results revealed some strikingly similar patterns, i.e., that people tended to give similar responses to a particular prompt word. For example, in response to chair, the most common responses are table, seat and sit (Miller, 1996: 157). Meara (1996b) claims that the results of word association studies (for native speakers) tend to be fairly stable with 50 subjects or so and a larger population does not make a significant change. One deduction from the similar patterns of responses is that native speakers share similar, stable networks in respect of the mental lexicon. Through word association studies, three types of word association responses are typically identified: syntagmatic, paradigmatic and clang associations (Meara, 1996b). With syntagmatic associations, two words occur as a collocation or in proximity. For example, the response to the prompt word canary can be small, pretty, fly, and sing. The response and the prompt word usually belong to different word classes. Paradigmatic associations are responses that are semantically related to the prompt word by synonymy, antonymy or hypernymy, and so on. As a consequence, they have the same word class as the prompt word. For example, the prompt word flower produces responses like rose, leaf, plant, etc. Clang associations are neither semantically linked nor collocated with the prompt word; rather, they are phonologically or formally similar. For example, clang associations for the word blink could be pink and link. It is generally believed that L1 children show a shift in association responses as they grow older (Wolter, 2001; Schmit, 2000): young children tend to produce more syntagmatic associations than paradigmatic associations together with a large number of clang associations but as they grow older paradigmatic associations increase while syntagmatic and clang associations diminish; eventually they produce association patterns in line with prototypical native patterns of association. Schmitt (2000: 40) cites evidence to show that the shift occurs in a different order for words of different classes: nouns come first, followed by adjectives and verbs.
68
Although not the first to explore the differences between the L1 and L2 lexicons, Meara was perhaps one of the earliest to arouse researchers’ interest in this issue, first raising it in the late 1970s. From word association studies on L2 learners, Meara (1996b) points out that the structure of the L2 learners’ mental lexicon is in general significantly different from that of L1 speakers but it can be changed over time. He (1996b: 2−7) observes that: (1) learners tend to produce more varied and idiosyncratic responses than L1 speakers; (2) learners tend to produce a large proportion of clang associations the way L1 young children do; (3) learners often mistake a prompt word for another phonologically similar word and consequently produce strange word associations; (4) the semantic links of the learners’ mental lexicon are rather fragile and prone to be influenced by formal similarities; (5) as learners’ language proficiency advances they tend to produce nativelike word associations. Soderman (1993, cited in Schmitt, 2000: 41) provides further evidence to support Meara’s fifth point. In her studies, the L2 learners of English (Scandinavian school children and young adults) show a syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift in their responses along with fewer occurrences of clang associations as they progress. It is not easy to achieve native-like patterns of word association, or to have an L2 lexicon organised similarly to that of a native speaker; in fact, it might well involve a life-long learning process. In section 2.1.2., we saw that the L2 mental lexicon of most learners is underdeveloped because of L1 transfer, the way an L2 is learned and many other factors. Schmitt and Meara (1997) investigated the word association knowledge of 94 young Japanese secondary school and university learners of English and found that the students generally demonstrated poor knowledge of word associations; in the case of words claimed to be known, the word associations produced only accounted for 50% of the native patterns. The poor word association knowledge was attributed to three reasons (Schmitt/Meara: 31−32): (1) confusing prompt words with other formally similar words, (2) conceptually correct word associations but not native-like ones (e.g. complete → whole, moon), (3) associations connected with the classroom (e.g. complete → sentence, homework, report). Schur (2002) investigated the structure of semantic networks of native English speakers and Chinese learners of English using a word 69
association task. On a sheet of paper 50 common English verbs were set out in a box in alphabetical order; below this a random list of the same 50 words was given with a number before and a blank after each word. Subjects were asked to choose one word from the box to fill in the gap for each word in the list to form a pair. Words in the box could be chosen repeatedly. See below for part of the work sheet (Schur, 2002): Verb Box: to argue to cut
to assist to describe
Verb list: 1. to help _______ 4. to tell _______ 7. to love ______
to build to discover
to buy to dream
2. to study _______ 5. to expect _____ …
to clean to drive
to cost to yell
3. to scream _____ 6. to wash _______ 50. to (…) _______
Based on the completed word pairs, a “network” can be drawn for each subject. A typical native speaker’s “network” contains 16 semantic groups: each word in a group is connected with others by links and there is no link between groups. A typical Chinese speaker’s English “network” contains 7 groups. It seems that the number of semantic groups produced depends on the level of English proficiency: more groups for a higher level and fewer groups for a lower level. The L2 learners’ network contains less than half as many semantic groups as that of the L1 speakers, which means that within each group there are more words and more links. Thus the L2 learner’s “network” appears to be more complex and denser than that of native speakers. However, Schur argues that this does not mean that they have a deep knowledge of these verbs; it is, on the contrary, a manifestation of their poor lexical knowledge. Although it is not certain that such a “network” generated with 50 verbs resembles the virtual mental lexicon, a rough look at the data would suggest that Chinese L2 learners frequently generate strange, idiosyncratic associations such as fight → argue, expect → imagine, or syntagmatic-like associations such as try → drive, test → prove, etc. It is very likely that in these Chinese L2 learners’ L2 lexicons the L1 lemma information still occupies most of the lexical entries for these 50 English verbs, which
70
is congruent with the L1 lemma mediation proposed by Jiang (see 2.1.2.). The L1 influence is obvious: the Chinese lexical item zheng lun can be literarily translated into to fight and to argue, although the most appropriate translation would be to argue, which is why they associate fight with argue. The Chinese yan zheng can be literarily translated into to test and prove, although the most appropriate translation is to validate, which explains why Chinese learners associate test with prove. It can thus be seen that L1 transfer is one of the main reasons why the L2 learners’ word association patterns are different from those of native speakers, consequently leading to a marked difference between the structures of the two lexicons. Wolter (2001) argues that the L1 and the L2 lexicons are not necessarily inherently different in structure, but it is the degree of knowledge of the individual words which make up the lexicon that determines how it is organised. He (2001: 48) constructed a model of depth of word knowledge in which a word can be known to four degrees: slightly known, moderately well known, fairly well known, and well known. It is hypothesized that for both L1 and L2 speakers, the word associations generated should be similar for prompt words known to the same degree of depth. In testing what is hypothesized, a word association study is combined with the VKS (Vocabulary Knowledge Scale; see 1.4.4.1) test. Each prompt word is used to generate an association as well as to test how well the word is known. The results show that the hypothesis is partially true, depending on the degree of word knowledge. The L1 speakers’ and L2 speakers’ associations show similar patterns when words are not or only slightly known. For words that are moderately well known, the L2 speakers make a significantly lower proportion of paradigmatic associations and a significantly higher proportion of clang associations. For words that are well known, the L2 speakers clearly show a preference for syntagmatic associations over paradigmatic associations, which is the reverse for L1 speakers. Despite this, Wolter argues that L1 speakers tend to produce more paradigmatic associations than L2 speakers probably because the former have a (much) larger lexis than the latter; thus more paradigmatic associations do not necessarily suggest a higher level of lexical structure but an indication of larger lexical size. Also, although the measurement criteria of word knowledge (using the VKS) are the 71
same for both L1 and L2 speakers, what the L2 speakers actually know for a word interpreted as “well known” might be different from that of the L1 speakers: the VKS might not be sensitive enough to reveal these differences. Nevertheless, Wolter proposes to look at the mental lexicon and its organisation from a developmental viewpoint. He (2001: 65) writes: […] the progression for individual words could be viewed as moving from a state in which phonological and other nonsemantic connections are dominant to a state where syntagmatic or paradigmatic connections take precedence. This is not to suggest that higher level semantic connections simply replace the lower level phonological and nonsemantic connections, rather there would appear to be a process in which the initial connections are retained, but the later connections become dominant. In this sense, a well-known word has several connections of different types (i.e., phonological, syntagmatic, and paradigmatic), but some connections are stronger than others.
Following this developmental approach, Namei (2004) investigated the organisation of the mental lexicon of young Persian-Swedish bilinguals comparing both Swedish and Persian L1 lexicons, using the Kent-Rosanoff word association list. Among the subjects, the youngest was 6 years old and the oldest 22 years old. They were highly proficient in both languages while their Swedish was more advanced since they had been living in the country. The results generally confirm what has been pointed out in previous studies, namely, that there are more clang associations among younger children and that there is a syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift between the ages of 6 and 10. However, there are other important findings that differ from the previous studies (Namei, 2004: 382): (1) Clang associations persist even for the most advanced L1 and L2 speakers and their occurrences are determined by word knowledge rather than general language proficiency; (2) a considerable number of syntagmatic associations are produced by even the most advanced L1 and L2 speakers; (3) a considerable number of paradigmatic associations are produced even by the lowest level L1 and L2 speakers. Namei thus argues that the mental lexicon is not organised according to a syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift, which simply indicates increased lexical knowledge for all individual words; instead, it is organised
72
according to the stages at which words develop. He proposes a model in which words in the mental lexicon are organised along a word-knowledge continuum: Increasing language exposure unknown
barely familiar
moderately known
fairly well-known
form-based
syntagmatic
paradigmatic
well-known paradigmatic/ late syntagmatic
Figure 5. Word-knowledge continuum and main organisational features of words in the mental lexicon (Namei, 2004: 382).
Thus, words that have been recently learned are organised according to form; those that are partially known tend to stay with their collocates or co-occurring words; those that are well-known are linked with semantically related words such as synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms, and meronyms. Since the subjects in this study were either L1 young speakers or very efficient young bilinguals living in the L2 country, the results can best account for the L1 mental lexicon and their direct application to the L2 mental lexicon (particularly the L2 lexicon of adult learners) needs to be further validated.
2.3. Conclusion The studies regarding the organisation of the L1 lexicon show that words are connected in one way or another, particularly through paradigmatic associations (synonyms). The structure of the L1 and the L2 lexicons are different from each other but the two can be potentially similar to each other, depending on a number of factors: L2 proficiency, L2 lexical knowledge, L1 influence, learning environment, etc. Studies of L2 word associations show that the clang-syntagmatic-paradigmatic association shift follows the pattern of the L1 as the L2 learner 73
progresses. However, whether this shift reflects overall language proficiency or the degree of knowledge of individual words is not clear and further studies are needed. It follows from these findings in respect of word associations that a network with numerous nodes and links would be the metaphor that best represents the mental lexicon. Other metaphors do not easily accommodate the many constant internal changes that are taking place. The nodes of the network, or the words, can be related or linked in many ways, revealing features of the inner structure of the network, but it would be a mistake to suggest that each node has a fixed location and remains near to some other particular words. A fixed location cannot easily allow the co-existence of many different types of links between other words. For example, a word may possibly be simultaneously close to other semantically, morphologically, syntactically, phonologically related words. It is not the location but the links that matter. It is also likely that a lexical node is changing its location constantly on account of its links with other words and the contexts where it is retrieved for use. Thus the whole mental lexicon is in a dynamic state, its inner structure constantly experiencing synchronic and diachronic change.
74
Chapter 3. The Role of Listening in SLVA
3.1. The historical background With the transition from the grammar-translation method to the audio-lingual method in the 1950s, when there was a move away from the written language to the spoken language, so much emphasis was placed on speaking that it was often overlooked that communication is a two-way process, and comprehension, i.e. listening, was given very little attention. This continued until well into the 1970s. During that period many language learning materials were published where the main focus was firmly on speaking, though reading and writing were also practised (Kelly, 1980). In these materials listening was invariably treated as a supplementary, subordinate activity to assist in achieving speaking proficiency, just as it had been during the audiolingual period. During the late 1970s, a large number of listening courses were put out by British publishers following the complaint by applied linguists that this skill was being neglected and that research needed to be carried out in this area (Kelly, 1985). As this author points out (Kelly, 1985:51), the main preoccupation was with improving learners’ knowledge of spontaneous spoken language by the use of “authentic” materials, excluding as far as possible oralised written language. 12 These courses placed emphasis on the development of strategies and took a global approach, with little effort being made to integrate listening comprehension into the language learning process. Such courses largely disappeared from the language learning scene after a few years and in the 1990s the accusation of neglect was again being made (Oxford, 1993a). Several reasons probably contributed to this neglect, e.g. the difficulty of teaching the skill in the classroom, the 12
Kelly (1985) lists 33 such courses, 27 of which appeared between 1975 and 1981, reflecting the awareness at the time of the need to focus on listening.
75
so-called passive and supposedly uninteresting nature of the skill, but primarily the cultural prominence of speaking. Kelly (1995) argues that this is a feature of Western culture and, to support his case, points to the listening courses Steil (1980, cited in Kelly, 1995: 19) organised for American executives to make them better listeners: they were losing out in business because their main preoccupation was with pushing their own ideas and interests. In contrast to this superficial treatment of listening, a number of linguists, on the basis of experimentation and findings in psychology and neurolinguistics, developed methods that were squarely based on listening. Prior to examining the salient principles underlying these methods, one illusion in respect of listening needs to be dispelled, namely that listening is a passive process.
3.2. Listening: A dynamic language activity At the moment when it was being officially acknowledged that the audio-lingual method was not the answer to resolving the problems of second language acquisition, the Canadian linguist Pimsleur (1970) was drawing attention to the unsuitability of the epithet “passive” in respect of listening. He argued that it should be described as a “receptive” skill. Following his plea, a number of linguists adopted this term, although later Oxford (1993a) argued that even this adjective was inappropriate as it still implied a lower level of activity than speaking. In the first place, it should be noted that listening, like speaking, is a physical activity. If we observe a person listening to another, we perceive facial, head and body movements that reflect the listener’s mental processes. As Oller (1978) put it, the listener and the speaker are like two puppets moved by the same set of strings. The listener’s body “dances” in harmony with that of the speaker. It is sufficient to look through the window of a restaurant or café to have proof of this phenomenon; further evidence is provided by the mobile phone when even at a distance when the phone or the arm holding it are not visible it
76
is easy to see that the person is “dancing” in unison with an invisible interlocutor. The decoding process also more than demonstrates the active nature of listening. The distinction between top-down and bottom-up processing clearly illustrates this. While bottom-up processing is the application of the ear to what is uttered, top-down processing is the application of the listener’s grammatical and lexical knowledge in order to understand what is said. As Pimsleur (1970) argued, it is only by means of this second type of processing that we can explain what he calls the cocktail party phenomenon, i.e. why it is we can understand what a speaker says though we hear probably only half of what s/he utters. Extralinguistic knowledge, i.e. situation, topic of conversation, etc., also comes into play but our brains are working overtime drawing on our reserves of knowledge of the language. The greater those reserves, the more likely we are to understand. A language learner who does not have a great knowledge of the target language will doubtless understand far less, despite a sharp ear, than an ageing monolingual with impaired hearing. Even advanced learners cannot compete with native speakers as Whitson (1972) clearly demonstrated. Kelly (1992) carried out investigations that showed that it was not poor auditory perception but a lack of lexical knowledge that was the main obstacle for advanced learners in listening comprehension 13. Kelly (1992: 138) puts it this way: Even if the foreign language learner could acquire the highest degree of auditory perception attainable by the native speaker, he would not find it much of an advantage: unless he can learn to use his language knowledge and other available or previously acquired information to predict or anticipate what will be said, to deduce or recognise words on the basis of absent or incomplete sound indicators, to bring into play his knowledge of the sound patterns of the language, a keen ear will be of little use to him.
It can be concluded that listening is an active/dynamic process in every sense. 13
Top-down processing also operates at the reading level and explains why, for example, a native speaker can often read with relative ease and full understanding a badly photocopied page where the last word on each line is missing.
77
3.3. Listening as the basic skill in SLA The most notable linguists who argued for the dominance of listening in SLA were, for the most part, psychologists by training and, initially at least, by profession. The first of these was the Bulgarian Lozanov (1979) whose method is still widely used in Western countries and goes by the name of Suggestopeodia14. Here the salient characteristics are for learners to change their identity and then to sit in comfortable armchairs, listening to large quantities of language against a background of soft music. The second was Asher, who started experimenting in the 1960s and became widely known for his Total Physical Response method (1983). He argues that all language can be taught using the imperative which he calls “the golden tense”; while his classes consist of learners constantly moving about and doing things on the basis of instructions from the teacher in the target language, he makes considerable use of cards on which abstract and other terms are written in large letters, e.g. “John, put JUSTICE on Charlie’s head”. The German-speaking child psychologist, Winitz, produced his listening based language course, The Learnables (1978). Using pictures and sound recordings, he takes the learner through the same grammatical sequences as the native speaker learning their first language. While not developing a specific language learning method, Nord (1978) did much to promote the importance of listening and its benefits, arguing for a totally new listening based paradigm in the field of second language acquisition. In the early 1980s, Ostyn and his colleagues (Ostyn/Godin, 1985; Kelly 1989), developed a method where listening was closely linked to the acquisition of vocabulary, an issue that I shall be discussing subsequently; they required learners to listen to quantities of material in their own time and then to perform oral and other exercises in class based on the material studied. Currently the most well-known advocate of the listening based approach is Krashen 14
78
It appears that Lozanov’s method has been adapted in the West and not always applied in the way he envisaged (see Wagner/Tilney, 1983, in Kelly, 1985: 252).
(1996) whose controversial views have stimulated considerable research. He argues that learners should simply have large quantities of comprehensible oral input consisting of material that interests them and that they enjoy listening to. Other linguists could be cited, e.g. Ervin-Tripp (1974); Gary (1975) and Ruder et al. (1977), whose research led them to highlight the importance of listening in the learning of a second language. The above-mentioned methods are based on a number of principles; it is argued that these principles need to be accepted if second language learning is to have any chance of success. I shall discuss briefly the three most important of these principles.
3.3.1. Activation of both brain hemispheres It is essential that the whole brain be activated for language learning to be successful. It is not sufficient to activate the left hemisphere of the brain where the language centres, Broca’s and Wernicke’s area, are located, but also the right hemisphere which governs physical movement, music and imagery. The prosodic features of language, notably intonation and stress, are thus located in the right hemisphere. So much language teaching and learning is unsuccessful, according to the linguists cited above, because it fails to activate both hemispheres, to involve the individual totally – intellectually, physically, affectively – in the language learning process. As we saw from the very brief outline of their methods, each focuses on a different way of activating the whole brain: Lozanov (1979) employed music and relaxation; Asher adhered to physical movement; Winitz (1978) made use of imagery; Ostyn and his colleagues took the language learning out of the classroom and made it a part of the individual language learners’ private lives. Krashen (1996), like Lozanov, focuses on enjoying the activity.
79
3.3.2. L1 acquisition as a model for L2 acquisition 15 The acquisition of an L2 can be patterned on L1 language acquisition. Just as listening precedes speaking by as much as a year in respect of the L1, listening must precede speaking practice in L2 language acquisition. Asher strongly discouraged learners from speaking in the early stages of language learning. Winitz (1978) did not allow his learners to speak until after many hours of instruction and introduced grammatical structures in the same order as the native speaker would acquire them. Krashen (1987) considers that the L2 language learner will internalise the grammar of the language without any formal instruction, just as the native speaker does. Ostyn and his colleagues required students to listen to and understand all the texts they had to study prior to performing oral exercises or producing any of the language orally.
3.3.3. The transfer effects of listening to reading and speaking The transfer effects of listening to the other skills are considerable and it is this more than anything else that makes listening the basic skill. Experimental evidence has been provided to demonstrate the transfer effects to reading and to speaking. Asher, experimenting with German (1972) and Spanish (Asher et al. 1974) demonstrated a natural transfer effect from listening to reading, without any prior training in reading. In the German study, after a 32 hour listening course at the rate of one hour a week, the learners were given a reading test and their results compared with those of students who had covered one year of German study at university and where the focus had been on reading and writing. “Both groups (were) quite similar in their reading achievement” (Asher, 1972: 136). Reeds, Winitz and Garcia (1977) obtained even better results in respect of German, claiming that Asher’s results too would have been better had his experimental methodology been 15
80
It has been stated that Lozanov does not subscribe to this view but it is clear that his massive listening input correlates with the situation of the young child learning their first language.
better – he had in fact used cards with the experimental group in the listening course. They took two groups (students and secondary school pupils) and gave them an 8 hour listening course spread over two and three weeks with 45 minute lessons each time. They were then asked to translate three passages of German, consisting of words and structures they had heard but arranged to form new sentences. The average result for both groups was close to 80%. The control group consisted of students who did not know any German; their score was 23%. With regard to positive transfer effects to speaking, a wealth of empirical data exists, e.g., Asher (1964); Nord (1975); Winitz et al. (1985); Gary (1975); Ruder et al. (1977); Winitz/Reeds (1973); Postovsky, (1974). Here I limit myself to the findings of just two of the researchers mentioned. Those of Postovsky are particularly noteworthy and at the time attracted a considerable amount of interest. He was teaching Russian to two different groups, using the audio-lingual method with one group; the other group consisted of stenographers who were simply required to transcribe large quantities of spoken Russian played to them on tape. At the end of the course, he found that the stenographers could also speak Russian and they had a better accent and made fewer grammatical errors than the students in the audiolingual group. His later reports confirmed this finding (1975, 1977). Gary (1975) carried out a similar study, but with primary school children learning Spanish. She randomly assigned her two pupils to two groups each of the same size. The course lasted twenty-one weeks and consisted of 85 twenty-five minute lessons. One group was not required to speak for the first 14 weeks nor for the first half of the lesson in the remaining weeks. The second group, the audio-lingual group, was required to speak from the beginning. Both groups had the same amount of listening and both enjoyed their lessons. At the end of the course, the listening only group could speak Spanish as well as the audio-lingual group. There are other principles that these methods have in common, notably the learner-teacher relationship and the need for regular rehearsal, two features of language learning that almost any linguist would subscribe to. Despite the soundness of the basis of these listening methods, relatively little attention is given to them today. Oxford (1993a) describes listening as “a neglected stepchild” despite 81
the efforts made previously to promote it. There are a number of reasons for this, probably the most notable being the move away from methods to approaches, which are essentially eclectic and holistic in nature; learners have different learning styles, use different strategies, have different goals, find themselves in different practical and social contexts. There is also the focus on speaking that I discussed earlier and which shows no sign of diminishing, as is well illustrated by the full-page advertisement that has appeared many times in the Guardian Weekly newspaper in recent years: Speak another language? Speak it better.
3.4. The importance of listening in vocabulary acquisition N. Ellis (2002) strongly argues that frequency is the inseparable component of SLA and its quantity and quality determine the language proficiency achieved in terms of accuracy and fluency. N. Ellis (2001: 36) points out that “language is learned”, by which he means that learners need to spend a formidable amount of time in processing the language input and using the language. It follows that listening becomes the most important form of language input. It should also be borne in mind that a great deal more of our time seems to be devoted to listening than to speaking. According to Feyten (1991), more than 45% of our total communication time is spent on listening; speaking takes up 30%; reading takes up 16%; writing takes up 9%. Although, as we have just seen, the idea uppermost in most learners’ minds is to speak another language, to express their own needs, ideas, etc., communication is very much a two-way process. And not only is a far greater language repertoire, particularly lexical, needed to understand what others are saying than what one wishes to say oneself. It is through language frequency input, particularly listening, that learners master thousands of words, multi-word items and longer strings of language.
82
Experienced teachers, when asked what are the greatest obstacles confronting the language learner, will doubtless mention listening comprehension and vocabulary learning. They are probably the most time-consuming and difficult areas that have to be faced and paradoxically are the two that were the most neglected in the past in L2 acquisition research. The level of attainment in these two areas determines the learner’s degree of proficiency in the target language (Spolsky et al., 1968). The link between the two, between listening comprehension and vocabulary learning, has been explored by a small number of researchers (e.g. Gary/Gary, 1982; Kelly, 1992). In a series of experiments, Kelly (1992) showed that in the learning of vocabulary, if the sound input is provided, learners retain the vocabulary longer than when it is learned only visually both for reading and for listening purposes. Kelly and his colleagues (1999) subsequently carried out a series of investigations with Chinese learners where students were obliged to listen to their tape to have the correct answers and to resolve their difficulties. Given the positive findings from these investigations, a self-learning course, WUFUN (Kelly/Li, 2005), was developed consisting of a book and CD. Listening is necessary, not only to aid in the mastery of a word’s pronunciation, both perceptually and productively, but also to lodge that word in long-term memory both for visual as well as auditory recognition purposes.
3.5. Conclusion In this chapter we have seen that listening comprehension still remains the least favoured skill in L2 acquisition despite its great importance in the process of attaining this goal. Evidence and arguments were presented that dispel the widespread perception that listening is passive, showing that it is both a physical and a mental activity. Attention was also drawn to the need for top-down processing, the utilization of language knowledge as well as real-world knowledge, to 83
decode the utterances of others. The publications and courses of a small number of researchers who have placed listening at the heart of L2 acquisition were focused upon and their reasons, for the most part as a result of findings in psychology, for doing so. It is the learner’s total involvement that emerges as probably the key factor in promoting listening comprehension and in consequence overall language acquisition. In addition, given the close link between listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition, for any vocabulary learning materials/programs to be successful, acoustic input of the vocabulary and the texts is a necessity.
84
Chapter 4. Vocabulary Learning Difficulty
4.1. Cultural difference 4.1.1. Language learning: A culture bound phenomenon In the very influential but much disputed Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which was advanced in the first half of the twentieth century, language, instead of being an innate biological capacity of human beings like walking, is viewed as a purely historical heritage of the group, the product of long-continued social usage. It is associated with the religions, the beliefs, the customs, and arts of different peoples. In short, we can say that walking is an organic, instinctive function while language is the expression of a particular culture (Sapir, 1970). Whorf (1956) further indicated that, in the first place, all higher levels of thinking are dependent on language; secondly, that the structure of the language one uses influences the manner in which one understands one’s environment. The picture of the world in people’s eyes shifts from tongue to tongue. Language is not just an instrument for expressing ideas but shapes ideas and guides the individual's mental activity (Hoijer, 1994). The particular language we speak, especially the structure of that language, determines our thinking and our perception of reality and, ultimately, important cultural patterns. The thought patterns of the speaker of any particular language are determined by the inherent concepts and symbols of that language. Language always mirrors the background culture of whoever is speaking. Miller gives this description of the relationship between vocabulary and culture: “People who know a word can share that idea with other members of their group, and a shared vocabulary is part of the glue that holds people together and allows them to create a shared culture” (1996: 5). Learning vocabulary in another language is far more than establishing a word-for-word equivalence. As de Saussure 85
(1974) indicated, every word in every language has a unique set of relationships with other words in the language, all of which represent different conceptual relationships that result from that culture. For example, a simple word such as policeman, to use an example discussed by Vanparys et al. (1997), has very different associations in English, French and Polish. Nonetheless, Sapir (1970: 213−215) pointed out that cultural and linguistic boundaries are not necessarily identical, with the result that language does not always reflect culture in a deep sense. When stating this, he was referring to the aboriginal American Indians; it was found that among them totally different languages could share a similar culture and closely related language practices (e.g. hunting buffalo, rituals, etc.). He also gave the example of the immigrant North Americans and the British people who spoke almost the same language but the cultural difference was widening due to the geographical, political, and economic differences. It is true that the Indian cultures, on the one hand, and the American/British cultures, on the other, differ distinctively in certain respects, but they clearly share many things in comparison with other more distant cultures, say the Chinese culture. The wider the cultural gap, the greater the differences. A strong position which views language acquisition and culture acquisition as inseparable components claims that learners cannot master the L2 until they have mastered the culture behind the language. This implies that by mastering the L2, particularly through staying in the L2 country, learners learn the new ways of thinking and behaving enshrouded in the L2 culture. However, sometimes highly proficient L2 learners living in the host country for a long time fail to be assimilated into the L2 culture but can still understand and distinguish the differences between their own and the L2 culture (Yoshida, 1990). A somewhat neutral yet realistic position is that learning a new language involves reconstructing or reorganizing the lexical concepts (at the cognitive level) embraced by the culture to varying degrees, e.g. Lantolf (1999). Since language is so closely linked with the culture that nourishes it, it is reasonable to assume that being aware of and learning
86
the L2 culture can only be helpful 16 to L2 acquisition. It should be noted that acquiring the L2 culture is not an easy task at all, the process probably being as complex as L2 acquisition. To acquire the L2 culture, learners need to develop considerable knowledge as such (Peterson/ Coltrane, 2003: 1): Language learners need to be aware, for example, of the culturally appropriate ways to address people, express gratitude, make requests, and agree or disagree with someone. They should know that behaviours and intonation patterns that are appropriate in their own speech community may be perceived differently by members of the target language speech community. They have to understand that, in order for communication to be successful, language use must be associated with other culturally appropriate behaviour.
Learning a language means learning about its people and its culture. A learner who has a positive attitude towards its people and appreciation of its culture will achieve greater language proficiency than someone who does not (Gardner, 1985). To acquire an L2 vocabulary means acquiring the specific meaning or lexical concepts in its culture. To understand the cultural difference between L1 and L2 is extremely important in learning L2 vocabulary. It also implies that the greater the cultural difference, the more difficult vocabulary acquisition becomes. To learn about the L2 culture will certainly be helpful to SLVA, but the main vocabulary learning difficulty arising from cultural factors seems to come from two sources, lexical concept gaps between L1 and L2, and culturally loaded words.
4.1.2. Lexical concept gaps The central component of learning a word is learning its meaning; behind the meaning lies the concept which differs from one culture to 16
Learning the L2 culture will certainly aid L2 proficiency, which may be at the cost of losing one’s own culture. Some people may view this as negative, though L2 learners themselves do not necessarily think so. On the other hand, learning the L2 culture could bring considerable benefits, such as being more flexible and developing new ways of looking at the world, as has been shown by studies of bilingualism.
87
another. The classic example is the concept of snow in the Eskimo language. Since snow is very important in an Eskimo’s life, people used to claim that there exist dozens to hundreds of different words for snow. The truth is, according to the linguist Geoffrey Pallum (cited in Miller, 1996), that there are only two root words for snow: qanik (the snow in the air), and aput (snow on the ground). Although this persistent myth was exposed, it does indicate that certain concepts are important to one culture while less important or non-existent in another culture. The incorporation of loan words into different languages gives us many good examples, e.g. English, giving the dearth of words in respect of haute cuisine, has taken many words (along with the dishes!) directly from French without any modification17. Chinese culture puts great emphasis on kinship in daily life and assigns precise terms to all family members and relatives. There are four different terms for grandparents: yeye (paternal grandfather), nainai (paternal grandmother), waigong (maternal grandfather) and waipo (maternal grandmother). Different forms also exist for uncles and aunts (and their wives or husbands) on the father’s and on the mother’s side. Within the family, sisters and brothers are differentiated not only by their sex but also age: meimei (younger sister), jiejie (older sister), didi (younger brother), and gege (old brother). In this manner, by addressing any member of the family, the exact relationship is revealed between the addresser and the addressee. To learn all these kinship terms in Chinese is arduous and, at first sight, may seem unnecessary for a learner whose L1, e.g. English or French, does not have so many precise terms. Generally speaking, if a lexical concept exists in the L2 but not in the L1, learning the L2 word will be difficult as it involves learning a new concept; on the other hand, learning an L2 word will be easier if there are more lexical concepts in the L1 for just one L2 lexical concept. Not only the lexical concept gaps but also degree of relatedness of the lexical concept will affect vocabulary learning difficulty. Although
17
88
Sometimes keeping the French pronunciation would be regarded as keeping the original meaning of the word.
Chinese and Korean belong to different language families 18 and use very different orthographic systems, the words of the two languages generally share many similar concepts due to a similar cultural tradition, both countries having been heavily influenced by Confucianism. It follows that a Chinese learner may find it less difficult to learn Korean words than English words where there is much less of a conceptual overlap with Chinese words.
4.1.3. Culturally loaded words In order to understand what culturally loaded words are, we first have to distinguish between two linguistic terms: denotation and connotation. When we speak of denotation, we are talking about the dictionary meaning of the word, the central features of which are shared by most, if not all, speakers of the language. Connotation, on the other hand, refers to subjective factors, to the feelings and different associations that an individual makes on the basis of their own knowledge or experience. It follows that the connotation of a given word could be different for each individual. However, in practice, the connotations of words are likely to be shared by a group of people of the same culture since they have a great deal of similar experience. Therefore, culturally loaded words are those words whose concepts exist in both L1 and L2, but the connotations are different, often being associated with positive/negative feelings or appropriateness/inappropriateness. In other words, some words are heavily loaded with culturally specific connotations. Through word association studies, Kolers (1963) found that concrete words tend to produce neutral responses and that abstract words are more likely to lead to culturally specific responses. It seems that culture is best reflected at the level of abstract concepts. However, a very concrete word like bus can have very different connotations from what in most people’s minds is simply a cheap, convenient means of public transport; for many Americans and other English speakers of a 18
Chinese belongs to the Sino-Tibetan family and Korean either stands on its own as an independent family or, arguably, distantly relates to the Altaic family.
89
certain age the word conjures up a political movement in the 1960s in the USA when children of mixed origin were sent to school in buses in order to integrate ethnically separated communities. Very few empirical studies have been carried out on the acquisition of culturally loaded words. Liu and Zhong (1999) compared Chinese learners of English and native English speakers on their understanding of six culturally loaded words by rating the appropriateness of each word. It was found that most L2 learners demonstrated limited, inadequate understanding of the culturally loaded words in comparison with native speakers, and that there existed a fairly large gap of understanding culturally loaded words between advanced L2 learners and native speakers. It should be noted that the subjects in this study were learning English in China, without any direct contact with an English-speaking culture. Similarly, Kupelian (2001) investigated the acquisition of culturally loaded words by Korean learners of English. The results generally confirmed those of Liu and Zhong’s study. The gap in the understanding of culturally loaded words comes from the difference between the connotations of the words in L1 and those in L2. For example, the word submissive which is used to describe a girl’s personality has a negative connotation in English culture while it is a positive epithet in Korean culture where Korean wives are expected to be submissive (Kupelian, 2001). Lack of, or insufficient, contact with the L2 culture is the main reason for the existence of the cultural connotation gaps. Both Liu and Zhong (1999) and Kupelian (2001) call for more attention to be paid to culturally loaded words and for vocabulary to be taught in adequate and appropriate social and cultural contexts. Unfortunately, this is not always possible in many countries where an L2 is learned and taught in the L1 environment.
90
4.2. Linguistic distance 4.2.1. What is linguistic distance? Many authors would agree that L1 vocabulary has an important impact on SLVA (e.g. Nation, 1990; Swan, 1997). Studies on learner interlanguage show that there exist considerable transfer (or borrowing) and interference between L1 and L2 vocabulary. If many of the features of an L2 word can be predicted from the learner’s L1, the word will be easy to learn; otherwise, difficulties will be encountered. Languages can differ in many aspects, including meaning, grammar, spelling, and phonology. This phenomenon is referred to by many linguists as linguistic distance (between L1 and L2); it determines to what extent the two languages differ from each other and, to some degree, how difficult it is to learn the L2 vocabulary.
4.2.2. Measuring linguistic distance Since the phenomenon of linguistic distance exists, it is reasonable to assume that we need to measure how two or more languages are distant from each other in order to have some kind of index for predicting the learning difficulty. As Crystal (1987: 371) points out, while linguistic distance appears to be important in L2 acquisition, it is almost impossible to establish a linear relationship between language distance and learning difficulty since it is difficult to measure the linguistic distance quantitatively due to the complex structure system of language. However, there appear to be three ways that can shed some light on measuring the linguistic distance, despite the dearth of literature on this issue. 4.2.2.1. Approximating the distance via language family trees A language family is a group of related languages descending from a common ancestral language. Most European languages are derived from an ancient but lost language, referred to as Proto-Indo-European 91
(PIE); they form what is known as the Indo-European language family. Inside the huge Indo-European family, there are small categories or sub-families, e.g. the Romance family (French, Italian, Spanish, etc.), the Germanic family (German, English, Dutch, etc.), the Celtic family (Irish, Welsh, Breton, etc.), and so on. Thus all the languages in this family can be described as the branches of a tree. From the family tree, it is not difficult to deduce that English is closer to German than to Italian while Spanish is more distant from Dutch than from Portuguese. In this way, we can approximately estimate the language distances between most languages. However, as Chiswick and Miller (2004) point out, the measure is only approximate and cannot be accurate without a quantitative measure. 4.2.2.2. Minimum learning time needs to reach a basic level It is assumed that the more distant two languages are, the more difficult it is to learn each of the languages, and thus the time required to reach a basic level will be longer. From the minimum time required to reach the basic level of each language, it is possible to rank the learning difficulty of each language, and thus the linguistic distance. At the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department, where selected high aptitude candidates were required to attain a certain level of proficiency in another language, day-long immersion courses were organised, the number of weeks being determined by the estimated level of learning difficulty. Thus, French, for example, was placed on the 20-week level, Danish on the 24-week level, while inflectional or tone languages like Polish and Chinese, where in addition there are few cognates, were on the highest level of 44 weeks. According to Odlin (1989), this was the situation in 1985. 4.2.2.3. Measuring the distance by language proficiency level achieved This approach is similar to the previous one in attempting to quantify the distance, not in learning time but in learning result. According to Chiswick and Miller (2004: 6), the most accurate means of measuring the distance between languages is to find out how difficult it is for learners with a given L1 (e.g. English) to learn a series of different
92
L2s (e.g. French, German, Italian, Turkish, Arabic, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etc). If it is more difficult to learn Chinese than Turkish then Chinese is more distant from English than Turkish. In their study of English-speaking American adults who between them were learning 43 different languages, the difficulty in learning a language was measured by the language proficiency they had achieved. Based on the language achievement in terms of scores after a 24 week language training period for each of the different languages, a ranking of language distance between English and other languages can be obtained, the lowest score being the most distant and the highest the least distant. The results show that, for English-speaking Americans, Japanese and Korean are among the hardest or the most distant languages, followed by Cantonese, Mandarin (Chinese), Vietnamese, and Arabic, etc. By estimating the linguistic distance either roughly via the origins of the two languages or measuring it more accurately in terms of quantitative data, we have a general idea of how difficult it is to learn an L2 or the L2 vocabulary, but we still do not know how linguistic distance affects the learning process. I shall discuss this issue in the next section.
4.2.3. How does linguistic distance affect SLVA? The most important aspect of linguistic distance for vocabulary perhaps consists in the semantic difference between different language vocabularies. This can certainly, to a large extent, be attributed to the cultural difference discussed earlier. In place of word-to-word equivalents in two languages, Swan (1997) listed a series of different types of lexical variation between words in different languages. English words generally obey the rule of the “arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign” expounded by de Saussure (1974), namely that meaning is arbitrarily assigned to a particular word form and each word represents a concept. The connection between the word meaning and word form is loose and arbitrary, with the result that the word meaning is to some degree abstract. On the other hand, the basic Chinese word is called ‘zi’, which is a character made up of a number of strokes and 93
resembles real objects or depicts a concept in a meaningful way 19. The Chinese character 火 (pronounced huo, meaning fire), 川 (pronounced chuan, meaning river), 田 (pronounced tian, meaning farmland) all resemble the real entities they refer to in nature. The character 从 (pronounced cong) is made up of two 人 (pronounced ren, meaning person), depicting one person following the other, thus the meaning of 从 is to follow. The character 囚 (pronounced qiu) refers to a 人 (pronounced ren, meaning person) who is kept in a container 口, meaning prisoner. There are more than 80,000 characters in total, of which 3,500 are commonly used. Each character can be used independently as an individual word; more often it can be collocated with other characters and make a new lexical item whose meaning is determined by the meaning and the order of the two characters. For example, strike is 罢工 (ba gong) in Chinese, where 罢 means to stop and 工 means to work. Many Chinese words are constructed in this way. The meaning of most Chinese words is transparent or self-evident, providing one knows the meaning of each of the characters that make up the word. Multi-character lexical items in Chinese are quite common; thousands of four-character idioms or proverbs not only serve their appropriate functions in communication but also transmit the culture of the language. In this sense, the Chinese language is less abstract in meaning, and the meaning of the lexical items depends on the meaning and order of each character that makes up the lexical item. Consequently, many Chinese learners of English find it difficult to handle the abstractness of meaning in English words, particularly in the early stages of learning. Swan has pointed out that “mapping second-language vocabulary on to the mother tongue is a basic and indispensable learning strategy, but also inevitably leads to error” (1997: 179). Many L2 learners intuitively assume that the meaning of an L2 lexical item is the same as that of the L1 equivalent. The errors L2 learners make fall into two main categories: interlanguage or intralanguage errors. The 19
94
Chinese was originally a pictographic language; the oldest Chinese characters are drawings that depict meanings. Like many other languages, Chinese has undergone numerous changes and some characters have lost their resemblance to real objects while others have kept this feature.
former, interlanguage errors, are the result of L1 transfer 20; the latter, the intralanguage errors, are caused by the innate complexity or the intrinsic difficulty of the L2 itself. When the linguistic distance between the L1 and the L2 is small as in the case of two closely related languages, a considerable amount of positive transfer is likely to occur in learning the L2. When the distance is great, as with two unrelated languages, there tends to be negative transfer, which, according to Swan (1997), will result in language errors or avoidance. Regarding the intrinsic difficulty of L2, e.g. English phrasal verbs, the linguistic distance between L1 and L2, can, depending on the distance, reduce or increase the intrinsic learning difficulty of lexical items. In addition to the semantic difference, the linguistic distance between L1 and L2 in terms of vocabulary can operate pedagogically at five levels according to Nation (1990): (1) pronunciation, (2) orthography, (3) grammatical patterns, (4) collocation, and (5) frequency. The distance in these five areas will determine the degree of learning difficulty of L2 words. Pronunciation The L2 words which use sounds and combinations of sounds similar to those in the L1 will make it less difficult to learn the pronunciation of L2 words. The consonants /t/, /p/, /s/, exist in many languages, so English words like ten, pencil, son, will be fairly easy to pronounce for most learners. In contrast, /th/, as in teeth, think, etc., is generally considered to be a difficult sound to produce by learners as it does not exist in many languages. Orthography If the learner’s L1 uses the same script as the L2, learning to write the L2 words will be less difficult. For a native speaker of English, learning an Asian language like Chinese will be very difficult because of the totally different script. However, similarity of words raises another problem. More mistakes occur in spelling for learners of related languages than of unrelated languages. 20
The transfer can be positive or negative. If the transfer leads to correct use of L2 forms, the transfer is positive; if not, the transfer is negative.
95
Grammatical patterns If an L2 word appears in grammatical patterns which are similar to the patterns where the L1 equivalent occurs in the L1, learning how to use the word will be less difficult than if the pattern is different. For example, Chinese students tend to say “I can’t believe!” instead of the correct utterance “I can’t believe it!” This error results from the fact that it is not necessary to put an object after believe in the same context in their L1, Chinese. This is a case of negative transfer: when a language feature is absent from the L1, the L2 learner often fails to notice its existence in the L2 or else finds it difficult to use this feature. For the same reason, along with many other learners of English, most Chinese students find it difficult to use the English article the appropriately. Collocation If what an L2 word collocates with can be predicted, the learning will be less difficult. For example, in English we can say: “We talked/ argued/ joked/ spoke about it”, while we cannot say: “We discussed about it”. We expect words of related meaning to be followed by similar words, but this is not always the case. Frequency If the L1 and the L2 share a lot of vocabulary, like French and English, there is a high probability of the L2 learner using an L2 word frequently in the L2 if it occurs in the L1, while in point of fact the L2 word may actually occur much less frequently; thus the L2 word becomes overused. For example, augmenter is a frequent word in French, but enlarge or increase will be more appropriate in similar situations in English, “augment” being reserved for very formal usage in written language.
96
4.3. Lexical form confusion Learning difficulty caused by cultural difference and linguistic distance is largely specific to learners’ L1 or, in other words, associated with cross-linguistic difference. There is another type of learning difficulty caused by the target language itself, which is intralinguistic in nature: learners, regardless of their L1 background, encounter difficulty with a particular L2 linguistic form either because of its complexity or because it can easily be confused with a similar form. A commonly documented difficulty in learning English vocabulary is the similarity of form among words of very different meaning, such as staff/stuff, economic/economical, invest/investigate, etc. Not only L2 learners but also native speakers confuse these word pairs, but for different reasons. For native speakers the confusion is caused by “a slip of the ear in comprehension and a slip of the tongue in production” while for L2 learners the confusion is a result of “a defective representation of one or both confused items’ forms” (Laufer, 1990: 282−283). Laufer (1990: 284) presented a 10-category framework for categorizing words with similar forms, which she termed “synforms” (see Table 1). In her empirical study, Laufer (1990) obtained the degree of difficulty, both for native speakers and non-native speakers (with 21 different L1s), encountered in these categories by calculating the chi-square value x2 of the frequency of the lexical errors made by them as measured by vocabulary tests. The results show the following descending order of difficulty: suffixes (categories 1, 2, 3); vowels (categories 6, 7, 10); prefixes (categories 4, 5); consonants (categories 8, 9). This general pattern holds true for both native speakers and non-native speakers although within each of the four major categories there might be a different order.
97
Category 1
2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9
10
Features Synforms with the same root, productive in current English, but with different suffixes. Synforms with the same root, not productive in current English, but with different suffixes. Synforms with one having a suffix but not the other Synforms with the same root, not productive in current English, but with different prefixes Synforms with one having a prefix but not the other Synforms identical to each other except for one vowel or diphthong Synforms with one having a vowel but not the other Synforms that are identical except for one consonant Synforms with one having a consonant but not the other Synforms with identical consonants but different vowels
Examples considerable, considerate; imaginary, imaginative, imaginable capable, capacious; integrity, integration historic, historical; sect, sector consumption, assumption, resumption; compress, suppress, repress passion, compassion; fault, default affect, effect; set, sat cute, acute; quite, quiet; date, data price, prize; extend, extent ledge, pledge; simulate, stimulate; mean, means base, bias; manual, menial; embrace, embarrass
Table 1. Ten categories of synforms (assembled from Laufer, 1990: 294).
4.4. Conclusion We examined three major sources of L2 vocabulary learning difficulty: cultural difference, linguistic distance and lexical form confusion. The first and second of these are cross-linguistic in nature while the third is primarily intra-lingual. Language learning is a culture-bound phenomenon; to acquire the L2 vocabulary means acquiring the specific meaning or lexical concepts in its culture. Linguistic distance between the L1 and the L2 determines to what extent the two languages differ
98
from each other and to some extent the degree of difficulty in learning the L2. When the linguistic distance between the L1 and the L2 is small, in the case of two related languages, a considerable amount of positive transfer will be likely to occur in learning the L2. When the distance is considerable, as for two unrelated languages, there tends to be more negative transfer. It seems that L2 learners tend to take short-cuts by mapping the L2 words directly on to their L1 equivalents, regardless of the cultural difference and the linguistic distance between the two languages. To prevent learners from doing so, we need to show them that lexical meaning is very much influenced by the culture of the language and learning L2 vocabulary requires a reconstruction of lexical concepts in the mind. Teachers should also help learners to overcome the specific difficulty in learning different aspects of L2 vocabulary, particularly in the early stages of L2 acquisition. To do so, teacher experience and judgement will come into play. Early intervention could prevent lexical problems which might result in lexical fossilization, thus making learning less difficult and more efficient.
99
100
Part II: Approaches to L2 Vocabulary Acquisition
101
102
Chapter 5. Implicit and Explicit Approaches
5.1. What do these terms mean? In the area of vocabulary acquisition, some terms are frequently used to describe the acquisition process, for example, implicit/explicit learning (N. Ellis, 1994a, 1995a), incidental/intentional learning (Hulstijn, 2001, 2003). The two terms, implicit and explicit learning, are often used interchangeably with the other two, incidental and intentional learning, probably due to similar characteristics of both learning processes. In addition, the use of implicit/explicit learning tends to be confused with implicit/explicit memory (sometimes knowledge). A careful look at these terms as they appear in their respective fields reveals that they are quite different from each other and undistinguished use of them will cause confusion to readers. It is important as a starting point to define them clearly and to describe their applications in vocabulary acquisition together with their relationship with each other.
5.1.1. Implicit and explicit learning Two points have to be made before trying to define these two terms that originated in the field of cognitive psychology. First, to define “implicit learning” is usually more problematic than to define “explicit learning”. In many articles, authors will dedicate lengthy discussions to implicit learning while giving meagre space to explicit learning. This is perhaps due to the nature of implicit learning, which is less observable, elusive and often requires a long time to be noticed. In contrast, explicit learning is clear, categorical and observable over a short period. The second point is whether consciousness or awareness is present or not in implicit learning. This is a controversial issue. 103
According to Reber et al., implicit learning is defined as “the process whereby a complex, rule-governed knowledge base is acquired largely independently of awareness of both the process and the product of the acquisition” (1991: 888). This oft-quoted definition clearly suggests the absence of consciousness in the learning process. Schmidt argues that learning without noticing or consciousness is impossible and implicit learning is “best characterized as the gradual accumulation of associations between frequently co-occurring features; rather than unconscious induction of abstract rule systems” (1990: 149). Dekeyser defines implicit learning as “learning without awareness of what is learned” (2003: 314). This naturally implies that explicit learning is learning with awareness of what is learned. This succinct definition has the advantage of avoiding the controversial issue of the learning process (of implicit learning) and goes directly to the necessary outcome of the process. Dekeyser draws our attention to three issues concerning implicit learning: (1) implicitness, (2) abstractness (which used to be believed to characterize implicit learning) and (3) methodological problems pertaining to the empirical research of implicit learning. He suggests that we should be cautious about assuming that adults implicitly learn structures. He concludes that implicit learning is more likely to be associated with concrete rules while explicit learning is more suitable for abstract rules, an opinion rather contradictory to what was previously held in respect of implicit and explicit learning. This view seems to be congruent with N. Ellis’s (1994b) finding that word forms, which are concrete and factual, are acquired implicitly as a result of frequency of exposure, while word meanings, which are semantic and abstract, are acquired through explicit learning systems.
5.1.2. Incidental and intentional learning Compared with implicit and explicit learning, where the main focus of research has been on artificial grammar, incidental and intentional learning are more prevalent in vocabulary acquisition as evidenced by the vast number of empirical studies in this field. These two terms were first employed in behavioural psychology, were developed in 104
cognitive psychology and extended to SLA. In the field of psychology, particularly the studies involving a pre-test – treatment – post-test design, incidental and intentional learning are defined on the basis of whether the subjects are told beforehand whether there will be a post-test or not (Hulstijn, 2003). If they are told beforehand that they will be tested afterwards, learning is said to be intentional; if not, it is incidental. In the field of SLA, incidental and intentional learning have been given a different interpretation. Incidental learning can be defined as the process of acquiring vocabulary and grammar through meaning focused communicative activities, such as reading and listening, and intentional learning as the process involving memorizing countless words and grammar rules by a variety of means (Hulstijn, 2003: 349). For L1 vocabulary acquisition, it is generally believed that most words are acquired incidentally, particularly through extensive reading. Many studies support this view. Sternberg claims that “most vocabulary is learned from context” (1987: 89); Nagy, Herman and Anderson (1985) believe that children learn most words through reading and that they do so incidentally; Krashen’s input hypothesis (1989) postulates that vocabulary can be acquired by reading as long as the input is comprehensible to the learner. This view is quite naturally extended to L2 acquisition. A few studies were conducted to measure the incidental vocabulary benefit to L2 learners through reading stories (e.g. Pitts et al., 1989; Day et al., 1991) and significant vocabulary gains were observed. However, Huckin and Coady (1999) noted a series of methodological problems pertaining to these studies, including no treatment of the control group, using intermediate learners while ignoring low level learners, lack of evidence of long-term retention, etc. These deficiencies have undermined the value of the positive findings in respect of incidental learning. Other studies have found no significant vocabulary gain for incidental learning. Horst et al. (1998, cited in Hulstijn, 2003) concluded from their study that the power of incidental learning for SLVA might previously have been overestimated. According to Hulstijn (2003), the two main issues concerning intentional learning are (1) which language (the L1 or the L2) to use to learn the L2 vocabulary and (2) how to present new lexical items (in 105
context or isolation). Another important issue regarding intentional learning is the direct or indirect strategies that help to keep new L2 words in memory (e.g. Schmitt, 1997).
5.1.3. Implicit and explicit memory It has been frequently observed in psychology experiments that subjects sometimes used information encoded during a learning session to perform certain tasks without conscious recollection of that information. Psychologists use “implicit memory” to refer to this phenomenon to distinguish it from “explicit memory” in which encoded information is consciously retrieved for use. In other words, implicit memory refers to using stored information without making an effort to retrieve it, while explicit memory refers to deliberately and consciously drawing on facts and past experience (Roediger, 2005). Knowing traffic rules when driving without consciously recalling the rules is a good example of implicit memory, while describing a recently seen film is a kind of explicit memory as it needs a conscious memory search of what is retained about the film. It should be noted that they are not two types of memory but simply two different retrieval processes from memory. They become distinguished only at the moment of retrieval. The lengthy studies carried out by N. Ellis (1994b) indicate that word forms and their related features are best learned implicitly as procedural knowledge; word meanings are best learned explicitly as semantic knowledge, part of the declarative knowledge. This should hold true for both L1 and L2 vocabulary. Implicit knowledge tends to be retrieved implicitly and explicit knowledge tends to be retrieved explicitly. Yet this cannot be categorical. As Dekeyser (2003) points out, explicit knowledge can become implicit when learners lose awareness of the structure over time. A good example is the case of L2 learners. In the early stage of language learning they often consciously formulate language in the mind by recalling what they have learned (words, grammar) before actually uttering the words; as they progress, these utterances eventually become automatic. On the other hand,
106
implicit knowledge can become explicit when learners become aware of the structure of the knowledge when trying to retrieve it.
5.1.4. Implicit/explicit learning vs. incidental/intentional learning The majority of authors do not distinguish between these two pairs of terms and see them as synonymous: implicit learning equals incidental learning and explicit learning means intentional learning. A few authors (e.g. Hulstijn, 2003; Schmidt, 1994) suggest that these terms be separated as their definitions do not mean exactly the same thing. The essential feature of implicit learning is learning without being aware of what is being learned. For incidental learning, learners are often aware that they are learning something, e.g. trying to infer the meaning of an unknown word; for instance, if the new word is a cognate of L1, they might consciously perform some simple mental association to remember it. This holds true even when the activity (reading) is meaning focused rather than form focused. The next time they meet the same word in a different context and are not able to retrieve the meaning, they do at least know that they have met it somewhere before. Thus incidental learning can be sometimes quite explicit. Likewise, explicit learning is learning with awareness, say comprehending a sentence structure, but it does not necessarily involve deliberate memorisation of the information.
5.1.5. Implicit/explicit learning vs. implicit/explicit memory In applied linguistics, authors generally do not distinguish between implicit/explicit memory and implicit/explicit knowledge as they are closely connected with each other. To understand the difference between these two pairs, we need to have some basic knowledge of how our memory functions. According to Roediger (2005: 1), memory is the process by which human beings and other animals encode, store and retrieve information; it is composed of three stages: “Encoding refers to the initial perception and registering of information. Storage is the retention of encoded information over time. Retrieval refers to 107
the processes involved in using stored information.” In this three-stage process of memory, learning is the first stage, i.e. encoding the information; implicit/explicit memory is the retrieval process. Therefore, implicit/explicit learning is how the information is encoded and implicit/explicit memory refers to how the stored information is retrieved.
5.1.6. The meaning of implicit/explicit approaches adopted in this book Approaches to vocabulary acquisition can be generally categorized under two paradigms: the implicit and the explicit learning/teaching paradigm. Two points have to be clarified. In the first place, the meaning of “implicit” and “explicit” is not restricted to what they mean in “implicit learning” and “explicit learning” which originated from cognitive psychology; rather, the literal meaning of the two is used to refer to the main features associated with the two paradigms. Implicit learning is associated with natural, effortless and meaningfocused learning; explicit learning implies that learning requires deliberate mental effort (as opposed to simply engaging in meaning focused activities) and a link has to be established between meaning and form by various means. Secondly, learning includes teaching, as direct teaching of vocabulary can be very useful (Nation 1990, 2001; Coady 1997), the way teachers teach can influence students’ decisionmaking in adopting specific approaches to vocabulary learning, and, finally, learners can be their own teachers.
5.2. The implicit learning/teaching paradigm The basic assumption of the implicit learning/teaching paradigm is that words can be acquired naturally through repeated exposures in various language contexts with reading as the major source of input.
108
This notion is heavily rooted in the findings for L1 vocabulary acquisition. I will focus on learning in this paradigm as teaching vocabulary implicitly can scarcely be defined 21. Incidental learning is the most important approach for this learning paradigm; it is a meaning focused reading or listening activity in which some vocabulary may be learned as a by-product. The majority of studies deal with written contexts, with only a few studies being based on oral input (e.g. Wode, 1999; Ellis/He, 1999), although it is very likely that words can be acquired incidentally in this fashion. A popular view is that limited classroom teaching time simply cannot deal with the thousands of words needed by the L2 learner; learning through large quantities of reading materials, particularly chosen by learners themselves, is an alternative solution. It is implied that vocabulary learning in this fashion is an effortless process, a view that is very attractive to learners. Huckin and Coady (1999: 182) summarized the advantages of incidental learning over explicit instruction as follows: (a) It is contextualised, giving the learner a richer sense of a word’s use and meaning than can be provided in traditional paired-associate exercises, (b) it is pedagogically efficient in that it enables two activities – vocabulary acquisition and reading – to occur at the same time, and (c) it is more individualised and learner-based because the vocabulary being acquired is dependent on the learner’s own selection of reading materials.
The studies on incidental vocabulary learning can be broadly categorised into two types: on the one hand, those dealing with word inferences; on the other, those providing lexical glosses or advocating the use of a dictionary.
21
Some might argue that teaching word roots and affixes so that students can use this strategy for learning words independently is a kind of implicit vocabulary teaching activity. However, I regard vocabulary strategy instruction as explicit teaching, which is in line with Coady (1997).
109
5.2.1. Word inferencing studies In the first type, learners are simply provided with a written text and are encouraged to infer the meaning of the unknown words from the contextual clues. It is considered that vocabulary learning retention depends on the nature of the lexical processing activities that learners perform during the reading process instead of on other factors such as learning intention. The more mental effort the learner makes in inferring the meaning of an unknown word, the better it will be retained (e.g. Hulstijn, 1992; Mondria/Wit-de Boer, 1991). These assumptions are an application of Craik and Lockhart’s depth of processing model of memory (1972). However, in order to infer the meaning effectively, learners need to recognise most of the words surrounding the unknown one. It is generally accepted that learners need to know 95% of the lexical items of the text for general comprehension (Nation, 1990; Laufer, 1997). Knowledge of 98% of the lexical items is needed in order to be able to guess the unknown words accurately (Coady et al. 1993; Hirsch/Nation, 1992; Laufer, 1997). Huckin and Coady (1999) concluded that the vocabulary knowledge learners need for reading comprehension ranges from a minimal threshold level of the 3,000 most frequent families to 10,000 word families. This figure is hardly attainable by most L2 learners, especially those students below intermediate levels, who constitute a very large proportion of L2 learners. Coady (1997: 229) put his finger on the problem when he raised the question: “How can they learn vocabulary through extensive reading when they do not know enough words to read well?” Another important issue concerning inferencing is that learners need to master some effective guessing strategies, such as graphemic identification according to word forms or use of broader contextual meanings (Huckin/Coady, 1999). In addition, some strategies need to be explicitly taught to learners, e.g., “cognate monitoring” (i.e.
110
checking for false cognates) and “forward clues”22 which are underdeveloped by low level learners (Huckin/Coady, 1999: 187). Although word inferencing is useful and will lead to some acquisition, there are serious limitations innate to guessing itself. Huckin and Coady listed the following (1999: 189): (1) guessing cannot guarantee precision; (2) correct guessing requires that the word be recognised correctly and monitored carefully; (3) guessing is timeconsuming and will interrupt the reading process; (4) guessing is effective on condition that the context is adequately comprehended with most of the words in the vicinity being known; (5) guessing requires good reading strategies which many students do not have; (6) guessing often does not lead to acquisition; (7) guessing is of little help to the acquisition of multiword items. Taking a dozen examples at random, Kelly (1990) demonstrates that this time-consuming activity will seldom lead to the exact meaning when the context is uncontrolled. Inaccurate guessing may even have an anti-learning effect, i.e. result in the fossilization or interpretation of the wrong meaning of a word.
5.2.2. Lexical glosses and dictionary use studies In the second type of studies, learners are engaged in reading texts (paper versions or electronic versions) with some marginal vocabulary glosses (e.g. Hulstijn et al., 1996) or else they are provided with electronic glosses or a dictionary (e.g. Knight, 1994; Laufer/Hill, 2000; De Ridder, 2002), or simply with a paper version dictionary (Hulstijn et al., 1996). Sometimes, control groups, who are only given the reading texts, are compared with the experimental group who receive lexical aids in addition to the texts. In such cases, the group with lexical aids usually outperforms the control group who rely solely on contextual guessing or form guessing. In Knight’s study, subjects who used an electronic dictionary not only had a higher vocabulary gain but also did better on a comprehension test. She points out that 22
They are the contextual clues following the word to be guessed, which are the opposite of “backward clues” which refer to the contextual clues preceding the word to be guessed.
111
dictionary use is particularly useful for low verbal students: they achieve results on both vocabulary retention and comprehension tantamount to those of high verbal ability students. Hulstijn et al. (1996) obtained similar results when learners who accessed marginal glosses or a dictionary achieved higher vocabulary retention than learners without lexical aids. The latter group either failed to infer the correct meaning of the unknown words or simply ignored the words. It is also reported from their study that marginal glosses will be more effective for vocabulary learning than a dictionary (paper version) as learners tend to make little use of a dictionary 23. Therefore Hulstijn et al. (1996) suggest that dictionary use during the reading process should be facilitated by providing marginal glosses or easy-to-access electronic glosses (in the case of electronic texts) so that learning can be more efficient. In fact, as early as the late 1970s, Ostyn and Kelly were already advocating marginal glosses in place of what they described as time-wasting dictionary searches and using them in their text books (e.g. Tune In) for secondary school and university English learners. Electronic reading texts with glosses or annotations seem to be very popular at the present time. The advantage of providing electronic glosses is that the lexical information can be accessed easily by a click (or by typing the word) with little interruption of the reading process. Moreover, glosses are made more attractive and informative by multimedia effects than traditional lexical information entries. For a glossed item, the learner can view the textual explanation, listen to the pronunciation, request a picture or even watch a short video about the target word. This type of gloss with multimedia effects provides learners with powerful lexical aids which enable them to engage in more elaborative mental activities in respect of the various features of the lexical item than those traditional lexical entries in dictionaries. However, as Wesche and Paribakht (2000) point out, the goal in typical incidental learning is text comprehension and only an approximate meaning for target words is needed; sometimes learners could use world and topic knowledge to compensate for their lexical gaps 23
112
Hulstijn et al. found that when learners do use a dictionary, their vocabulary retention will be as good as or even better than learners with marginal glosses.
without paying attention to specific lexical items. In addition, inferring the meaning of a word, instead of simply providing that meaning (by paper dictionaries or electronic glosses/dictionaries), means that the learner’s attention is focused on the meaning and not on the form. For L2 learners, meanings for the L2 words already exist in some way in their minds as similar concepts to those in the L1. It is invariably the L2 word forms which are new and that require more learning effort; more importantly, it is essential to connect the word form with the meaning and fix it in memory in the initial stage (Kelly, 1986).
5.2.3 The main drawbacks of incidental learning The main problems of acquiring vocabulary from incidental learning seem to be attributable to three sources: 1.
2.
24
Incidental learning inevitably involves a great deal of contextual guessing of the unknown words. Context alone does not always facilitate meaning transfer; in some cases even educated adults cannot infer the meaning of some L1 words in context (Ames, 1966; Beck, McKeown/McCaslin, 1983, cited in Duquette et al. 1998), let alone L2 learners. Even in the situation of consulting a dictionary or glosses of the unknown words, learners tend to forget very quickly more than half of the words processed in reading (Hulstijn et al. 1996). As a consequence, the retention rate of genuine incidental learning24 is very low (e.g. Hulstijn, 1992). According to Nation (1990), 5–16 exposures are needed to fully acquire a word; Nagy et al. (1985) reported a 5%–15% probability of a word being learned at first exposure; Knight (1994) demonstrated a learning rate of 5%–21 % from her studies.
In some incidental learning cases, there is some treatment in addition to the reading tasks, for example, pre-sessions aiming to improve learners’ lexical processing strategies (Fraser, 1999). The learning rate is reportedly higher than for those incidental learning studies without any treatment.
113
3.
The vocabulary acquired through incidental learning mainly leads to recognition and hardly to production (see also Wesche/ Paribakht, 2000; Paribakht/Wesche, 1997). This is due to the nature of incidental learning: it is meaning focused activity and only limited attention is paid to the word forms and lexical/ syntactic features of the new words. The quality and quantity of lexical processing in incidental learning is simply insufficient to enable the learner to acquire words at the productive level. Moreover, learning new lexical items does not stop at the recognition or the production level; there are other aspects of learning. Wesche/Paribakht (2000: 197) write: Learning a new word involves an ongoing elaboration of knowledge about the word and the ability to use it. Relationships are established between the word form and its semantic concepts and linguistic functions, as well as with other words that share some of these features, forming lexical networks.
5.3. The explicit learning/teaching paradigm Advocates of this paradigm argue that vocabulary and vocabulary learning strategies should be learned or taught explicitly so that learning can be more efficient. They agree with upholders of incidental learning that context is the major source for acquiring vocabulary, but they claim that learners need some extra help to build up an adequate vocabulary and to acquire strategies to cope with the vast reading context (e.g. Coady, 1997). Coady (1993) argues for a mixed approach to vocabulary acquisition in SLA. He puts it this way: “The basic or core vocabulary should be taught, but the less frequent vocabulary will then be learned ‘naturally’ via context; but, even in that case, techniques for that purpose should be taught” (1993: 17). The approaches adopted by the explicit learning paradigm can be grouped into two main subcategories: reading plus exercises and explicit instruction/learning.
114
5.3.1. Reading plus exercises While acknowledging the importance of vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading in an incidental manner, this approach aims at combining reading comprehension with text-based vocabulary exercises. Previous studies suggest that such text-based exercises could encourage deeper word processing and might enhance the incidental learning effects from reading. Two prominent studies were carried out by Paribakht and Wesche (1997) and Wesche and Paribakht (2000). In their first study (1997), the main question they investigate is whether reading comprehension plus text-based vocabulary exercises leads to the more effective acquisition of selected vocabulary items than reading comprehension alone when learning time is equal for both conditions. In the reading only condition, a text which contains a number of target words is presented to learners. Then two thematically related texts, which also contain the target words, are read by these learners. In the reading plus exercises condition, learners read only the text and then are required to carry out eight vocabulary exercises on the target words. The exercises are of five types: (1) selective attention, (2) recognition, (3) manipulation, (4) interpretation and (5) production. They aim to draw learners’ attention to target words, to recognise the word by associating the word form with the meaning, to perform a structural analysis of the target words, to carry out a semantic and syntactic analysis of the target words, and to produce the target words in new contexts. Vocabulary gains were measured using the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Wesche/Paribakht, 1996). The results reveal that both conditions achieved significant gains. However, the gains of the reading plus condition are quantitatively superior to those of the reading only condition in terms of number of words gained and qualitatively superior in terms of the increased depth of knowledge of the given words. In other words, vocabulary acquired by learners in the reading condition largely remains at the recognition level whereas learners in the reading plus condition learn more words and achieve a higher level of vocabulary knowledge. In their second study (2000) they tried to explore how such text-based vocabulary exercises could promote different types of lexical processing and offer an explanation for the superior gain of the 115
reading plus condition. They used a follow-up introspective research method to discover what learners are actually thinking while engaged in the vocabulary exercises. They replicated the previous study using only the reading plus condition. First learners are trained to use a think-aloud strategy to verbalize their thoughts when carrying out learning tasks. Then they read a text and immediately start the eight vocabulary exercises while saying aloud what they are thinking and doing; everything that they say is recorded on a tape recorder. The recording is then transcribed. On the basis of these transcripts, six possible explanations are put forward to account for the superior results obtained by adding vocabulary exercises to reading: the exercises (1) make more target words salient to learners, (2) encourage learners to explore target words independently, (3) motivate learners to learn the target words, (4) lead to considerable re-reading of the text, (5) encourage the use of the target words and (6) make learners aware of their imprecise knowledge of the target words and thus of the need to do the exercises.
5.3.2. Explicit instruction/learning Authors who favour explicit instruction argue that L2 learners should be taught vocabulary explicitly by using various techniques including direct memorisation (Coady, 1993; Nation, 1990, 2001). Here the concern is mainly with low level learners who do not have enough vocabulary to read extensively. According to Nation (2001), to master the large number of words that native speakers know can be a long-term goal but is not suitable as a short-term goal. His reasoning is based on frequency studies (2001: 11−21). He demonstrates that the 2,000 most frequent words can cover 80% of the text. Another 570 words that frequently appear in academic texts can cover about 9% of the text. There are about 1,000 technical words which cover approximately 5%. The rest are the enormous number of low frequency words (15,000−20,000) that make up 5% of a text. The first three types of words, i.e. the high frequency words, academic words, and technical words can together cover almost 95 % of the text; these words are thus very important and worthy of study. Both teachers and learners should 116
pay enough attention to them in different forms: direct teaching (teacher explanation, peer teaching), direct learning (using word cards, using dictionaries), incidental learning (contextual guessing, communicative activities) and planned encounters with the words (graded reading, vocabulary exercises). As for the low frequency words, the teacher should train learners to use strategies such as contextual guessing, dictionary use, memory techniques and vocabulary cards to cope with these words and to enlarge their vocabulary. Nation (2001) insists that intentional learning should be seen as complementary to incidental learning rather than as opposed to it and suggests that the intentional study of vocabulary items could take up to 25% of the total learning programme. He delves deep into three intentional word study strategies: studying word parts, using dictionaries and using word cards. Word parts study includes affixes and roots. He notes two notable benefits in having a knowledge of affixes and roots: (1) it can be useful for learning unknown words by associating them with those known words or known affixes and roots of words25; (2) it can help learners to check whether an unknown word is correctly inferred or not. Dictionary use is a kind of intentional study of words and some skills are needed specifically for receptive and productive use of a dictionary. The information obtained from a dictionary could strengthen what has been already learned and prepare for further encounters with the words. However, the value of dictionary use is limited and learners should not have very high expectations of it. For Nation, the most effective intentional way of learning words is learning through word cards. He argues that (a) word cards could be very useful for remembering words; (b) using word cards can help to learn other important features (except word use) of a word and these include word meaning, word form and connecting the two together, which are prerequisites for using a word; (c) learning words, particularly those high frequency words, intentionally, is a necessary step in learning words incrementally and this will assist the incidental learning of other words. Mondria and Mondria-de Vries (1994) are also strong advocates of the card system for learning vocabulary as an 25
We can note in passing that making use of this type of knowledge was already being advocated by Keller three decades ago (1978).
117
alternative to lists. They show how, in accordance with memory theory, it can be used systematically and to maximum advantage.
5.4. Conclusion In the discussion of the implicit and explicit approaches to L2 vocabulary acquisition, it emerges that implicit learning, or mainly incidental learning, would not lead to satisfactory vocabulary acquisition for three reasons: (1) the risk of wrongly guessed meaning, (2) the low learning rates, and (3) the acquisition would be recognition rather than production. On the other hand, the explicit learning/teaching paradigm is best summarized as adopting a “mixed approach”, to use Coady’s words (1993: 17). Supporters of this paradigm combine explicit vocabulary instruction, vocabulary exercises, vocabulary learning strategies, and extensive reading. The strength of the explicit learning paradigm is that implicit learning is not excluded but rather is seen as a necessary complementary approach to vocabulary acquisition. The two approaches would work best in combination with each other.
118
Chapter 6. Approaches to Multi-Word Items
6.1. Background information 6.1.1. Language: lexis or grammar based? The traditional Chomskyan notion of language suggests a clear distinction between grammar and the lexicon. Grammar or structure is seen as superordinate and vocabulary subordinate, governed by the former. Research in psycholinguistics dealing with language processing (memory) shows this is not true. The lexicon plays a much more important role than used to be thought and the distinction between lexis and grammar turns out not to be clear-cut. The main reason is that many phrases such as off with his head “appear to be halfway between traditional syntax and lexicon, for they cannot be stored as invariable units, nor can their structure be derived from traditional grammar rules of syntax since they deviate so from normal English sentence patterns” (Nattinger, 1980: 338). According to Mel’čuk (1998: 24), the ratio of single items and multi-word items is roughly 1 to 10 for most languages. It is shown that such prefabricated patterns or combinations of words are a dominating feature of native English speakers’ speech and are in quantity much more significant than free phrases governed by grammar rules (Pawley/Syder, 1983). This view is firmly supported by the rapidly growing research in native English corpora (e.g. Sinclair, 1991). It would seem to be wise to address L2 acquisition from a lexis-centred standpoint by helping learners build up a store of lexical items and chunks and getting them to use these items appropriately. Nattinger (1980: 341) expresses this need as follows:
119
[...] language production consists of piecing together the ready-made units appropriate for a particular situation and […] comprehension relies on knowing which of these patterns to predict in these situations. Our teaching therefore would centre on these patterns and the ways they can be pieced together, along with the ways they vary and the situations in which they occur.
These “ready-made” units have been given different names, such as lexical phrases (Nattinger/DeCarrico, 1992; Schmitt/Carter, 2000), lexical chunks (Lewis, 1993), lexicalised sentence stems (Pawley/Syder, 1983), collocations (Nation 2001), formulaic sequences (Wray, 2002; Schmitt, 2004), etc. Following Wray and Schmitt, I shall call them formulaic sequences. They have some general characteristics: (a) they are typically multi-word items of varying lengths and frequently occur in native speakers’ speech; (b) they are often associated with the functional usage of language; (c) they exist somewhere on a grammatical-lexical continuum and have a more idiomatically determined meaning than individual words which can be recombined each time (Nattinger/ DeCarrico, 1992). Central to all these features is the fact that formulaic sequences, being two (or more) word collocations or complete utterances, express a single meaning or a specific function. Wray (2000, 2002) assigns functions of formulaic sequences to two major categories: (1) achieving successful interaction and (2) saving mental processing effort. Common formulaic sequences include idioms, phrasal verbs, fixed collocations and many other longer strings of words.
6.1.2. Corpora The most powerful evidence for the existence of formulaic sequences comes from corpora: large data bases of written and spoken language (often kept in electronic form). According to Kenney (1998: 4), the distinction between a corpus and a text archive/database is that the former is designed for linguistic analysis and is structured systematically for that purpose whereas the latter is usually unstructured.
120
6.1.2.1. Native English corpora There are three main types of corpora, monolingual corpora, multilingual corpora26, and learner corpora. Important native-speaker corpora include the COBUILD Bank of English Corpus, the Cambridge International Corpus (CIC), the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME) corpora and the British National Corpus (BNC). These monolingual corpora (English) can be used to identify typical English phrases in real use and ones that characterize native-like speech. These features can inform course book designers and teachers of what language phrases and patterns to be incorporated into the teaching materials. In addition, native corpora provide lexicographers with the best data for producing dictionaries that capture vivid language in real life, e.g. the Collins COBUILD dictionary series. Schmitt (2000) identifies three major types of information provided by native corpora to inform SLA. These are: (1) how frequently words occur, (2) how words occur together, and (3) how the structure of language is organised. By looking at the frequency of words in corpora, we have a general idea of what words occur most often and what words occur rarely. This provides valuable information for selecting suitable vocabulary for learners, particularly beginners or low-level learners. Willis (1990) describes the Collins COBUILD course as a lexical syllabus intended for beginners, which contains about 2500 words selected from the 20 million words of the COBUILD corpus27. Level 1 contains the 700 most frequent words, which account for 70% of all English text; level 2 contains 1500 words which account for 76 % of text; level 3 contains 2500 words which account for up to 80% of text. Nation (2001) also stresses that vocabulary selection in course books should be based on frequency studies. 26
27
This type of corpora contains texts of several native languages. If the same texts are written in different languages, then it is called Parallel corpora, e.g. the Corpus Resources And Terminology Extraction Corpora (CRATER), the Multilingual Text Tools Corpora (MTLTEXT). Recent statistics show that the corpus contains more than 500 million words and is constantly growing.
121
By looking at corpora, we quickly discover that certain words (two or more) tend to co-occur frequently in the form of collocations. Sinclair’s (1991) distinction between the open-choice principle and the idiom principle offers a useful framework in describing how words collocate with each other. The open-choice principle explains that words can be collocated freely, e.g. read/write a book/article/thesis; the idiom-choice principle reveals that certain words are semantically restricted to other words, e.g. rancid butter, torrential rain, etc. While in the case of the former both words are open to accept other company, in the case of the latter, often one word strongly predicts the word that will accompany it. The popular current view is that collocations operate on a continuum ranging from free collocation to pure idioms (Cowie, 1998). Most authors recognise two types of collocation: grammatical/syntactic collocations and semantic/lexical collocations. Grammatical collocations are typically composed of a dominant word (a noun, verb, or adjective) followed by a preposition, e.g. stick to, damage to, familiar with, etc. Lexical collocations are made up of two (or more) words of equal status, such as noun-verb phrase, ice melts, verb-noun phrase, comb the hair, and adjective-noun phrase, wonderful time. In addition to collocations, typically revealed in corpora is the enormous number of formulaic sequences which contain language structures. It is this type of language that has been long ignored in language acquisition. Up till recently, it has been very rare for publishers to incorporate these phrases and patterns into course materials. By using corpora, teachers or learners can identify these phrases and patterns. Both collocations and formulaic sequences can be identified by a computer program (e.g. WordSmith by Scott, 1996; MicroConcord by Scott/Johns, 1993; Collocate by Barlow, 2004) which shows concordances: these enable us to quickly find out how a target word is collocated and used with other words. Online concordance search of corpus is also available, e.g. the free sample search of BNC: ; the free sample search of COBUILD corpus: . In addition, Tom Cobb’s Compleat Lexical Tutor (version 4) from provides an online comprehensive concordance program with multiple functions. 122
6.1.2.2. Learner English corpora Learner corpora contain written or oral English language by learners. They are often recorded in the form of computer learner corpora (CLC) marked with error tagging. The most comprehensive and influential learner English corpus is the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) developed at the Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Belgium. ICLE contains more than two million words of written texts by learners of English of 19 different mother tongue backgrounds. In addition, a spoken corpus named Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage (LINDSEI) is progressively being developed as a complement to the written corpora. Research into learner corpora generally falls into two categories: contrastive interlanguage analysis and computer-aided error analysis (Granger, 2002: 11−12). Research of the first category is the search for inter-lingual features, either universal or L1-specific, by comparing learner English with native English or different non-native learner English data. The second category is concerned with finding, tagging and analyzing language errors with the help of computer software/tools. The findings of learner corpora research have certainly a huge potential in their application to L2 acquisition (see Granger, 1998a and Granger et al. 2002 for a review).
6.1.3. Identifying and defining formulaic sequences A broad definition of formulaic sequences is provided by Wray: “A sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar” (2002: 9). The definition is fully inclusive, focusing on two basic features of formulaic sequences: (1) a string of words with or without slots, and (2) holistic storage and retrieval. According to these two criteria, an enormous number of multi-word items can be considered as candidates for formulaic sequences. On the other hand, the definition is so encompassing that we are left with only a vague idea of what formulaic 123
sequences are. According to Wray, two major problems in the study of formulaic sequences are how to identify these sequences in discourse and how to define their features. Wray proposes five ways of identifying them (2002: 20−43): (a) intuition, (b) computer frequency counts, (c) internal structure analysis, (d) phonological form, and (e) special language data. Each can be used to identify formulaic sequences to some degree but each has its drawbacks. Thus Wray proposes to look for a series of features that formulaic sequences may possess but not necessarily so. One possible way is to categorise formulaic sequences according to certain criteria. Different proposals have been put forward, e.g. Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), Lewis (1997). According to Wray (2002: 47), these proposals are based on one or more of the four features of formulaic sequences: form, function, meaning, and provenance28. She (2002: 65) argues that all four features are interrelated and do not operate independently: It is provenance that explains the quirks of both form and meaning, and it is function and meaning which propel a sequence through the process from novel to formulaic. […] a focus on form is able to capture some descriptive characteristics of formulaic sequences, but that approach is weakened by unbalanced but ubiquitous formal characteristics which cut across the main categories, and/or deep-seated difficulties in excluding function, meaning and provenance from the finer points of the account.
In short, there are no clear-cut categories that allow all formulaic sequences to be neatly classified. Often a formulaic sequence can fall into more than one category. In a similar vein, Schmitt and Carter (2004) point out that it is difficult to identify categorical criteria for defining formulaic sequences and propose to search for archetypal characteristics of 28
124
Provenance refers to how sequences of language become formulaic. Some new sequences are formulaic at the start but it requires time to internalize them, to treat them as a whole; others become formulaic gradually and even acquire a different meaning from what they meant in the beginning, e.g. the Radio Times was originally the name of a British magazine which gave details of the week’s forthcoming radio programmes but now it has become a formulaic expression with more extended associations (Wray, 2002, p. 60−61).
formulaic sequences. The two authors (2004: 7−8) list the following features as specific to formulaic sequences: (1) they may be stored as a whole in the mind but they are acquired in a way similar to individual words which involve incremental learning; (2) they can have slots which have semantic constraints, e.g. ____ thinks nothing of ____ typically needs to express some unexpected idea; (3) they often entail certain semantic connotations, e.g. border on implies the meaning of entering into an unwanted state as in border on the ill-mannered; (4) they frequently have certain types of functions, e.g. social interaction. It would seem that for Wray and others such as Schmitt and Carter, formulaic sequence is at best defined in a broad, all-encompassing manner. Further tracing of the subcategories or defining features is possible but would lead to fuzzy, confused results. It is clear that Wray gave this global, undistinguished definition largely from a psycholinguistic viewpoint in consideration of mental processing and formulaicalisation of the sequences. Howarth (1998), however, objects to this undistinguished single category of formulaic sequences and argues that formulaic sequences are actually gradable, ranging from free combinations to pure idioms, all covered by the term “word combinations”. The main categories of these word combinations are shown in Figure 6. Functional expressions have some functional purposes in discourse and they include many institutionalised interactive utterances, proverbs, slogans, etc. Composite units consist of word collocations which can be further divided into two sub-categories: grammatical and lexical composites. The former are collocations composed of words of an open class and a closed class (usually a preposition) (e.g. in time, proud of ); the latter consist of words of two open classes (e.g. make an appointment, final objective). The distinction between non-idiomatic and idiomatic combinations is made for each sub-category: functional expressions, grammatical composites and lexical composites. However, the distinction is not categorical but operates on a continuum: free combinations (e.g. blow a trumpet), restricted collocations (e.g. blow a fuse), figurative idioms (e.g. blow your own trumpet), and pure idioms (e.g. blow the gaff) (Howarth, 1998: 28). The main features that characterize these categories are (Howarth, 1998: 28): 125
Free combinations (also referred to as open or free collocations) consist of elements used in their literal senses and freely substitutable (carry a trumpet, on top of the table). Restricted collocations have one component (usually the preposition, verb, or adjective ‘collocator’ of the ‘base’ noun, to use Hausmann’s 1979 terms) that is used in a specialized, often figurative sense only found in the context of a limited number of collocates. While figurative idioms have metaphorical meanings in terms of the whole and have a current literal interpretation, pure idioms have a unitary meaning that cannot be derived from the meanings of the components and are the most opaque and fixed category. word combinations
functional expressions
non-idiomatic
idiomatic
non-idiomatic
composite units
grammatical composites
idiomatic
lexical composites
non-idiomatic
idiomatic
Figure 6. Phraseological categories (Howarth, 1998: 27).
Restricted collocations are still gradable and can be distinguished at three levels: level 1 allows restricted substitution of both sides (e.g. introduce/table/bring a bill/an amendment); level 2 allows limited substitution of one side (e.g. pay/take heed); level 3 is the most restricted and similar to idioms (e.g. curry favour). Howarth (1998: 42) claims that it is restricted collocations that pose the most learning problems29 for learners while both free collocations and idioms are comparatively less problematic.
29
126
According to Howarth, one main reason is that the restricted collocations are prone to be produced by learners in non-standard or erroneous variations.
The phraseological categories of Howarth are useful in providing a clear framework for pedagogical purposes – to guide the instruction of formulaic sequences. We have to be first aware of all the possible types of word combinations in terms of their collocability and find out the difficulty they cause learners, then we can adopt a particular approach to tackle the acquisition of a given category of formulaic sequences. For example, Boers and his associates (2004) formulate their approaches to the acquisition of one type of formulaic sequence: idioms. There is, however, a dearth of research in such category-specific approaches to the acquisition of other types of formulaic sequences.
6.2. Approaches to L2 formulaic sequence acquisition 6.2.1. Learning difficulties of L2 formulaic sequence acquisition Although our understanding of the nature of formulaic sequences has deepened in the last two decades, how formulaic sequences (both the L1 and the L2) are acquired is still an underdeveloped area that needs more research. Often it is assumed that the acquisition of L1 formulaic sequences is similar to that of individual words, going through an incremental process from vague knowledge to possibly full mastery (e.g. Schmitt/Carter, 2004). It follows that L2 formulaic sequences should be acquired similarly to the L2 individual words, though the acquisition process could be more complicated due to the nature of formulaic sequences. As with the acquisition of individual words, there is a range of learning difficulty that L2 learners will encounter in acquiring formulaic sequences: 1.
Formulaic sequences are typically culture-loaded, their acquisition being subject to L1 influence. If we agree that language mirrors the culture of the linguistic community, then this should particularly hold true for formulaic sequences. Adult L2 127
2.
3.
4.
learners are prone to transfer their L1 knowledge in acquiring the L2, including formulaic sequences, and this could lead to overuse or underuse of formulaic sequences, even for advanced learners whose L1 is closely related to the L2 (Granger, 1998b; De Cock, 1998). The meaning of formulaic sequences is often non-transparent; analysis of semantic or syntactic features simply does not lead to the correct meaning, e.g. idioms. This means that acquiring a formulaic sequence requires the commitment of whole strings of words to memory, which involves a considerable amount of mental processing and the strings are subject to memory loss. In other words, it is more difficult to link the sequence form with the sequence meaning than for individual words. Acquisition of formulaic sequences needs to balance formulaicity and creativity of language (Wray, 2002: 183). L2 learners make considerable errors when using formulaic sequences due to a range of interlanguage or intralanguage sources. In addition to the phenomena of underuse and overuse, learners can create their own formulaic sequences due to previous wrongly acquired grammatical/semantic knowledge. Most L2 learners acquire the L2 (including formulaic sequences) in an unfavourable learning environment. It is reported that language teaching materials rarely incorporate formulaic sequences, or else treat them as of little importance. Formulaic sequences might be scarce or absent from teachers’ input if the language teachers are not native speakers themselves. Most learners have little opportunity to have social interaction with native speakers, which is considered a vital condition for acquiring formulaic sequences (e.g. Wray, 2002; Schmitt, 2004; Dörnyei et al. 2004; Adolphs/Durow, 2004).
Due to these areas of difficulty, the acquisition of L2 formulaic sequences becomes extremely difficult, which explains why many advanced learners either avoid using them or use them wrongly. There seems to be no particularly efficient way of tackling them. There are, however, a few points that might facilitate formulaic sequence acquisition for adult L2 learners: (1) noticing these sequences in the language 128
input (e.g. Wray, 2002; Schmitt et al. 2004), (2) interacting with native speakers or speakers who can correctly use formulaic sequences (e.g. Wray, 2002; Dörnyei et al. 2004), (3) analyzing the sequences to some degree (e.g. Willis, 1990; Wray, 2002, 2000). As for the third point, Wray (2000: 494) quotes from Willis and points out that the successful acquisition of formulaic sequences for L2 learners involves a compromise between “native-like expression” and “non-native-like processing”, although not all formulaic sequences can lend themselves to analysis. Moreover, she (2000: 484) believes that the successful acquisition of formulaic sequences in classroom settings consists in: [...] the sensitivity of the syllabus designer and the teacher to the complex nature of language in use and, in particular, to the potential for the very idiomaticity of an expression to make it less open to generalization than it may seem at first glance. The more natural the data that are being presented to the learner, the more they need to be subjected to control and guidance in delivery.
6.2.2. Proposals for the acquisition of formulaic sequences 6.2.2.1. Classroom teaching/learning activities This type of approach values classroom activities and exercises for teaching/learning lexis. It assumes that teachers play an important role in selecting what type of formulaic sequences to teach and what activities to use. Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) suggest that different teaching activities should be organised according to the type of discourse: conversation, listening, reading and writing. They recommend a progressive learning process from routines to patterns to creative language use for learning formulaic sequences orally. They put it this way: “[…] by starting with a few basic fixed routines, which they (learners) then would analyse as increasingly variable patterns as they were exposed to more varied phrases” (1992: 116). According to the two authors, traditional pattern practice drills could be used to help learners to gain fluency with some basic fixed sequences as a starting point. This is followed by introducing learners to controlled variation in these basic sequences by means of simple 129
substitution drills. This suggests that at this stage it is better to choose to teach formulaic sequences that contain several slots, e.g. I’m (very) sorry to (hear (about) X), (1992: 117) instead of rather fixed expressions which allow little variation, e.g. I’d like to express my sympathy (about X) (1992: 117). Regarding the teaching of formulaic sequences, they recommend exchange structure, which requires a series of question-response utterances between two learners relating to a specific topic. They give the following example (1992: 121): (8)
Asserting-endorsing I read/heard somewhere that X – Yes, that’s so/right/correct. I think/believe that …. – I absolutely/certainly/completely agree.
6.2.2.2. Syllabus design Willis (1990), in his pioneer work The Lexical Syllabus, offers the rationale and design for lexically based language teaching and learning. According to him, syllabus design is set in a communicative approach, which offers learners the opportunity to abstract knowledge from the language exposed to them; it will focus on specific language items to identify what is to be learned. The lexical syllabus design reaches a balance between a holistic approach and a discrete one. Willis (1990: vi−vii) identifies the following basic principles for the syllabus design: (1) only language activities involving real language will be used; (2) learners will be exposed to only authentic native speaker language; (3) spontaneous speech will be recorded for course use but without transcriptions; (4) learners will be encouraged to analyse and learn the language to which they are exposed instead of being presented with the language. The syllabus design is applied to the Collins COBUILD English Course series, which forms part of the COBUILD research project on lexical development. A mini corpus, which contains words up to the 2500 word frequency level in context, is extracted from the 20 million COBUILD corpus. Based on the mini corpus, the course is divided into three levels: level 1 contains the most frequent 700 words, level 2 the most frequent 1500 words and level 3 the most frequent 2,500 words. The meanings and uses of the words will be highlighted when exposing learners to the language.
130
Learners will then do exercises based on the language to which they have been exposed, and this will lead to acquisition. 6.2.2.3. The lexical approach The lexical approach focuses on developing learner proficiency with lexis: words, word combinations and particularly formulaic sequences. Lewis (1993, 1997), inspired by the innovative work of authors such as Willis (1990) and Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), made the following ideas the basis of what he named the “lexical approach”:
The grammar-lexis dichotomy is not valid and is replaced by a continuum along which many lexical-grammatical items are situated between the two poles of lexis and syntax. Language is full of prefabricated patterns and chunks which are stored and retrieved as a whole. In SLA learners need to be trained to recognise these lexical patterns and various ways could be used to master them.
Materials and resources to support the lexical approach One of the prerequisites to implementing the lexical approach is to have teaching materials and resources available for both teachers and learners. Richards and Rodgers (2001) identify four types of teaching materials and resources for the lexical approach. The first type contains complete course packages (texts, tapes, teacher’s guide, etc.). The Collins COBUILD English Course developed by Willis and Willis (1989) is such a case. The second type is a collection of lexical teaching activities/exercises proposed by Lewis (1993, 1997, 2000a). The third type is made up of a printed version of computer corpora in the form of text. The last type is computer corpora attached to concordancer programs so that learners can perform their own analysis with the teacher’s help or independently. Resources of this type are often on CD-ROM or can be downloaded from websites. Implementing the lexical approach Lewis (2000b) has attempted to formulate a learning theory for the lexical approach. He holds the view that the lexical approach is similar 131
to the natural approach (Krashen/Terrell, 1983) in that both approaches value comprehensive input. He also states that the two differ in that the lexical approach acknowledges the conscious noticing of linguistic features of input, such as lexical chunks and patterns, and thus has a facilitative value, whereas the natural approach does not have such a value. According to Lewis (2000b: 184), acquisition is associated with a series of important features: (1) new learning items have to be met and comprehended on several occasions; (2) the lexical chunks or collocations have to be noticed; (3) similarities, differences, restrictions and examples which all contribute to turning input into intake have to be noticed; (4) acquisition is based on an accumulation of examples from which learners make preliminary generalizations rather than on the application of formal rules. Only when these conditions are fulfilled can learning lead to acquisition. Regarding classroom teaching practice, Lewis (2000b) rejects the traditional Present-Practice-Produce paradigm and proposes an alternative Observe-Hypothesis-Experiment paradigm. Observe means learners must meet and notice the new language; hypothesis means learners have to sort out the input in some provisional way; experiment involves using the language based on learners’ current interlanguage. In the classroom, the teacher’s role should be changed from that of instructor to that of learning manager: the teacher should help learners notice useful lexical chunks and patterns (e.g. by providing real, natural collocations 30 ), guide learners’ choice of materials and activities and, most importantly, maintain learners’ motivation. See Lewis (2000a, 1997) for a review of the classroom activities for implementing the lexical approach. It would seem that the lexical approach advocated by him can be summarized as an input-noticing-intake-output paradigm, in line with Krashen, the only difference being noticing between input and intake.
30
132
According to Lewis, real examples of collocations are words that naturally occur together; the invented examples are used to illustrate traditional grammar structure and often the vocabulary does not fit well with the grammar structure.
6.2.2.4. Data-driven learning This approach focuses on using computer concordancers to process and analyse large quantities of language data (computer corpora) to learn language and particularly formulaic sequences. Johns and King give the following definition of data-driven learning (DDL): “[…] the use in the classroom of computer-generated concordances to get students to explore regularities of patterning in the target language, and the development of activities and exercises based on concordance output” (1991: iii). DDL are meant to arouse learner language awareness and raise their consciousness of the language features to be learned (Granger/Tribble, 1998: 200). Learners are encouraged to search for language patterns rather than being presented with the language patterns to be learned by rote. These assumptions largely overlap with those of Willis and of Lewis. As seen above, using concordancing programs to process language data has become an important means of teaching lexis in the lexical approach. However, students will be bored if classroom instruction is dominated by concordancing programs when they are exposed to authentic but rather discontinuous language (in which a number of words will be shown on each side of a particular lexical item or formulaic sequence). There is no information provided in respect of the broad language context where (some of) the selected sentences or phrases actually occur. In this sense, DDL based on concordancing programs and language corpora should be best employed as a kind of awarenessraising or follow-up information-search activity, complementary to other communicative language activities. Another important issue is that exercises or language activities need to be carefully designed to assist the learning of the target formulaic sequences in order to make the best use of DDL. In addition, DDL should not be restricted to classroom learning as it was originally defined by Johns and King (see above); it can also be extended to students’ self-learning, i.e. to use concordancing programs to search for information on their own (Cheng, 2004: 96). Teachers need to train students to use the concordancing programs and to perform efficient searches in the corpora. The extent to which DDL can in fact be useful in learning formulaic sequences or language in general depends on a series of 133
conditions: (1) how students perceive DDL in terms of usefulness and preference; (2) what type of exercises are designed based on the language data to which they are exposed; (3) whether students have sufficient language proficiency to understand the authentic language data; (4) what teachers do to help the students to explore DDL, etc. 6.2.2.5. Conclusion The four theoretical approaches tackle the acquisition of formulaic sequences from different perspectives. Willis aims to set up the rationale for designing syllabuses catered to learning formulaic sequences. Nattinger and DeCarrico provide practical guidance for teachers on how to treat formulaic sequences in the classroom and acknowledge the importance of teachers presenting learning items and controlling the learning process. Lewis formulates a theory for the lexical approach in which the acquisition of “grammaticalized” lexis and formulaic sequences form the centre of SLA. DDL emphasizes the role of using language corpora in demonstrating formulaic sequences and how they are used. One thing all four approaches have in common, as Wray (2000) points out, is that they support the linguistic analysis of formulaic sequences at certain stages. Willis and Lewis share a similar viewpoint, arguing that authentic language input provides the major source of acquisition and that noticing different language patterns and sequences is the prerequisite for their acquisition. Both seem to suggest that acquisition will occur naturally when learner attention is repeatedly directed to the target formulaic sequences along with some analysis or generalization of the pattern. Neither is interested in the issue of how to commit the large number of formulaic sequences to memory, one that Boers and Lindstromberg (2005: 226) raise. These two authors point out that the major challenge in acquiring formulaic sequences is to turn noticed language exposure into intake, which calls for the need to develop strategies and techniques to do so. The last approach, DDL, explores the potential of electronic authentic language corpora with the help of concordancing programs; however, I argue that DDL is best employed as complementary to other language activities and that its efficiency is largely situation-dependent.
134
6.2.3. Empirical studies on the acquisition of formulaic sequences In this section, we look at several recently reported empirical studies in a special volume devoted to formulaic sequences edited by Schmitt (2004); the acquisition can be grouped into two settings: classroom and socio-cultural interaction. 6.2.3.1. Classroom settings Schmitt et al. (2004) report a study of the acquisition of 20 selected formulaic sequences in an intensive course for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) for a period of two to three months. The selection of the sequences is based on frequency, occurrence in an EAP context, and usefulness to students. The instruction of these items is “semi-controlled” (Schmitt et al., 2004: 53) by taking into account that: (1) students will meet at least once each sequence in the learning materials; (2) teachers will direct students’ attention to each sequence during the course without revealing the research purpose. They reported that students, who already had considerable pre-knowledge of the target items, achieved a receptive learning rate of 12% and a productive learning rate of 24.9%. The fact that the productive gain (3.20) is higher than the receptive gain (2.03) may be due to the fact there was a ceiling effect in the receptive score but not in the productive scores (Schmitt et al., 2004: 65). Since these students are studying in an English-speaking country, they have the opportunity to interact with native speakers, which provides extra input for formulaic sequences. Therefore, the source of the knowledge gain is not very clear; it could be the explicit instruction, the input of the course book, or the natural L2 exposure. As for teacher instruction, no detailed information is given except that teachers are free to choose what they do with sequences. If the study by Schmitt et al. did not provide a specific methodology for teaching formulaic sequences, the study by Jones and Haywood (2004) does so. They attempt to tackle formulaic sequence acquisition in EAP (English for Academic Purposes) classes in a systematic way by presenting a clearly defined methodology for instruction. They adopt a mixed approach: Nation’s (2001) three 135
psychological stages for vocabulary acquisition – noticing, retrieving and generating – serve as the guidelines. Concordance texts are used to enrich the language input as well as to illustrate the linguistic features of the sequences; special attention is paid to help students build up useful learning strategies. Instruction is given in a reading course and a writing course, two hours a week over a period of ten weeks. The reading course After the reading text is comprehended, special attention is paid to formulaic sequences by highlighting them in the text. Students are told clearly that they should study certain multi-word items and try to use them in writing in order to acquire a more academically suitable style. Students are required to perform activities, with the help of concordance texts and corpus extracts, which will extend their knowledge of the meaning and usage of the sequences. The writing course In the writing course, students can review the sequences or patterns learned in the reading course and prepare for productive use. Learning activities are diversified: students are assigned writing tasks with the help of a planning session in which relevant or frequent formulaic sequences will be rehearsed or introduced; they are required to analyse the function of formulaic sequences; they are instructed to produce their own concordance texts with the help of a program. The measurement of the acquisition is based on (1) the degree of awareness of formulaic sequences, (2) the ability to produce formulaic sequences on a cloze test, and (3) the free production of formulaic sequences in writing essays. The results are mixed. By the end of the study, most of the students have shown increased awareness of the formulaic sequences, i.e. words not only exist as individual items but also frequently appear in meaningful and useful sequences. A moderate gain is reported from the cloze test but there is no significant improvement in free production of formulaic sequences in essays. According to the two researchers, the main problem is the relatively small number of subjects, ten in all, which can hardly make the results generalisable. Nevertheless, this study shows us how formulaic 136
sequences can be taught and learned in a systematic and meaningful way, combining DDL and other traditional means such as learning strategy training, in contrast to the prevailing previous view that they will be taken care of naturally with language exposure. 6.2.3.2. Socio-cultural interaction Dornyei et al. (2004) investigate the acquisition of formulaic sequences in terms of three main factors: language aptitude, motivation and, particularly, socio-cultural adaptation/integration. They state their assumption as follows (2004: 87): […] the acquisition of a formulaic, phraseological competence is somewhat different from the mastery of other components of communicative language proficiency in that formulaic language is so closely linked to the everyday reality of the target language culture that it cannot be learnt effectively unless the learner integrates, at least partly, into the particular culture.
Seven students were selected from the subjects in Schmitt et al.’s study (2004, see above). These students were chosen because they were either considered extremely successful or unsuccessful learners of formulaic sequences. A series of regular interviews with the selected subjects were conducted to collect qualitative information which covered (1) learner attitude towards the local people, (2) language learning attitudes and beliefs, (3) motivation, (4) learner perceived progress or regression and its possible reasons, (5) degree of social integration. The results are reported based on the interview data in conjunction with scores obtained from an aptitude/motivation survey. Their study revealed some tentative evidence that “success in acquiring formulaic sequences is strongly related to the learners’ active involvement in some English-speaking social community” (Dornyei et al., 2004: 104). However, it is also shown that the majority of students failed to adapt or integrate into the host culture for all sorts of reasons, e.g. cultural gap, lack of commitment, anxiety about not being able to express themselves, etc. Among the four successful students, two managed to break through the cultural barrier and achieved successful socio-cultural integration to some degree. The other two did not but simply had higher motivation and worked harder. 137
We should not forget that most L2 learners do not have the opportunity to go to the L2 country and, even when they can, many, as the study shows, cannot be integrated into the local culture. Without denying its effectiveness, solely relying on socio-cultural integration as a major means to acquiring formulaic sequences does not seem to be very realistic for the majority of L2 learners.
6.3. Approaches to the acquisition of idioms Idioms are a specific type of formulaic sequence largely due to their opaqueness and figurative use (see Howarth 1998 for a discussion of criteria for defining idioms). It used to be believed that idioms are “‘dead’ metaphors whose meaning has become completely arbitrary” (Boers, 2004: 211). Boers, together with his associates, in a series of articles (Boers 2000, 2004; Boers/Demecheleer, 2001; Boers et al. 2004), argues that idioms are actually “motivated” rather than arbitrary and their acquisition can be tackled in a systematic manner. Two approaches to the acquisition of idioms have been developed by Boers and his associates: a cognitive approach and a mnemonic approach. It should be noted that these two approaches can be combined and complement each other.
6.3.1. The acquisition of idioms by raising learner awareness of idioms using a cognitive approach According to Boers (2000), the figurative use of idioms can often be traced to their literal meaning, e.g. see a light at the end of the tunnel, and learner attention can be directed to these literal meanings when acquiring idioms. Boers (2004) identified three ways of raising learner metaphor awareness of figurative language based on empirical studies. First, often idioms “can be traced back to a relatively small set of concrete ‘source domains’ whose structure is mapped on to our
138
conception of abstract ‘target domains’ via ‘conceptual metaphors’” (Boers et al. 2004: 55) and these source domains can be made explicit to learners. They (2004: 55) give an example to illustrate how idioms can be grouped together: You still have a whole life ahead of you, She needs moral guidance, Without you, I’d be lost, Follow my example, We’ve reached the point of no-return, etc., can be grouped under the source domain “travelling” via the conceptual metaphor LIFE IS A JOURNEY. Other identified conceptual metaphors include: THE BODY IS A CONTAINER FOR EMOTIONS, ANGER IS A HOT FLUID IN A CONTAINER, MORE IS UP, LESS IS DOWN, ACTIVE IS UP, INACTIVE IS DOWN, etc. (Boers, 2000). Boers et al. (2004) refer to these as image-schema-based metaphors grounded in general physical experience and they are likely to be universal across different cultures and languages. Boers (2000, 2004) argues that organizing idioms according to these common metaphoric themes can facilitate their retention. Explicit instruction is needed to raise learner awareness of such knowledge; this includes making learners aware that (1) metaphor is ubiquitous in language use and (2) figurative language is not arbitrary but can be grouped under different themes (Boers, 2000). Second, many idioms are also derived from specific source domains, e.g. fighting/warfare, health/fitness, food/cooling, games/ sports, agriculture/gardening, handicraft/manufacturing, boats/sailing, entertainment/public performance, religion/superstition, and commerce/accounting (Boers et al., 2004: 59). These specific source domains are often culture specific, e.g., idioms associated with hats and shipping feature more prominently in English than in French (Boers/Demecheleer, 2001). If learners are instructed to trace idioms to their original source domains, learners are likely to generate a mental picture. This, according to Boers, can, on the one hand, involve deep mental processing and, on the other, lead to “dual coding” (see Paivio/Desrochers, 1980) of the linguistic information. Thus, the acquisition of idioms can be facilitated. A program called Idiomteacher is being developed on this basis (Boers et al. 2004). Three types of exercises are designed for each idiom to be learned: (1) comprehending the idioms in a short context with multiple-choice questions; (2) identifying the source domain of the idioms with multiple-choice questions; (3) gap-fill exercises for recalling the 139
idioms. Students were asked to do all these exercises in a sequential order. The general recall rate was 72.85% while the comprehension rate was 70.04% at the start of the exercises. It is difficult to calculate a precise learning rate since the study was not designed for this purpose. However, the results do show that identifying the origin of idioms can help their productive acquisition to some degree and this can hold true for both semantically transparent and less transparent idioms. It is found that idioms can either be successfully identified with the source domain or, in the case of unsuccessful attempts, their origin or, to use Boers’ word, etymology can be given to learners. Both are equally helpful for retention. Third, metaphor awareness can be enhanced with problemsolving tasks, i.e. inferring the meaning of idioms with or without context before having recourse to help. Some idioms are imageable; they are defined as “idioms that have associated conventional images” (Lakoff, 1987, cited in Boers/Demecheleer, 2001: 255) and learners can easily guess their meaning even without the help of context, e.g. split one’s sides laughing. The study reported by Boers and Demecheleer (2001) shows that their subjects were able to produce a correct guessing rate of 35% for decontextualised idioms of medium degree of semantic transparency. The two authors propose that contextual clues should be used for idioms with lower imageabililty. It is also pointed out that a major problem for inferring the so-called imageable idioms largely depends on the difference between the L1 and the L2 culture. Related languages such as English (L2) and French (L1) may share many common sources for idioms and a target idiom might be easily imaged, but this might not be the case for a more distant L2. Second, even in the case of two related languages, learners might make an erroneous transfer from L1 to L2. In a more recent article, Boers and Lindstromberg (2005: 227) provide a four-stage instruction to show how idioms should be tackled: If, for example, a target expression is buy a pig in a poke, students can (1) be told the current meaning of the expression, (2) be given the information that poke is an obsolete word for “sack”, (3) be asked to visualize a pig in a sack, and (4) speculate about how the expression came to have its overall, idiomatic meaning.
140
This instruction is a combination of cognitive learning and mnemonic techniques, referred to by the two authors as “etymological elaboration” (2005: 227). It can be seen that the underlying essence of this approach is to use images, either concrete or metaphorical, to enhance the encoding and memorisation of idioms.
6.3.2. The mnemonic effect of alliteration on the acquisition of idioms This approach explores the potential of phonological patterning in acquiring idioms. Vocabulary items can be related in many ways in the lexicon, one of which is their phonological relation. It is very likely that similar phonological patterns among items within an idiom can facilitate retention. In particular, Boers and Lindstromberg (2005: 227) examine a specific type of phonological pattern, alliteration, which they define as “word-initial repetition of at least one consonant (e.g., time will tell; spick and span)”. They hold the view that this mnemonic strategy can be particularly useful for learning idioms that are not suitable for etymological elaboration. The important role of alliteration in learning idioms is based on two assumptions. First, according to the two authors, alliteration features in about 17% of all the items listed in the Oxford Dictionary of Idioms. If alliteration is an important feature in English idioms, it is worth considering exploring its potential to assist in their acquisition. Second, they cite evidence and argue that it was through alliteration/rhyme/rhythm that large pieces of formulaic, figurative, poetic texts, such as the Iliad and Odyssey, were memorised and passed on in oral form before being converted into written form. From the results of their empirical studies, it is repeatedly shown that retention of idioms with alliteration is significantly higher than those without alliteration.
141
6.5. Conclusion In this chapter we have given our attention to formulaic sequences, a type of lexical item which frequently gives rise to considerable learning difficulty. Implicit learning in which learners are exposed to rich language input and have social interaction with the target language culture seems to be the predominant view for learning them. The various types of corpora that have been built up in recent years have been of enormous help in identifying them and demonstrating their very high frequency in everyday language. These corpora have helped researchers to classify them and, on account of the concordancing programs that have been developed from them, are gaining popularity in classroom instruction or self-learning, providing a useful complement to other learning activities. Meanwhile, explicit instruction is being investigated by some authors. Boers and his colleagues have proposed seemingly effective approaches combining cognitive learning (essentially associated with images) and mnemonic techniques (alliteration) for the learning of a particular type of formulaic sequence, idioms. Their potential for other types of formulaic sequences needs to be further researched 31. What seems to be needed is the search for effective approaches specific to other types of formulaic sequences within the framework of Howarth (see 6.1.3.).
31
142
In addition to idioms, these approaches (cognitive or combination of cognitive and mnemonic) have been applied to the acquisition of phrasal verbs (e.g. Boers 2000; Condon/Kelly 2002).
Chapter 7. A Learner-Focused Approach
7.1. Learner differences The 1970s saw the placing of the language learner at the centre of the learning process by taking into account a series of learner characteristics, needs, abilities, and interests (Wenden, 2002). The concept of learner centredness has fundamentally shaped language teaching/ learning as well as L2 acquisition. It is reasonable to assume that the ultimate goal of learner centredness is to achieve learner autonomy, i.e. give the learner the ability to take charge of his/her own learning. To achieve this goal, the learner needs to develop certain skills and capabilities as it is rare for learners to display an innate ability to take effective control of their own learning. However, as Wenden (2002) observes, changes brought about by learner centredness have mainly affected teaching and the curriculum design, which might have benefited the learner but were not necessarily intended to improve the learner or directly develop the learner’s ability to learn. She thus calls for “learner development”, which she defines as “a learner-centred innovation which intends to help learners learn how to learn” (2002: 34). It follows that a learner-focused approach has to first foster learner development and then possibly achieve learner autonomy. This is true for general language learning and vocabulary learning, the latter being the most important constituent of the former. Research into learner differences has aimed to: (1) provide valuable information to inform language teaching; (2) explain how language is learned and predict language proficiency; (3) promote learner autonomy. The last-mentioned might be the hardest to achieve as the process is usually fairly long and progress can be slow and complex. Important learner differences that affect L2 acquisition include affective factors (motivation, attitudes), cognitive factors (aptitude, intelligence), personality, learning style, learning strategies, 143
age, and gender, etc. According to Cohen and Dörnyei (2002), motivation, learning style, learning strategies are comparatively easy to manipulate while other factors, such as age, gender and aptitude, are largely beyond control. Following them, I shall focus on motivation, learning style, and learning strategies.
7.2. Motivation 7.2.1. What is motivation? Motivation as a subject of scientific study was first understood through Freud. Human actions or behaviour can be explained by inner forces, such as instincts, drives, emotional states and psychic energy, largely from a biological viewpoint. Nowadays, much has been done to improve our understanding of motivation in a variety of fields including behavioural, social, cognitive, affective, conative 32, spiritual33 perspectives (Huitt, 2001). Motivation is an omnipresent phenomenon in our daily lives and can account for most of our behaviour and actions. Because of the very broad coverage of motivation in terms of variables, it is difficult to reach a consensus among researchers as to what exactly motivation is (Dörnyei, 2001). It seems that most authors would agree that motivation is an internal state or condition, such as a need, desire, or want. Huitt (2001: 1) makes a tentative effort to define motivation:
32 33
144
Internal state or condition that activates behavior and gives it direction. Desire or want that energizes and directs goal-oriented behaviour.
The conative perspective of motivation includes reaching one’s goals in life, taking control of one’s life and developing or maintaining self-efficacy, etc. The spiritual perspective of motivation includes understanding the purpose of one’s life and relating oneself to ultimate unknowns.
Influence of needs and desires on the intensity and direction of behaviour. The arousal, direction, and persistence of behaviour.
7.2.2. Motivation for learning the L2 Most authors would agree that motivation is a leading L2 learner variable and that the degree of motivation determines the degree of language achievement. Dörnyei writes: “Motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the L2 and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process” (1998: 117). An earlier classic definition of L2 motivation from a socio-psychological approach is given by Gardner (1985: 10): Motivation in the present context refers to the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes toward learning the language. That is, motivation to learn a second language is seen as referring to the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity.
He distinguished two types of orientation that serve as goals of L2 motivation34: integrative and instrumental orientation. Learners are classified as integratively oriented if they emphasize meeting and talking with native speakers and endeavour to acquire a better understanding of the L2 culture; they are classified as instrumentally oriented if their goal in learning the L2 is to get a better job or to be better educated. He attached particular importance to the integrative motive, which he defined as the motivation to learn an L2 due to the positive feelings towards the people that speak the language. The key components of the integrative motive model are: (1) integrativeness, (2) attitudes towards the learning situation, and (3) motivation. 34
Gardner’s motivation theory is the interplay between motivation and orientation, which are viewed as two distinct components, the latter being the goal of the former. In other motivation theories, e.g. the goal theory (Maslow, 1970), goals are central components of motivation.
145
Integrativeness includes integrative orientation, interest in the L2, and positive attitudes towards the L2 community. Attitudes towards the learning situation consist of attitudes towards the language teacher and the language course. Integrativeness and attitudes towards the learning situation give a driving force to motivation, which is reflected in the desire to learn the L2, the effort made, and the attitudes towards learning the L2. Gardner’s socially grounded motivation theory set up scientific research procedures and introduced standardized assessment, using the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery, which provides firm ground for research on L2 motivation. From the early 1990s, there has been a call for a practical, education-centred approach to L2 motivation, which would be applied in classroom teaching/learning and would include new findings from mainstream psychology (Dörnyei, 1994). Since then, a considerable number of L2 motivation studies have been conducted to investigate how learner motivation is reflected in concrete classroom events and processes (Dörnyei, 2002). L2 motivation thus moves from the Gardnerian approach which was predominantly social and psychological to an education-centred approach. Dörnyei (2001: 106) views this educational shift in thinking as a “peaceful revolution” for two reasons. First, it never has the intention of abandoning what has been previously established but aims to widen its scope by including additional factors that could explain specific language learning tasks and learner behaviour in classrooms. Second, those who had developed the previous theories took an active part in this revolution, acknowledged the existence of the new shift, and contributed to it. In line with this educational shift, Dörnyei (1994) has evolved a framework to conceptualise L2 motivation in terms of three different levels: (1) language level, (2) learner level, and (3) learning situations level. The three levels correspond to the three basic constituents of the L2 learning process, namely, the L2, the L2 learner, and the L2 learning environment. The language level essentially includes the two Gardnerian concepts: the integrative and the instrumental motivation construct. The learner level involves various individual characteristics, such as need for achievement and self-confidence. The learning situation level comprises three types of components: (a) course-specific motivational components which refer to learners’ perceptions of the 146
syllabus, the teaching materials, the teaching method and the learning tasks; (b) teacher-specific motivational components, which are concerned with the motivational impact of the teacher’s personality, behaviour and teaching style; (c) group-specific motivational components, which involve the learner group characteristics such as goal-orientedness, norm and reward system, group cohesion, and classroom goal structure. While remaining in line with the Gardnerian tradition, Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) introduce a new notion in motivation research by suggesting the temporal, dynamic nature of motivation. They (1998: 65) define L2 motivation as follows: In a general sense, motivation can be defined as the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritised, operationalised and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out.
While the Gardnerian approach usually set motivation research in a broad context by finding out learners’ overall attitudes towards the L2, the dynamic view of motivation is more suited to the educational approach by explaining learners’ behaviour in a specific learning situation. It should be noted that the definition given above attempts to describe the process by which motivation is generated, executed, and completed, as well as geared to a particular learning task. This is particularly true when we consider that L2 motivation usually needs to persist over a relatively long period of time, sometimes many years. It is very likely that learner motivation will change in terms of intensity of desire, effort and attitudes during this period. Moreover, it is argued (Dörnyei/Ottó, 1998; Dörnyei, 2001, 2002) that motivation is best described as a dynamic, cyclic process which undergoes three different phases, named the process model: 1.
Motivation is generated when the learner’s desire/wish/hope to achieve something emerges. This decision leads to the selection of the goal or the learning task to be carried out. Intention involving commitment needs to be formed in order to initiate 147
2.
3.
the goals. In addition, a feasible plan to carry out the task needs to be developed at the start. The whole of this initial phase is referred to as “choice motivation”. The motivational influences which empower this phase include the learners’ perceived value of the task, their incentive for doing the task, attitudes towards the L2 and its community, expected success, learner beliefs and strategies, etc. The motivation generated needs to be effectively maintained and protected; this is termed “executive motivation”. During this phase, the learner will generate and carry out subtasks, constantly evaluate the external stimuli and the progress made, and control/monitor actions by self-regulatory mechanisms (such as knowledge and strategies). The most important motivational influence of this phase is quality of current learning experience (pleasantness, need significance 35, coping potential, self and social image); other influences on motivation include teachers, classroom reward structure, learner groups, knowledge and use of self-regulatory strategies (e.g. goal setting, learning and self-motivating strategies). The task is completed and followed by a retrospective evaluation of the whole process, named “motivational retrospection”. By reflecting on the past learning experience, the learner will determine the next task to be carried out. The main motivational influences of this phase are attributional factors (the way people explain their previous successes or failures affects their future behaviour), self-concept beliefs, and received feedback (e.g. praise, grades).
It should be noted that though the three phases delineate a cyclic process, they are not necessarily in a linear sequence. Dörnyei states that “the ‘choice’ phase of one actional step might happen simultaneously with the executive phase of another, resulting in complex interferences” (2002: 142).
35
148
This refers to whether the environmental stimuli a learner receives are helpful in meeting the learner needs or achieving goals.
7.3. Style 7.3.1. What is learning style? It is observed both in educational psychology and L2 acquisition that different learners approach learning very differently and these different approaches are covered by the term “learning style” (Cohen/ Dörnyei, 2002). According to Oxford (2003: 273), learning style is “the general approach preferred by the students when learning a subject, acquiring a language, or dealing with a difficult problem”. For example, some learners might prefer reading books; others might love to listen to lectures or to move about constantly while studying. These learning styles are overall patterns that give general direction to language learning. So far more than 20 different dimensions of learning styles have been identified from three research traditions: (1) the study of perception and Gestalt psychology, (2) ego psychology, and (3) Carl Jung’s theory of personality (Ehrman/Oxford, 1990: 311). To understand learners’ learning styles is one of the first steps in taking into account learner difference in classroom learning or curriculum design. Learning style is biological in nature. Dunn and Griggs put it this way: “Learning style is the biologically and developmentally imposed set of characteristics that make the same teaching method wonderful for some and terrible for others” (1988, cited in Oxford, 2001: 359). This implies that learning styles are relatively stable and rather difficult to be manipulated. It is suggested that language teachers should attune learning activities to match learners’ specific learning style preferences (Oxford, 2001; Cohen/Dörnyei, 2002). On the other hand, preference for certain types of learning styles will lead to the neglect of other styles that might be helpful to different aspects of language learning. Learners sometimes need to go “beyond the stylistic comfort zone” (Oxford, 2001: 361) and try to incorporate other beneficial learning styles. Teachers should encourage their students to stretch their learning styles (Cohen/Dörnyei, 2002) or provide a wide range of communicative activities (Oxford, 2001) to help them do so. 149
7.3.2. Learning style assessment tools To find out what styles learners prefer, a suitable type of assessment tool has to be used. The most common type of assessment is a written questionnaire survey and learners are asked to answer questions which will reveal the general picture of their style preference. So far, the most widely used style survey instruments seem to be the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers/McCaulley, 1985), the Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) Survey (Reid, 1998) and the Style Analysis Survey (SAS) (Oxford/Nam, 1998). 7.3.2.1. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was first developed by Isabel Briggs Myers (1897−1979) and her mother Katharine Cook Briggs, on the basis of Carl Jung’s psychological types. MBTI reflects the theory that human behaviour in daily life is a manifestation of underlying stable and unchanging preferences for certain ways of functioning. The two authors’ initial goal was to help people understand themselves and others so that they could choose the profession that matched their personality types. Personality types are also extended to language studies and they appear to be significantly correlated with language learning success; these include a sense of humour, achievement orientation, assertiveness, outgoingness, impulsivity, risk-taking, adventurousness, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, etc. (Ehrman/Oxford, 1989). MBTI describes four dimensions of personality in keeping with Jung’s terminology: (1) extraversion vs. introversion, (2) sensing vs. intuition, (3) thinking vs. feeling, and (4) judging vs. perceiving. Ehrman and Oxford (1990: 327) have summarized them in the following way: 1.
150
The extroversion vs. introversion scale describes how people are energized and oriented. An extrovert is energized by interaction with others and is mainly interested in the outer world of people and events (extroverts). In contrast, an introvert is energized by solitary activities and is more drawn towards concepts and ideas from the inner world.
2.
3.
4.
The sensing vs. intuition scale describes how people perceive the world and take in input. The sensing person sees the world in a practical and factual way whereas an intuitive person values relationships, possibilities and meanings and is drawn to innovative or theoretical ideas. The thinking vs. feeling scale describes how people draw conclusions and make decisions. Thinkers make decisions based on objective and cause-and-effect criteria. Feelers tend to be subjective and to make decisions based on what they feel about others. The judging vs. perceiving scale describes how individuals deal with the outside world. Judgers prefer closure, structure, organisation, and control. Perceivers value spontaneity, flexibility, freedom, and autonomy.
Each of the four polar scales is independent of the other three, resulting in sixteen possible combinations of preferences called “types”. A type is encoded with an acronym consisting of the initial letters36 of the preferences described above. Thus ISFP means a type for a person who prefers introversion, sensing, feeling and perceiving. See Myers and McCaulley (1985) for specific procedures on how to use the MBTI. The MBTI is used as a measure of both personality types and learning styles. However, as Oxford (1989) points out, it only measures limited types of learning style. Other important aspects of learning style include learning modality preferences (aural / visual / kinaesthetic / tactile) and cognitive preferences (global / particular, synthesizing / analyzing, field independence / dependence, etc.). 7.3.2.2. The Perceptual Learning Style Preference Survey The Perceptual Learning Style Preferences (PLSP) Survey was developed by Reid to allow learners to identify their preferred learning styles from among six categories: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, group, and individual learning. The first four categories are concerned with how students use their physical senses to perceive information, 36
Intuition is abbreviated “N” as Introversion is “I”.
151
and the last two categories deal with social vs. independent learning preferences. Reid (1998) reported a large-scale study using the PLSP survey, involving 1300 students with nine different mother tongue backgrounds. The main findings are summarized as follows: Most learners studying English in the United States demonstrate strong learning style preferences for kinaesthetic and tactile learning. Most learners dislike learning in groups. Learners from different language/cultural backgrounds differ significantly in their choices of major, minor, and negative37 learning style. Learners from specific study fields tend to prefer specific learning styles, e.g. engineering students prefer tactile learning whereas students of the exact sciences prefer visual learning. 7.3.2.3. The Style Analysis Survey The previous two learning style instruments of measure primarily deal with personality types and physical perceptual preferences respectively. The Style Analysis Survey (SAS) developed by Oxford tries to capture learning style in a more comprehensive manner by integrating various relevant style features. Oxford (2001) distinguishes between three basic types of dimensions of learning style: (1) sensory style dimensions which include visual/auditory/hands-on; (2) social style dimensions which include extrovert/introvert; (3) cognitive style dimensions which include concrete-sequential/random-intuitive, closure-oriented/open, global/particular, and analyzing/synthesizing, etc. Each learner locates himself/herself somewhere on a continuum for each style dimension. The original SAS deals with five dimensions of learning style: visual/auditory/hands-on, extrovert/introvert, concrete-sequential/random-intuitive, closure-oriented/open, global/particular. Recently, Cohen et al. (2005), taking the SAS as their basis and incorporating 37
152
Major learning style is the style with which the learner feels comfortable and features as the prominent style used by the learner; minor learning style means the style the learner can normally function well with but uses less; negative style means the style which the learner has difficulty with and tries to avoid.
the comprehensive cognitive styles developed by Ehrman and Leaver (2003), developed the Learning Style Survey (LSS) which added six other cognitive dimensions: analyzing/synthesizing, sharpener/leveller, deductive/inductive, field-independence/field-dependence, impulsive/ reflective, and metaphorical/literal. We shall take a brief look at the nine cognitive style dimensions38 which have not been systematically touched upon previously. See the table below. Concrete-sequential/ random-intuitive
Closure-oriented/open
Global/particular
Synthesizing/analyzing
Sharpener/leveller
Deductive/inductive
38
Concrete sequential persons generally think the present is more important and would like to know where one is going in learning at each step; random-intuitive persons are more concerned with the future and like to speculate about possibilities, enjoying abstract thinking instead of step-by-step instruction. Closure-oriented persons treat learning tasks carefully and try hard to meet deadlines; open oriented persons enjoy learning or discovering things and prefer to be relaxed while learning, without being bothered about deadlines or rules. Global persons enjoy getting main ideas and are comfortable in communication even if they do not know all the words or concepts; particular persons focus more on details and remember specific information. Synthesizing persons summarize material well and enjoy guessing or predicting activities and they notice similarities quickly; analytical persons can separate ideas easily and perform well on logical analysis, and tend to focus on grammar rules. Sharpeners tend to notice differences among items when committing material to memory and thus they can easily retrieve the different items by storing them separately; levellers are likely to put material together to remember it by focusing on similarities and consequently they tend to confuse memories by merging new things with old ones. Deductive persons like to apply generalizations to experience by starting with rules or theories rather than specific examples; inductive persons prefer to begin with examples instead of rules or theories.
The source of all these cognitive dimensions is the Learning Style Survey by Cohen et al. (2003).
153
Field-independence/ field-dependence
Impulsive/reflective
Metaphorical/literal
Field-independent persons like to separate or abstract material from a given context even when distractions are present, but they are less able to deal with information holistically; field-dependent persons tend to deal with information holistically while having difficulty in separating material from the context. Impulsive persons react quickly in acting or speaking without thinking about the situation; reflective persons think things over before initiating any action. Metaphorical persons can learn material more effectively by conceptualizing it in metaphorical terms; literal persons prefer a literal representation of concepts and like to work with language material more or less from a surface understanding.
Table 2. Cognitive style listed in LSS (Cohen et al., 2005).
7.4. Strategies 7.4.1. Language learning strategies While language learning styles are general approaches to language learning, learning strategies can be defined as “specifications, behaviours, steps, techniques (or thoughts) – such as seeking out conversation partners, or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language task – used by students to enhance their own learning” (Scarcella/ Oxford, 1992, cited in Oxford, 2003: 274). Research into language learning strategies began in the 1970s to move away from the predominant role of the teacher and to turn towards the learners’ active role in language acquisition (Schmitt, 1997: 199). Language achievement was not seen as purely dependent on language aptitude but to a large extent on the learner’s own learning effort and general approach to language learning. The starting point of the research was to find out what strategies good learners employ in language learning (Schmitt, 1997: 200). Good learners tend to use more strategies and in a more systematic way than poor learners.
154
Researchers identify and record those strategies which appear to be helpful to learning: the strategies were either observed by researchers or reported by the learners themselves. After a range of strategies are identified, they need to be categorized in a comprehensive framework. Based on a cognitive information-processing model, O’Malley and Chaumot (1990) developed a three-category framework of learning strategies: (1) metacognitive strategies (overall planning, monitoring and evaluation of the learning process), (2) cognitive strategies (direct manipulation or transformation of learning materials), (3) social/affective strategies (cooperative learning, asking information, control of emotional constraints). Oxford (1990) produced an extensive list of strategies39, grouped into six categories by means of factor analysis, namely, memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategies. She views the first three as direct strategies and the last three as indirect strategies. Cohen (1998) makes a distinction between strategies that are used to learn the language and those that are used to practise the language after initial learning; he refers to them as language learning strategies and language use strategies. The latter include four types of strategies: (1) retrieving strategies, (2) rehearsing strategies, (3) cover strategies (to help students avoid looking stupid or unprepared), and (4) communication strategies. In general, the research shows that learners do use a wide range of strategies and find them helpful. It is now commonly accepted that learning strategies are not inherently good or bad, but depend on the context in which they are used (Schmitt, 1997; Oxford, 2001). According to Oxford (2001: 362), a strategy is useful in three conditions: (1) it suits well the L2 task; (2) it is in harmony with the learner’s learning style; and (3) it is used effectively and combined with other relevant strategies. Another important finding is that L2 learning strategy use is significantly related to a wide range of factors: learning motivation, learning style, personality type, gender, age, 39
The strategies are listed in the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). There are two original versions of SILL: one, containing 80 items, is for English speakers learning a new language; the other, containing 50 items, is for speakers of other languages learning English.
155
culture, brain hemisphere dominance, career orientation, academic major, beliefs, language teaching method and the nature of the L2 tasks (Oxford, 1989, 2001). This implies that when selecting a specific strategy for training such factors have to be considered before deciding whether the strategy will be geared to individual learner needs or suited to a learner’s particular case.
7.4.2. Vocabulary learning strategies Vocabulary learning strategies, as a component of language learning strategies, have been documented since an interest was first shown in language strategies. O’Malley and Chamot note: “Research on training second language learners to use learning strategies has been limited almost exclusively to applications with vocabulary tasks” (1990: 7). It is frequently reported that learners use more strategies for learning vocabulary than other types of strategies. According to Schmitt (1997: 201), this phenomenon might be due to two reasons: (1) the relatively more discrete nature of vocabulary learning than other integrated activities, such as oral presentation, which makes it easy to apply learning strategies effectively; (2) learners’ awareness of the importance of vocabulary in language learning. Early research in vocabulary learning strategies focused on certain types of memory strategies, such as the keyword method (Atkinson/Raugh 1975; Pressley/Levin 1981) and the hookword method (Paivio/Desrochers 1979), verbal/imagery association (Cohen 1987). They all belong to the mnemonic family of strategies. A mnemonic can be an image, a word, a short poem, a rhyme or a sentence to help the learner remember a word (Kelly, 1985). Mnemonics have a long history, going back to the time of the ancient Greeks and can be roughly divided into two categories, one covering verbal forms, the other imagery. Invariably, however, they are combined in the learning of the L2 vocabulary, as we shall see. The basic principle behind traditional mnemonic techniques is to make a formal and a semantic link with the word (or words) to be remembered with a word (or words) that is already well known to the learner, in accordance with the even more basic principle that all 156
learning is the integration of new information with old. While Greek and Roman scholars gave a considerable amount of attention to these techniques, they have been extensively explored by psychologists in recent times (e.g. Montague et al., 1966; Prytulak, 1971); even though a wide range of retrieval systems renders such techniques far less useful than in the past, second language vocabulary learning is one of the few remaining areas where they can be said to be still needed. It is known that some learners make use of mnemonic techniques in haphazard and idiosyncratic ways. To give one example, a Chinese learner may try to remember the word charisma – difficult to learn because of length, pronunciation and meaning – by creating a highly unlikely and ungrammatical sentence like “China rises Maotsedong”, the meaning of which is very obscure but which the learner associates with “Mao has tremendous personal glamour”. There is an orthographical and semantic link that will help remember the new word. Most verbal mnemonic methods, however, rely on pronunciation rather than spelling in order to make the formal link, though the two may overlap. The keyword method, introduced first at Stanford University by Atkinson and Raugh (1975) and later more fully developed by Pressley and his associates at Western Ontario (e.g. Pressley/Levin, 1981), makes use of a word in the learner’s L1 as the mediator, one that bears a phonetic resemblance to the word to be learned and makes the meaning link by means of a mental image. Thus, to learn the French couteau (knife), the learner imagines someone cutting his toe with a knife, the dual mediator being cut and toe; to learn the Spanish carta (letter), s/he imagines a letter lying in a supermarket cart (Am. English for trolley). When s/he hears the word, the image springs to mind and the learner can access the meaning. Eventually, these “crutches” are no longer needed and the meaning is immediately accessed. The keyword method has been the subject of a considerable amount of research and experimentation and, along with the hookword method, the image-based mnemonic of Paivio (e.g. Paivio/Desrochers, 1979), has been demonstrated to be three times as effective as the traditional rote method. Also an important finding of the keyword research is that mediators are far more effective when the learners 157
think them up themselves, although they may well need training in how to form effective and lasting images. Citing the evidence, Nation (2001) concludes that the keyword method generally leads to faster and better learning than many other methods, not simply rote. There are problems, however, with these mnemonic methods. In the first place, while it is probably necessary to make verbal associations with words in one’s own language in the initial stages, this is not conducive to mastering the correct pronunciation of the new item in the L2. Later, as the learner’s L2 vocabulary increases, it may be easier to find mediators in the L2 but the fact remains that it is very difficult to find associations of this kind in respect of many new words. This is doubtless part of the reason why mnemonic methods, although eminently successful in experimental conditions, have not caught on in the classroom. Other reasons, of course, may be because rote learning is deeply engrained from an early age and also because teachers are not sufficiently familiar with such techniques and do not train their pupils in their use. As Schmitt (1997) and others (e.g. Kelly, 1985) have pointed out, mechanical, mindless repetition is still a dominant vocabulary learning strategy among learners, particularly, I would add in passing, Chinese learners. The keyword method or, for that matter, any mnemonic method does not have to be adopted but the two basic principles of trying to establish a formal and a semantic link with the word to be learned can be inculcated. As researchers like Paivio and Desrochers (1981) have pointed out, this can make vocabulary enjoyable and not the dull chore that it is for so many learners. The use of mnemonics can form part of their overall vocabulary learning approach.
7.4.3. Vocabulary learning strategy instruction Strategy instruction emphasizes teaching learners specific learning strategies to make learning more efficient (Oxford/Scarcella, 1994; Cohen, 1998; O’Malley et al. 1990). Researchers into strategy instruction often hold the view that context can provide the essential means for learning vocabulary but additional support, such as explicit strategy instruction, is needed and helpful (Oxford/Scarcella, 1994). 158
The typical strategies recommended are word grouping, word association, imagery, mnemonics, and semantic mapping, etc. Traditionally, strategy instruction seems to be concerned with advanced learners rather than low level learners (Coady, 1997). However, strategy instruction to low or intermediate level learners can be very useful. Strategies such as imagery and mnemonics can be made very helpful since the greatest difficulty in acquiring a word in the initial stages is to link the form and the meaning in memory (Kelly, 1986; Laufer et al., 2004). This is particularly true in respect of an unrelated language and was the motivation for developing the keyword method (Atkinson/Raugh, 1975) as students of Russian at these researchers’ university were having enormous difficulty memorizing the most basic vocabulary.
7.4.4. Classifying vocabulary learning strategies Although vocabulary learning strategies have been long recognised, their influence on L2 acquisition remains fairly limited compared with the growing interest in general language learning strategies. Also, the focus on a few memory strategies seems not to be able to capture the picture of actual strategy use among learners. Learners tend to use various strategies in combination (Gu/Johnson, 1996). Schmitt (1997) noted there was no comprehensive list or taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies. There are, however, a few ways of classifying them, ranging from making an extensive list to adopting a learning process oriented approach. 7.4.4.1. Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire The Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (VLQ) presented by Gu and Johnson (1996) perhaps provides the most exhaustive list of vocabulary learning strategies, containing 108 items altogether. The strategies listed are divided into three sections, (1) belief about vocabulary learning, (2) metacognitive strategies, and (3) cognitive strategies. See Table 3 for an overview of the structure of the strategies; sometimes examples are given as they appear in the original questionnaire. 159
Gu and Johnson administered this questionnaire to 850 second year Chinese university students to find out how they use different strategies and how this affects their learning outcome in terms of vocabulary size and general English proficiency. The main findings were that: (1) the two metacognitive strategies, self-initiation and selective attention, tend to be positive and the best predictor of English general proficiency; (2) contextual guessing, skilful use of dictionaries, contextual encoding, and activation strategies are correlated with both English proficiency and vocabulary size. Another important finding was that learners fall into five types in terms of their English achievement based on their vocabulary strategy use profile: (a) readers (N=3, 0.6%)40, who believe that vocabulary should be acquired through extensive reading and careful study (e.g. attending to word forms such as affixes); (b) active strategy users (N=48, 9.9%), who also believe that words can be acquired through reading and use; in addition, they work hard and use a variety of strategies more often than other students; (c) non-encoders (N=269, 55.3%), who generally do not make much use of learning strategies; (d) encoders (N=157, 32.3%), who are similar to non-encoders except that they use more encoding strategies; (e) passive strategy users (N=9, 1.9%), who are generally unmotivated or demotivated students, seeing little value in language learning and having little idea how to learn a language.
Belief
Metacognitive strategies
40
160
Words should be memorised (8 items) Words should be acquired in context (4 items) Words should be studied and put to use (5 items) Selective attention (7 items) Strategies concerning how to select a word to be studied, e.g. Look up words I’m interested in. Self-initiation (5 items) Strategies concerning active searching for new words beyond classroom learning, e.g. Besides textbooks, I look for other readings that fall under my interest.
This means that three subjects are grouped under this category, accounting for 0.6% of the whole population.
Cognitive strategies
Guessing strategies (12 items) Dictionary strategies (17 items) Note-taking strategies (9 items) Memory strategies: rehearsal (12 items) Strategies concerning mechanical means such as using word lists, oral and visual repetition. Memory strategies: encoding (24 items) Strategies encoding vocabulary through association/elaboration, imagery, visual/auditory association, and word-structure. Activation strategies (5 items) Strategies concerning active use of vocabulary learned, e.g. I try to use newly learned words in real situations.
Table 3. Vocabulary learning strategies listed in VLQ (Gu/Johnson, 1996).
Two points should be made regarding the generalizability of these findings. First, some of the strategies are significantly correlated with language proficiency or vocabulary size; the correlation is actually fairly low, the absolute value of all correlation coefficients ranging from 0.13 to 0.31, though it might be partially justified in terms of a rather large sample size. Second, as Nation notes (2001: 227), a questionnaire containing 108 items could very likely generate a “fatigue factor” that might affect the result. This is best shown by the large proportion of the two middle types of students, the encoders and non-encoders, who together make up 87.7% of the whole sample. However, an important message transmitted by this study is that, if we put the last three categories (non-encoders, encoders, and passive strategy users) together, almost 90% of the students in this sample make use of very few vocabulary learning strategies despite the fact that there is a wide range of strategies available, and, as a consequence, these students have low achievement in English. 7.4.4.2. Taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies Schmitt (1997) presents another fairly comprehensive taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies, composed of 58 items, based on studies of Japanese learners of English. The taxonomy is developed on the basis of the four (out of six) categories of language learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990): social, memory, cognitive, and 161
metacognitive strategies. The taxonomy is divided into two main sections by making a distinction between the initial stage of discovering the word meaning and the later stage of consolidating the vocabulary knowledge. See Table 4 for an overview of the taxonomy.
Discovering a new word’s meaning
Consolidating a word after being encountered
Determination strategies (9 items) Strategies for discovering the meaning on one’s own, e.g. guess from textual context. Social strategies (5 items) Strategies for discovering the meaning by working with others, e.g. ask classmates for meaning. Social strategies (3 items) e.g. interact with native speakers. Memory strategies (27 items) Strategies closer to traditional mnemonic techniques, e.g. imagery and the keyword method. Cognitive strategies (9 items) Strategies concerning organizing lexical information and using mechanical means to memorise words, e.g. keep a vocabulary notebook; verbal repetition. Metacognitive strategies (5 items) e.g. using English-language media and spaced word practice.
Table 4. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Schmitt (1997).
The taxonomy is intended to look for what strategies learners use and believe to be helpful. A questionnaire was administered to 600 Japanese students of four levels, junior high school students, high school students, university students and adult learners. The most used strategies include using a bilingual dictionary (85%), guessing from textual context (74%), consulting classmates for meaning (73%), verbal repetition (76%), written repetition (76%), studying the spelling (74%), saying the new word aloud (69%), etc. The least used strategies include checking for L1 cognates (11%), performing physical actions (13%), using semantic maps (9%), teachers checking with flash cards (3%), etc. The results generally confirmed what is typically found in respect of Asian students, i.e. relying on mechanical means and focusing on form rather than meaning when studying
162
lexical items. The most helpful strategies do not necessarily correspond to the most used strategies. Schmitt notes there is a fairly large gap between the three strategies which students rank as helpful in comparison with the actual use of these strategies. The three strategies are analyzing pictures/gestures, connecting words with synonyms/antonyms, and continuing to study words over time. In his view, this implies that students may be willing to try new strategies if they are introduced to and instructed in them. This seems likely when we realise that the reason why most students use a limited number of strategies is largely because they are rarely instructed in them, or at least not in a systematic way. 7.4.4.3. A learning process oriented approach The two taxonomies mentioned above were largely developed on the basis of language learning strategies in general, and are not especially geared to the nature of vocabulary acquisition. I propose an alternative approach to categorizing vocabulary learning strategies in accordance with the way vocabulary is acquired. There appear to be several distinct stages in the acquisition of a lexical item, which I summarize sequentially as follows: 1.
2.
3.
To acquire a new word, one has to encounter it through different contexts such as classroom activities, vocabulary lists, reading, or conversations in the target language. The situation in which we find that learners usually meet the new words shows how they approach vocabulary acquisition generally; the data revealed in this way should be more convincing than what learners claim that they do. The meaning of the new word should be found out; this could be done by asking others (teachers or classmates), looking up in dictionaries or contextual guessing. Acquiring vocabulary is a complicated process, involving knowing various aspects of knowledge of it; some of the essential knowledge includes the meaning, spelling, part of speech, collocations, etc. 163
4. 5.
6. 7.
8.
This information needs to be recorded or organised in certain meaningful ways. The initial stage of acquiring a word is to connect the word form with the meaning and fix the two together in one’s mind. How successful this is depends on memory processing as shown by the “depth of processing” theory (Craik/Lockhart, 1972; Craik/Tulving, 1975); some effective memory strategies can be used to facilitate this process. The word needs to be rehearsed to ensure long-term retention. When meeting the word again, one might need to recall the meaning by some means, such as recognizing the affixes, roots or the known parts of the word. The word learned has to be put to different uses to consolidate its acquisition.
This is a cyclic process and more words or even formulaic sequences can be acquired in this manner. It should be noted that not every word acquired will go through all the stages, but words that do will tend to be acquired better and be retained longer. The new taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies which attempts to reproduce the learning process should be able to provide answers to the following questions: How is a new word discovered? How is the word meaning discovered? What features of the word are studied? How is the lexical information recorded and organised? What techniques are used to memorise the word? How is the word reviewed/rehearsed? How is the word retrieved? How is the word put into use? An application of this approach to categorizing vocabulary learning strategies will be presented in Chapter 12.
164
7.5. Towards an integrated framework for SLVA I have investigated three learner differences: motivation, style and strategies. The three factors are in fact interrelated and are ultimately inseparable (Cohen/Dörnyei, 2002; Ehrman et al. 2003). Styles are general approaches to language learning while strategies are specific behaviours or techniques that learners select in language learning and use. That said, learning styles are made obvious by learning strategies. As observed by a number of authors (e.g. Ehrman et al. 2003; Oxford, 2001), a given strategy is neutral and it is considered to be useful only if certain conditions are fulfilled, one of which being that the strategy should fit the learner’s style preferences. Cohen (2003) uses a visual representation to illustrate how styles and strategies are related within a given task: to perform the task, the learner will make use of a series of strategies that are presumably consistent with his/her style preferences. From the process model of motivation developed by Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) and described earlier, strategies have an important impact on motivation in all three phases. Cohen and Dörnyei (2002: 175) describe the close bond between motivation and strategies in this way: […] while learning, well-used strategies increase one’s self-confidence and lead to increased success, and – as the saying goes – success breeds further success. […] one very important function of the retrospective stage is for learners to consolidate and extend the repertoire of personally useful strategies, which will in turn function as a source of inspiration for future learning. Indeed, strategies and motivation are very closely linked.
These statements should particularly hold true for vocabulary learning. There are a large number of vocabulary learning strategies available and vocabulary learning is perhaps the easiest observable type of language learning. By employing effective strategies that suit their style, learners can learn a considerable number of words in a reasonable period of time, which can further motivate them to learn more words by making a greater learning effort. So far it seems that the direct link between motivation and learning style is not very clear, 165
but the interaction of the two calls for further research (Ehrman et al. 2003). The available literature shows that motivation and learning styles are essentially linked with each other (Erhman, 1996). I have constructed a learner-focused model of SLVA on the basis of the above assumptions in order to describe the process how these three learner variables can influence SLVA (see Figure 7). In this model, vocabulary knowledge (breadth/depth, reception/production) is situated in the centre, affected by three learner variables, motivation, learning styles, and learning strategies. It should be noted that this does not mean other learner variables are not important but that these three variables are crucial factors that affect vocabulary acquisition in this model. First, each of the three variables directly contributes to vocabulary knowledge. Learning styles are the general approaches to vocabulary learning. They affect the knowledge eventually gained; for example, a learner who has an auditory style preference might understand and produce lexical items easily in communication but might not be able to write them correctly if visual forms are not attended to. Learning strategies are the specific techniques, methods, or activities the learner selects to study vocabulary. If strategies are used systematically, vocabulary learning will be effective and efficient. Deep or shallow strategies determine the quality of vocabulary knowledge. Deep strategies, involving deep mental processing, elaboration and association, will lead to better retention of the lexical items as well as to a more interrelated network of the lexicon than shallow strategies, such as mechanical means that aim at matching L1 equivalents with the L2 lexical items. Vocabulary learning, like other types of learning, needs to be initiated, continued and completed by motivation, and the process can be recycled, as described by the process model of Dörnyei and Ottó (see 7.2.2.). The degree of motivation affects both the quality and quantity of the vocabulary knowledge gained. Second, the three variables influence each other; this implies that any change in any variable will potentially lead to changes in the other two. For example, stretching learning styles might incorporate corresponding learning strategies into the repertoire of strategy use for learning vocabulary or vice versa. Successful use of vocabulary 166
learning strategies will increase the learner’s motivation to use them. The same holds true for the impact of change of motivation on learning strategies and styles. It is assumed that all these three variables could have both positive and negative impacts on each other, depending on the increase and decrease in the value of each variable. This model is in its preliminary form and more research has to be done to test its validity. Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) provide a framework for systematic instruction in learning styles, strategies that will motivate learners. It could also be employed as a starting point to implement the learner-focused model of SLVA presented above. The main points of their framework can be summarized as follows: Raise learner awareness about learning style preferences and learning strategies in the very beginning to motivate them to be more conscious about style preferences and more proactive about strategy use. Find out which styles the learners prefer, and which strategies they already use or would like to include. Suggest and model what “style-stretching” might be and model new strategies. Convince learners of the usefulness of strategy use and help them practise use of strategies through exercises or other activities. Encourage learners to strengthen their currently used strategies. Emphasize cross-cultural differences in how strategies should be used. Organise activities in which learners can share information about their style preference and useful strategies.
167
Motivation
Vocabulary knowledge
Learner development
Strategies
Styles
Figure 7. A learner-focused model of SLVA.
7.6. Conclusion In this chapter, we looked at the three learner variables that most affect language learning, namely, learner motivation, styles and strategies. It is recognised that motivation is a dynamic process and that, while we learn a language for a practical reason or because we are drawn to the culture, or for both, the strength and the nature of the motivation vary over time. Various means have been developed for assessing learning style and categories identified in which learners can be placed. I then endeavoured to show how the many vocabulary learning strategies that have been identified can be classified in accordance with the way vocabulary is acquired. The picture that
168
emerges is that these three variables are interrelated and that, in accordance with their profile in relation to all three, learners need to be guided so that they can acquire good learning ability and take charge of their own learning autonomously and effectively. I developed a learner-focused model to acquiring vocabulary in consideration of this need. By developing awareness of learning styles and strategies and systematic strategy use, learners are motivated to learn more vocabulary and to become better learners. This is what learner development means in the context of vocabulary learning.
169
170
Part III: Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning (CAVL)
171
172
Chapter 8. CAVL: Past, Present, and Future
8.1. An overview Vocabulary learning has always been a favourite subject in computer assisted language learning (CALL) programs, especially in the early stages of CALL (1970−1980s) when technology was relatively simple and it was thought that vocabulary learning could be easily integrated into CALL programs. Cited in Goodfellow (1995), Jung (1988) conducted a survey of international bibliographies of CALL and found vocabulary was the fifth most common keyword; he also stated that vocabulary was an important topic among all the software packages he had reviewed. The earlier programs typically included a single type of language learning activity, such as text reconstruction, gap-filling, speed-reading, simulation, and vocabulary games (Levy, 1997). There were several reasons for this. Earlier generations of computers were less powerful and sophisticated than current ones; many enthusiastic language teachers in CALL at that time might not have had sufficient knowledge of programming; sound vocabulary learning theories were certainly less available at that time when vocabulary learning was just starting to attract researchers’ attention. Far from being a neglected field, vocabulary learning is now viewed as one of the most crucial components in learning an L2 (Harley, 1996; Barcroft, 2004); it is the learning of L2 lexical items (individual words or multi-word items) that requires so much effort, considerably more, in fact, than grammar. Whether CALL programs are devoted to vocabulary learning or not, all deal with vocabulary to varying degrees, be it for reading, writing, listening, or speaking. However, despite the importance of vocabulary learning in CALL, little work has been done on constructing a clear framework to conceptualise Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning (CAVL) so that 173
a distinctive sub-domain of CALL41can be developed. One exception is that of Goodfellow (1995: 205), who raised three critical issues regarding the design of CAVL programs: The first is the extent to which the program is specifically oriented to the learning of vocabulary (as opposed to grammar, pronunciation or pragmatics) […] The second is what gives the interaction its instructional flavour and “worth”. This concerns not only the cleverness of its selection of words or its explications of knowledge about them, but also the pedagogical principles embedded in the design, and the learning needs of individual learners. The third issue is what makes a CALL interaction specifically computational – as opposed to being an on-line version of a paper-based activity […]
The first issue implies that vocabulary learning should be explicit in CAVL programs; the second implies that learning theories specific to vocabulary learning should be incorporated in the design; the third implies that CAVL (or CALL in general) has some distinctive value, enhanced by computer technology, which the same paper version cannot achieve. This analysis still holds true a decade later.
8.2. Factors shaping CAVL development In order to have a clear picture of CAVL development, it is beneficial to have an idea of what important factors have shaped CAVL development over time. Although there is not enough information or expertise which could lead to a legitimate definition of CAVL, I propose that a CAVL application, be it a stand alone or online application, should meet certain pedagogical criteria: The learning activities should be designed to allow learners to pay sufficient attention to the meaning and form of linguistic information and connect the two. 41
174
The purpose is not to separate CAVL from CALL, but to evolve a comprehensive framework which might facilitate the development of expertise geared to CAVL.
The linguistic information should, ideally, be presented through two channels – visual and aural. The program should be equipped with electronic lexical tools (dictionary or concordancers). Learners should be encouraged to do exercises on new items (rehearse, manipulate or reorganise the information about items), etc.
The above criteria clearly suggest an explicit learning framework for CAVL. Often, not all of these characteristics will be given prominence in CAVL programs, partially reflecting the on-going debate regarding the implicit/explicit learning of vocabulary. Despite the fact that vocabulary learning (with or without computer) is treated either implicitly or explicitly, most would probably agree that the two approaches should be combined with each other. The evolution of technology has certainly had an impact on CAVL as on CALL in general. In addition, the development of CAVL has led to the tutor/tool distinction regarding the essential role of the computer in CALL programs. Based on the work of Taylor (1980), Levy (1997) made the tutor/tool framework well known in the CALL field and saw the distinction as a fundamental notion in conceptualizing CALL. The difference between the two is that the computer as tutor will act as a substitute teacher and provide some guidance and instruction to the learner or give an evaluation of the learner performance whereas the computer as a tool serves only to facilitate learner performance. More specifically, he writes: “In contrast to the tutor role of the computer, which is intended to emulate or replace the teacher in some way, the function of the computer as a tool is to enhance or improve the efficiency of the work of the teacher or student” (1997: 184). The notion of the computer as a tutor is initially rooted in the behaviourism advocated by Skinner (1957), who sees the computer as the ideal device to deliver language learning materials to learners. That is why early tutorial CALL programs put a heavy emphasis on drill and practice. On the other hand, the computer, seen as an important tool to assist various human activities (including language learning), is firmly established as the technology evolves and computer use becomes an integral part of our lives. Common examples of 175
tool oriented CALL applications include word processor, spread sheets (e.g. Excel), email, electronic dictionaries, concordancers, etc. Although recently this tutor/tool dichotomy has been challenged by a few authors regarding the legitimate definition (e.g. Hubbard/Siskin, 200442) or the finer categorization of computer roles (e.g. Colpaert, 200443), the distinction between tutor and tool has been an important factor in shaping CAVL development.
8.3. Four stages of CAVL development In this section, we shall provide an historical overview of CAVL development in terms of source of language learning theories, implicit/explicit learning, the tutor/tool distinction, and the pedagogical features of CALL applications. The results are summarized in Table 5. Whilst the table depicts the overall trend of CAVL development historically, each type is not necessarily strictly associated with a fixed period of time. Generally speaking, the simple tutor was predominant prior to the 1990s; during the 1990s first the intelligent tutor and then the tool became popular; tutor & tool have become prominent since the beginning of the 21 st century. In addition, the type of program of the preceding period is not necessarily obsolete in a new period; it can be conducive to learning when properly used.
42
43
176
Hubbard and Siskin (2004) argue that the essential distinction between tutor and tool should not be based on whether the computer application provides an evaluation of learner input or not but on whether it provides teaching-like activities or not. They (2004: 457) give a new definition to CALL as a tutor: “Tutorial CALL refers to the implementation of computer programs (disc, CD-ROM, web-based, etc.) that include an identifiable presence specifically for improving some aspects of language proficiency.” Colpaert (2004: 85−87) provides a five-category framework of “linguisticdidactic functionality types” of CALL applications, namely tool, monitor, mentor, tutor, and lector, to replace the rather broad tutor/tool dichotomy.
8.3.1. Simple tutor The simple tutor type of a CAVL program is similar to what has been called the “first generation” of vocabulary programs by Goodfellow (1995). The linguistic and psychological learning principles were essentially derived from behaviourism and typically resulted in vocabulary exercises similar to drill and practice. Drill and practice are not inherently harmful to language learning. Sometimes they can be useful in developing language automaticity, fluency and accuracy. According to Goodfellow (1995: 206−207), there are two most important features of vocabulary programs of this type: (1) they tend to be online versions of paper version vocabulary learning games/ exercises; (2) they primarily focus on testing the vocabulary items rather than addressing the vocabulary learning process. The simplistic learning theory, behaviourism, behind those vocabulary learning exercises, together with the simple computer technology at that time, made the interaction between the computer and the learner insignificant. As Goodfellow pointed out: “Limited learner performance restricts the operation of feedback to a simple match with the ‘correct’ solution” (1995: 210).
8.3.2. Intelligent tutor The intelligent tutor oriented CAVL largely resulted from the development of computer technology and the application of psycholinguistic lexical expertise. This roughly corresponds to the “second generation” of programs described by Goodfellow (1995). The programs developed were largely based on the lexical knowledge/expertise developed in the domain of psycholinguistics, e.g. the structure of the lexicon (e.g. Goodfellow, 1994), the necessary stages of lexical item acquisition (e.g. Groot, 2000), the contextual roles in acquiring lexical items (e.g. Beheydt, 1990), semi-contextualised techniques in developing lexical knowledge (e.g. Labrie, 2000), the use of semantic reply-
177
forms44 in comprehending and practising new words and the use of diversified exercises to facilitate vocabulary learning (Decoo et al., 1996). The main focus was on the learning process of lexical items rather than the testing45 of them directly. Goodfellow (1995) listed two important features brought by technological innovation. First, the development of graphic user interface enables the user to control and manipulate their own learning by performing various requests or functions available on the screen. Second, as a consequence of the graphic user interface development, CALL is capable of “separating, the ‘process control’ role of the computer, i.e.: the way it determines what the user can actually do, from its ‘information resource’ role, i.e.: the way it provides information to support the user’s objectives” (Goodfellow, 1995: 206). The helpful information the program provides is essentially lexical tools or resources, such as online dictionaries, database (corpora), and concordancers. In addition, thanks to the increasing computer capacity for saving information as well as the development of tracking technology, learner behaviour on the computer can be recorded for further analysis, which could reveal insights into the learning process the learner is engaged in.
8.3.3. Tool The CAVL tool became popular as most (early) tutorial CALL failed to live up to expectations. Tutorial CALL is frequently associated with behaviourism or drill and practice, even though this is not necessarily true (Hubbard/Siskin, 2004; Colpaert, 2004). Colpaert (2004: 69) writes: “It appears to be a fashionable criticism or even a form of political correctness in CALL, to consider language courseware as rote drill-and-practice, while tools, in contrast, hold alluring promise for creative, experiential, collaborative, and task-based learning”. It is 44
45
178
The target word to be learned is embedded in a context which takes on the form of a reply, e.g. How many people are at the conference? There are about 200 participants. Generally speaking, testing is different from the learning process, but sometimes testing lexical items which have been previously encountered or learned can be seen as a continuous learning activity.
against such a distorted image of tutorial CALL that tool oriented CALL has thrived. There appear to be several sub-categories within CAVL tools. One is that of incidental learning from online reading comprehension, with lexical aids such as glossary, annotation, or electronic dictionary. How lexical information should be displayed, i.e. in the L1 or the L2, visually or aurally, textually or pictorially, becomes the main topic of discussion among authors interested in incidental learning of vocabulary. The second sub-category is use of different forms of CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) tools: email, chatting, and bulletin board. The theoretical basis of language learning in CMC largely comes from the interactionist SLA in which “conversational interaction in the target language (TL) forms the basis for language development” (Smith, 2004: 365). To a large degree, the interactionist SLA fits in well with the broad communicative language teaching paradigm. Originally derived from traditional face-to-face communication, it is applied to CMC, even though its direct applicability is questioned by some authors (e.g. Harrington/Levy, 2001). Smith (2004: 371) writes: The key interest in CMC, from an interactionist perspective on L2 learning, involves the specific ways in which CMC is relevant to and facilitative of the processes believed to be beneficial to SLA. Among the most important issues is establishing the facility of CMC to supply rich input, promote pushed output, provide plentiful and dynamic feedback, focus learners’ attention on aspects of the TL, and enhance noticing.
If this is the case, it is likely that vocabulary items can be acquired receptively or productively via CMC. So far, the communication in written language rather than oral language has been widely studied in CMC. The third sub-category is the data-driven learning (DDL), initially advocated by Johns (1991a, 1991b). Using concordancing programs, learners can search large numbers of language situations where a particular lexical item occurs in an attached corpus. They are encouraged to induce the meaning or usage of the target item. While the first two sub-categories primarily encourage implicit learning where the meaning of the lexical items will be attended to, the last one 179
can lead to explicit learning if the lexical forms are attended to and an effort has been made to connect the lexical form with the meaning.
8.3.4. Tutor & tool The tutor & tool integrated CAVL has set the trend for the present and doubtless for the near future. It can be interpreted in two ways. One way is to see both tutor and tool going happily ahead hand in hand, as both can contribute to vocabulary learning from different perspectives. They should be viewed as complementary to each other rather than excluding each other. Actually tutorial CALL (CALL as tutor) is only regarded with disfavour in the general field of language teaching among language teachers (Hubbard/Siskin, 2004), but it is still popular in the CALL field (Hubbard/Siskin, 2004; Hubbard, 2003; Colpaert, 2004). Hubbard and Siskin (2004: 449−453) clearly show that the “six myths”46 held by many people (largely language teachers) opposed to tutorial CALL are simply untenable. Colpaert argues that tutorial CALL “has a promising future in terms of development, use, and effectiveness” (2004: 76). Ideally, tutor and tool should be both used in language teaching and learning: “CALL in general would be more effective if tutors and tools were integrated in global environments for language learning” (Colpaert, 2004: 77). This certainly holds true for CAVL. Another way of interpreting tutor and tool is to combine them in CAVL applications. This notion is not necessarily new, for example, the earlier intelligent tutor oriented CAVL made an effort to integrate tools such as electronic dictionary and concordancers into the whole learning system (e.g. Goodfellow, 1994). With the development of both technology and learning theories, a combination of tutor and tool can be made more efficient and make vocabulary learning more efficient. Regarding the language learning theories to be incorporated in the design, the tutor & tool integrated CAVL tends to draw on multiple 46
180
The six myths are: tutorial CALL (1) is behaviourist; (2) contains only drill and practice; (3) is not communicative; (4) has no significant role for teachers; (5) has no learner control; (6) is on a disc or CD.
theories or learning approaches rather than on one only as in earlier generations (see Table 5). Van de Poel and Swanepoel (2003) advocate a framework of “theoretical and methodological pluralism” in designing CALL for vocabulary learning. They point out that, given a series of identified “mediating pedagogical variables” (conditions for acquisition) and “mediating learner variables” (learner characteristics), vocabulary learning should be treated explicitly in a wide and varied way (2003: 177): […] there seems to be no “best” way to approach the teaching of vocabulary in any absolute sense. Advocates of a pedagogical pluralism, furthermore, stress the fact that the best method(s) will be determined by such variables as the vocabulary developmental goals and needs of the learners, their proficiency in the TL, their learning styles, the nature of the lexical items to be learnt […], and in general the nature of the linguistic input that serves for learning […].
Another important trend is that learner training should be given sufficient prominence either in the design or in the implementation of the CAVL applications. This reflects the notion of learner development discussed in Chapter 7. Learners (particularly beginners) need some training and help to be able to use the CALL applications more efficiently. Hubbard (2004: 45) analyses the necessity for this: A fundamental quandary in CALL is that learners are increasingly required to take a significant amount of responsibility for their own learning, whether that learning is taking place through the programmed teaching presence in tutorial software or the unstructured spaces of the World Wide Web. They are expected to do this despite the fact that they know little or nothing of how languages are learned compared to an appropriately trained teacher.
181
The computer’s role Primary learning theories
Implicit or explicit learning Pedagogical features
Simple tutor
Intelligent tutor
Behaviourism
Psycholinguistic theories: lexical memory, organisation, simulation Explicit
Interactionist SLA; communicative language teaching; datadriven learning Implicit & explicit
Multiple learning theories
Focusing on learning process and testing; developing lexical tools; recording and monitoring learner behaviour; good interaction between the computer and the learner
Focusing on incidental vocabulary learning; primarily using lexical tools and CMC; good interaction between the learner/computer and the learner/learner.
Similar to that of the intelligent tutor; well integrated into the language curriculum; learner training
Explicit
Drill & practice, online version of paper learning vocabulary exercises; minimal interaction between the computer and the learner
Tool
Tutor & tool
Explicit & implicit
Table 5. Historical development of CAVL.
8.4. Constructing a framework for categorising CAVL applications 8.4.1. The overview of the framework Currently we are in the tutor & tool integrated stage for CAVL. We need both tutors and tools; learning needs to be both implicit and explicit. I attempt to construct a comprehensive framework to categorise current available CAVL applications, as shown in the following figure.
182
Lexical programs/tasks (tool & tutor) Tool/implicit/meaning-focused Electronic reading/listening comprehension with lexical glosses
Lexical resources/aids (primarily tool)
CMC lexical-based tasks
Electronic dictionaries
Computerised vocabulary exercises
Lexical concordancers
Dedicated CAVL programs Tutor/explicit/form-focused
Figure 8. A framework for categorising CAVL.
CAVL applications can be divided into two broad categories: lexical programs/tasks and lexical resources/aids. Lexical programs/tasks provide the mainframe work station for CAVL while lexical resources/ aids can be integrated into the former as a kind of necessary lexical help system, or as part of the “meaning technologies”47 defined by Hubbard (2001).
8.4.2. Lexical resources/aids Although earlier generations of electronic dictionaries tended to be online versions of the original paper version dictionaries, nowadays 47
Meaning technology is defined as “features of language learning materials that are based on technology and make the meaning of a language item accessible to a learner” (Hubbard, 2001: 82). These include text captions, machine translations, hypertext dictionaries and glossaries, text-to-speech applications, and auto summarizers.
183
they are interactive and have a more user-friendly interface. Electronic dictionaries have a number of potential advantages over paper dictionaries. Zähner et al. (1994) identified two distinct advantages. First, the electronic dictionary can respond to learners’ input intelligently, i.e. the learner can simply put in any word form without knowing its base form and the computer can generate various morphological forms based on a given word. Second, only necessary lexical information is displayed and extra information can be displayed, say via hyperlinks, upon request. Electronic dictionaries have a further advantage in that lexical information can be accessed in multiple channels simultaneously: textually, pictorially, and aurally. Regarding the pedagogical design, electronic dictionaries can also be customized to suit learner proficiency level by using L1 definitions or controlled L2 vocabulary (e.g. Van de Poel/Swanepoel, 2003). The design can also simulate the human lexical memory by organizing lexical entries as synonyms (e.g. WordNet48 by George A. Miller and his colleagues), or strengthen the links with other words by associations (e.g. Zähner et al. 1994). Generally, there are two types of lexical concordancers, monolingual or bi-/multi-lingual, depending on what type(s) of corpora they are attached to. Monolingual lexical concordancers do not give the word meaning directly, i.e. via translation or definition, in the way that electronic dictionaries do; instead, the meaning can only be inferred from the surrounding contextual clues. Bilingual or multilingual concordancers would give the lexical meaning of a given L2 word by means of its equivalent L1 translation. Word usage is usually not given directly in concordancers and learners need to observe how the word is used in different contexts. Concordancers provide learners with a large amount of authentic language input in which the target item occurs. Whether the concordancers will be used by learners efficiently depends on several variables, as stated in 6.2.2.4., such as learner perception (whether they like to use them or not), learner proficiency (whether they can understand the authentic, uncontrolled language), teacher help (whether the teacher gives some training to learners on how to use the concordancers) and, most importantly, what vocabulary exercises are designed based on the concordanced items or, in this 48
184
It can be accessed online via .
context, how the use of concordancers is integrated into the lexical programs/tasks. With regard to the last-mentioned, Cobb (1997) and Horst et al. (2005) provide good ways of integrating concordancers into CAVL.
8.4.3. Lexical programs/tasks Throughout the literature on CAVL, lexical programs/tasks can be broadly divided into four types: electronic reading/listening comprehension with lexical glosses, CMC lexical-based tasks, computerised vocabulary exercises, and dedicated CAVL programs. I have arranged them according to the prominence they give to vocabulary learning in terms of tool/tutor, implicit/explicit learning, and meaning/form focusing. When reading online texts (e.g. Chun/Plass, 1996; Laufer/ Hill, 2000) or listening to online audio texts (e.g. Jones/Plass, 2002), the learner’s primary concern is with comprehending the textual or audio text. Some words are provided with glosses via hyperlinks (which can be regarded as a simple mini-dictionary). In the process of reading or listening, learners may notice an unknown word and consult the annotation for the meaning, but little attention would be paid to the word form unless it is strikingly unusual to them. The learning of vocabulary items is primarily implicit because of a lack of attention to word forms. This type of online reading or listening is very similar to traditional paper and pencil forms. Learners only need to scroll up and down the page or click on the play, pause or review button in the case of listening. The main function of this type of application is to execute the learner’s command. They are therefore tools, although they can be easily integrated into other tutorial applications. So far, two types of CMC tasks, asynchronous email and, particularly now, synchronous communication (chatting in writing), are widely studied for their potential in promoting L2 development. Largely within the framework of interactionist SLA, particularly Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996), research into synchronous communication-based tasks has shown learning benefits in reading and writing, communication skills, morphosyntactic development, 185
sociolinguistic competence, learner production, learner participation, learner motivation, etc. (De la Fuente, 2003,). However, only a few studies (e.g. De la Fuente, 2003; Smith, 2004) have focused on lexical acquisition. What is supposed to be beneficial to learning in the communication process is the negotiation of meaning: noticing input features, modified input, positive or negative feedback, modified output (or pushed output). Generally, there are two conditions under which lexical acquisition may occur. In the first condition, the learner has to notice a lexical gap from the other interlocutor’s input, i.e. a new word form that s/he does not know. In this case, the learner needs to show her/his non-understanding of this word and must ask the interlocutor for an explanation. The interlocutor might simply give the word meaning, or give explicit clues to the enquirer so that the meaning can be inferred correctly. Through the interactional process, the learner establishes a map between a new word form and the word meaning for the first time; s/he might use it a few times in the ensuing interaction as a means to consolidate or practise the word. The interaction in respect of the new lexical item can be easily interrupted by either side or both of the interlocutors. In the second condition, the learner may make a lexical error: give a wrong spelling or an incorrect use. The interlocutor notices this error and points it out to the learner or gives negative feedback. The learner notices his/her lexical error and then tries to provide the correct output. Because of these necessary conditions for lexical acquisition, interaction between non-native speakers and native speakers (or higher proficiency non-native speakers) will be more likely to promote lexical acquisition. Between speakers of the same level, lexical-based tasks need to be carefully designed so that exchange can take place equally for both sides and result in acquisition for both sides (e.g. De la Fuente, 2003; Smith, 2004). To sum up, although CMC lexical-based tasks are primarily meaning-focused activities, they furnish evidence of learners’ noticing of lexical forms explicitly, which is essential for lexical acquisition. CMC tasks are mere communication tools and how useful they are depends on the design of the communication tasks. There are two types of computerised vocabulary exercises. The first is similar to the simple tutor type of CAVL, aiming to rehearse or 186
test newly learned vocabulary items. They can be useful in consolidating vocabulary knowledge since systematic rehearsal is necessary for keeping the words in long-term memory. The second type can be used to learn new words by simulating the vocabulary learning process based on a specific theory (e.g. Allum, 2004). In both types of exercises, the computer will evaluate the learner input and give some feedback. In this sense, the exercises bear tutor features. The learning is also explicit as considerable attention is paid to both the word form and the word meaning. Dedicated CAVL programs are particularly geared to vocabulary learning in a more comprehensive and systematic way compared with the other types discussed above. That is, vocabulary learning is both contextualised and itemised; it is both meaning and form focused; it often combines tutor and tool; both the initial learning process and the subsequent rehearsal are taken care of. Ideally, the learning benefits may go beyond simply learning vocabulary items: cultural knowledge is promoted and vocabulary learning strategies are inculcated.
8.4.4. The applicability of the framework The framework that I have developed can be applied to both researchbased and commercial CAVL programs. The six applications that make up the lexical programs/tasks or lexical resources/aids can exist on their own or in different combinations in different CAVL programs or vocabulary learning components of CALL programs. Regarding research-based programs, both Lexica (Goodfellow, 1994) and Wordchip (Decoo et al., 1996) comprise a dedicated CAVL program containing primary learning activities and an attached lexical dictionary/concordancer as an information resource. On the other hand, the computerised vocabulary exercises described by Allum (2004) stand on their own, without being combined with any other type of application. As for commercial programs, they either favour a type of electronic dictionary (simple or complex) in the case of dedicated vocabulary learning programs (particularly those available on the Chinese market), or computerised vocabulary exercises (with or without the context in which the vocabulary items occur) in the case 187
of general learning programs (e.g. Tell Me More). Some commercial programs may be more complex and similar to dedicated CAVL programs (e.g. Language Interactive Culture)
8.5. Conclusion CAVL development has reflected the computer’s role as a tutor or a tool at different periods as in CALL development. We are currently in the tutor & tool integrated stage where the two roles of the computer in CALL need to be combined with each other from two perspectives. Tool and tutor can be further developed as separate CAVL applications to be integrated into the language learning curriculum, or else as integrated applications. What emerges is the need to promote strategy training in this stage, where the focus should be on developing useful vocabulary learning strategies so that learners know how to learn vocabulary efficiently (in terms of both quantity and quality) instead of relying on tuition which will probably result in them adopting shallow and inefficient learning approaches. In addition, I have constructed a comprehensive framework to categorize currently available CAVL applications which fall into two broad categories: the lexical programs/tasks and the lexical resources/ aids. While the former provide various vocabulary learning activities for learners, the latter provide electronic dictionaries or concordancers as lexical aids to the former. The framework is a starting point to conceptualise comprehensive, systematic CAVL in the general language curriculum. Based on this framework, we can understand to what extent a given type of CAVL application is geared to vocabulary learning and in what sense it is beneficial to vocabulary learning. Then we must see how we can improve the current systems particularly regarding the design to increase the learning potential. Finally, and fundamentally, we need to combine different types of applications so that they can be well integrated into a systematic approach to developing SLVA.
188
Chapter 9. Two Evaluation Studies of CAVL Programs
9.1. CALL/CAVL evaluation In discussing CALL evaluation, Chapelle (2001: 53) suggests that it can be analysed at three different levels. The first level focuses on the CALL software and aims to help teachers, educators or even users to work out the important design features of the software to be evaluated, usually in checklists. The nature of this type of analysis is judgemental. The second level focuses on how teachers plan or use the CALL activity, which is judgemental too. The third level looks at the learner performance on the software, which is “conducted through examination of empirical data reflecting learners’ use of CALL and learning outcomes” (Chapelle, 2001: 54). Its nature is therefore empirical. This distinction between judgemental and empirical evaluation at the three different levels is vital and provides a general framework for guiding effective CALL evaluation (cf. Hémard, 2004). In the two evaluation studies of CAVL programs that will be presented, both research-based and commercial programs are selected. The research-based programs are selected on the basis of two criteria. First, the programs should have been actually developed rather than merely described in terms of their design on a theoretical and hypothetical level; secondly they should have been empirically tested with their intended users. Thus for this type of program, both judgemental and empirical evaluation are reported. As for commercial programs, they certainly meet the first criterion and very likely the second one. However, the empirical evaluation results would be very difficult to obtain for a number of practical reasons. Without denying that some of the commercial programs like Tell Me More probably have been widely used in educational settings, the software reviews such as those that have appeared in the CALICO Journal only focus 189
on the judgemental evaluation and there is no mention of any empirical evaluation. Therefore, only judgemental evaluation is reported for commercial programs.
9.2. Constructing the CAVL evaluation criteria Following Chapelle (2001), the criteria for judgemental and empirical evaluation can be the same and what differs is the way to generate the research question(s) and the way to answer the question(s). I suggest that the evaluation criteria be based on Chapelle’s framework of “Criteria for CALL task appropriateness” (2001: 55) and Plass’s framework of domain-specific evaluation criteria (1998). This is to identify the cognitive processes involved in learning a specific linguistic skill or competence and then to judge whether the CALL activities are appropriate in terms of language learning potential and positive impact. Using Chapelle’s words, language learning potential is “the degree of opportunity present for beneficial focus on form” and positive impact is “the positive effects of the CALL activity on those who participate in it” (2001: 55). Based on Chapelle and Plass’ frameworks, I identified four crucial criteria for evaluating CAVL programs/tasks; these are set out in Table 6. These criteria will be employed to evaluate several selected programs both judgementally and empirically. Normally judgement can be verified by empirical results, but this is not always the case. When it is not, an effort needs to be made to identify and explain the “mismatch” between the judgemental and empirical evaluation. The first criterion deals with the learning process; the remaining three are concerned with the learning outcome which is linked with the learning process.
190
Evaluation criteria Vocabulary processing level Language (learning process) Learning Level of vocabulary potential gain (learning outcome) Vocabulary learning Positive strategies impact (learning outcome) Learning motivation (learning outcome)
Specific research questions How is vocabulary processed? Do learners engage in mental lexical processing that will map the lexical meanings with the lexical forms? At what level is vocabulary learned, receptive or productive? Have learners learned any vocabulary learning strategies that are useful for learning more vocabulary on their own? Are learners motivated to learn more vocabulary (by continuing to use the program)?
Table 6. Criteria for evaluating CAVL programs/tasks.
The first criterion, vocabulary processing level, establishes how lexical items are processed through various learning activities in the program, and this serves as a basis to judge and predict the learning outcome or the vocabulary gain (at different levels). Several SLA models (e.g. Gass/Selinker, 2001; Vanpatten, 2002) emphasize the process whereby language input might turn into intake, the latter being the prerequisite for learning to occur. This process is the decoding and comprehension of the new language and its integration into the learner’s existing language knowledge. It also covers vocabulary processing, which is similar to the notion of “lexical input processing” defined by Barcroft (2004: 203) as “how learners process words and lexical phrases to which they are exposed”. The initial vocabulary learning process comprises three essential components, accessing the word meaning, decoding the word form, and mapping the two (Barcroft, 2004: 203). In the initial stage of learning a new L2 word, seeing that most often the core meaning is shared by many languages 49, it is the new word form and mapping it with the word meaning that 49
It is possible that a given concept in an L2 does not exist in the L1 of the learner. In this case, learning the L2 word involves learning both the word meaning and the word form. However, this phenomenon is not very common. What more often happens is that a similar or overlapping concept can be found in the L1, although this might lead to initial lexical confusion in terms of the word’s meaning and use.
191
requires most effort. This point is clearly stated by several authors (Kelly, 1986; Laufer et al. 2004; Barcroft, 2002, 2004)50. Thus the central criterion for judging the initial vocabulary processing level is to what extent the lexical form is matched to the lexical meaning. This question can be broken down into the following sub-questions: 1.
2. 3.
4.
Is there sufficient opportunity to understand/access the lexical meanings and sufficient opportunity for attention to be paid to the lexical forms? Are there multiple input channels (textual, aural, and pictorial) of the lexical items? Is there sufficient opportunity to map the meaning with the form and strengthen the link via efficient means such as semantic elaboration or imagery? Is there sufficient opportunity to rehearse the words in different contexts (e.g. vocabulary exercises or activities for using the vocabulary)?
The first question checks the basic condition for vocabulary learning to occur, i.e. that attention should be paid to both the meaning and the form of the target lexical item. If there is no noticing of these two aspects, hardly any learning will occur. The second question checks whether the lexical items are presented in multiple modes and thus the multimedia effect will enhance the learning potential, i.e. reinforce the memory trace of the lexical form and of the mapping with the meaning. The third question is to ensure that the link between the lexical form and meaning will be strong enough to be held in memory so that further learning (e.g. other meanings, usage, syntactic features, morphological features, etc.) will occur. The purpose of the fourth question is similar to that of the third, namely, to increase the form-meaning mapping, not through semantic elaboration but through direct use of the lexical items (comprehension or production). It is 50
192
Certainly vocabulary learning is a complicated and incremental learning process. After initial successful form-meaning mapping of a given word, there are still many aspects to learn about the word in terms of knowledge degree (breadth/depth) and use (reception/production). (See Chapter 1 for a review).
assumed that each time the lexical item is comprehended or produced (free recall or cued recall), the form-meaning mapping is strengthened and there is more chance of the item being installed as a lexical entry in the mental lexicon. As soon as a lexical entry is in place, it is open to the gradual addition of various types of lexical information until it can eventually be said to be fully acquired. The second criterion, level of vocabulary gain, is a necessary result of the previous learning process. If the initial form-meaning mapping is successful, then the learner can produce the target word form. If insufficient attention has been paid to the lexical form, the learner cannot produce the target word but may recognise the word form when the meaning is given. It could happen that no learning occurs if no attention is paid to either the lexical meaning or the lexical form. The third and the fourth criteria are also concerned with the possible outcomes of the learning process, not in terms of direct learning benefit but of the positive impact which the learning experience (i.e., using the program) may have on further learning. If learners have acquired some useful vocabulary learning strategies from using the program, they might learn more vocabulary items on their own in the future; if learner motivation in vocabulary learning is increased as a result of using the program, they might make more effort to learn vocabulary with (or without) the same program. The positive impact can be measured partially from the learner evaluation (informal or formal) of the program. If learner evaluation is not mentioned in the program evaluation, then only guesses can be made as to whether the positive impact has been achieved.
193
9.3. The evaluation of research-based CAVL programs 9.3.1. Electronic reading/listening comprehension with lexical glosses 9.3.1.1. Reading comprehension In reading written texts with the help of hyperlinked lexical glosses or an electronic dictionary, the main emphasis is on reading comprehension, and the acquisition of any new lexical items is a by-product of the reading process. The learner can consult the electronic glosses when confronted with unknown words, which means that the main learning occurs while reading the glossed information for the new word. The glossed information can include the word’s pronunciation, textual explanation, pictures, or videos. Video is supposed to have the same effect as still pictures, although there is disagreement concerning which is more efficient in helping vocabulary retrieval (see Chun/ Plass, 1996; Al-Seghayer, 2001). Laufer and Hill (2000) present a lexical program called Words in your ear. The main learning activity is the reading of a text in which the target lexical items are highlighted. The learner can look up the target words in a mini electronic dictionary which provides five types of lexical information for all target words: (1) word pronunciation, (2) meaning in English, (3) L1 translation, (4) lexical root, and (5) extra information (various forms of the word, register, collocation, synonyms, etc.). In their experiment, learners, made up of a group of Hong Kong university students and a group of Israeli university students, could click on any type of lexical information as many times as they wanted. In addition, the learner could listen to the whole text if s/he wished. It is reported that most students spent no more than ten minutes reading the text and checking the lexical information. The vocabulary processing procedure in Words in your ear is summarized in Figure 9. Since the target items to be learned are highlighted in the text, they are likely to be noticed by learners. Learners can access the word meaning and other relevant information easily in the electronic dictionary. The glossed information provides both textual and aural
194
input which is intended to help the learner to strengthen the memory trace of the target item. However, there is little opportunity for the mapping of word meaning and form to be enhanced via semantic elaboration. There is no opportunity to rehearse the word in contexts other than the reading text itself. Based on these assumptions (or the judgemental evaluation) regarding the vocabulary processing level, it can be inferred that primarily receptive learning will occur with little or limited productive learning. Accordingly, Laufer and Hill reported a learning rate of 33.3% for Israeli subjects and 62% for Hong Kong subjects at the receptive level. Productive learning rate was unknown since no productive measure was used. No evidence emerged that learners would acquire any vocabulary learning strategy from merely reading. Nevertheless, the two authors report that one of the two groups of subjects, the Hong Kong subjects, showed a positive attitude towards the program and suggested that it be further developed; in other words, they were motivated by the program and wished to continue to use it. However, there was no such finding among the Israeli subjects. Context Textual
Words Textual
Lexical glosses Aural Textual: -L2 definition -L1 translation -Root information -Other information
Figure 9. Vocabulary processing procedure in Words in your ear.
9.3.1.2. Listening comprehension It is sometimes argued that incidental vocabulary learning can occur in listening comprehension. Smidt and Hegelheimer (2004) report such a study. The listening program is made up of three components: (1) a lecture (15 minutes), (2) multiple-choice comprehension questions, and (3) an online dictionary. The lecture was divided into three parts according to the type of information provided in addition to the aural input. The first part only provided the aural input of the lecture plus 195
seeing the head of someone talking on the screen; the second part provided the aural input and showed keywords of the aural content on the screen; the third part provided the aural input and the picture slides giving key concepts of the aural content. Learners could listen to the lecture repeatedly but the total time devoted to the program (including doing the listening comprehension questions) was limited to 25 minutes. The vocabulary processing procedure is summarized in Figure 10. Context Aural
Words Aural
Extra lexical information - Viewing words in textual form? - Guessing the words’ meaning correctly? - Accessing the words’ meaning in the online dictionary?
Figure 10. Vocabulary processing procedure in the program by Smidt and Hegelheimer.
In this listening task, the major input is through the aural channel and learners are forced to pay attention to the phonological encoding of the language input. If an unknown item is encountered, the learner will probably notice the new phonological representation of the item but is less likely to grasp the exact spelling for a number of reasons. Many English words can hardly be accurately spelled according to their pronunciation. More importantly, accurate decoding of aural input often involves top-down processing, i.e. the listener has to make use of his/her grammatical, lexical and extra-linguistic knowledge to understand what is said. This can only take place when the word is already known, or at least partially known. Thus, unless the learner already knows the words, it will be difficult for him or her to decode the correct spelling of the unknown words by only performing bottomup processing, i.e., by relying on the ear. If the unknown words appear in either the key words section or key concepts section of the lecture, the learner has the opportunity to view the correct word form.
196
However, there is no confirmation of this in the two authors’ report. It is likely that some of the unknown words appeared in written form. Similarly, the question also arises whether the learner has correctly understood the meaning of the unknown words or not. Theoretically, the learner can guess the word meaning or use the online dictionary, but there is no guarantee that their guessing is right. Nor do the two authors report any use of the dictionary by the learner, given that the study time is only limited to 25 minutes. Regarding vocabulary processing level, this listening comprehension provides some opportunity for the learner to pay attention to the lexical forms and meanings, and provides both aural and textual input of (some) of the target items. As with the previous reading comprehension program, there is no evidence that the form-meaning mapping is strengthened by semantic elaboration or other learning activities. It can be predicted that vocabulary learning in this program is limited both receptively and productively. The vocabulary measure is a dictation test in which the target items are left blank and which the learners are required to fill in. This is a cued recall test or partial productive test, where the context and the pronunciation of the target item serve as the cue to assist in the recall of the item. The result showed that the subjects had an average gain of 3.2 words in the post-test out of the 20 selected target words 51 of which they already knew 3.8 words on average, as shown from the pre-test. Therefore the learning rate is 19.8% productively. No receptive test was administered. No positive impact of the program was reported regarding both vocabulary learning strategies and continued motivation to use the program. 9.3.1.3. CMC lexical-based tasks If learners are left on their own to chat with their co-learners freely about a topic, they might learn a few new words or improve their knowledge of the words partially known before, providing one (or both) of the two conditions for lexical acquisition are fulfilled. 51
It should be noted that these 20 items were identified as the most difficult words in the lecture, including both individual words and two-word combinations.
197
However, what is more likely is that learners use the words or expressions they already know or that they do not bother to find out more about an unknown word or to correct their lexical errors. In this case, new learning is unlikely to take place. In controlled task-based learning, necessary conditions to ensure learning can be created and incorporated into the task. De la Fuente (2003) reported such a lexical task-based CMC learning activity. 14 Spanish words (concrete nouns) were selected as target words to be learned in the activity. 12 learners were divided into six pairs of two and each pair worked on the same learning task to fill in information on a gap format. In the first session, one subject (of the pair) had a shopping list in which seven Spanish words (the Spanish equivalents of, e.g., pumpkin, celery, etc.) with their corresponding pictures were provided. This subject had to tell the other subject what to buy from the shopping list via the computer. Subjects were told to use only Spanish to communicate with each other. This meant that they had to negotiate the meaning of each Spanish word by giving meaning clues or by asking for meaning information about the word. In the second session, the role of each subject of the pair was reversed, i.e., the subject who did not have the shopping list in the previous session would have the list and instruct the other student what to buy. The vocabulary processing procedure is illustrated in Figure 11. In this task-based learning, the learner has sufficient opportunity to notice the target word forms because of the task requirement and the textual input. The task requirement also required the learner to find out the meaning through negotiation with the other subject who had the information concerning the meaning of the target word. The interaction between the two subjects in trying to negotiate the meaning can be seen as a type of mental elaboration, which includes meaning inferencing and forming mental images or associations. In addition, the learner has the chance in the second learning session to practise the words when s/he is supposed to give the word information to the other learner. The learner can type the word form and give different (or the same) semantic clues to the other learner, which again can strengthen the form-meaning mapping. On the other hand, if the items to be learned are not concrete nouns but abstract words, the process of
198
negotiation of meaning might be more complicated and difficult to handle. Context Textual
Words Textual
Negotiation of the words’ meanings Giving semantic clues: - Object features: colour, shape - Associated events with the words
Negotiation of the words’ meanings Receiving semantic clues: - Object features: colour, shape - Associated events with the words: e.g. pumpkin and Halloween
Words Textual (output)
Figure 11. Vocabulary processing procedure in the CMC lexical-based task of De la Fuente.
Given the evidence that learners have the opportunity to notice both the lexical meaning and form, and the opportunity to strengthen the link via mental elaboration or by using the words, both receptive and productive learning can occur. The empirical finding of the study does confirm this: subjects have gained vocabulary both receptively and productively in terms of both written and oral acquisition. Only the immediate post-test is reported here although the vocabulary gain was measured three times. The receptive oral gain, productive oral gain, receptive written gain, and productive written gain are 7.9, 3.3, 10.5, and 6.2 respectively out of a total of 14. The learning rates of each type of vocabulary gain are accordingly calculated to be: 56.4%, 23.6%, 75%, and 44.3%. The mental elaboration of the meaning of the item and learning vocabulary collaboratively were probably the only useful learning strategies but they had not been made explicit to the learners. It is doubtful whether learners will continue to use these strategies consciously and systematically in later learning after the task. The study did not report whether learners were motivated by 199
participating in the CMC lexical learning task. Whether learners are motivated to use the task depends largely on the perceived helpfulness of the task, i.e. is the task helpful in improving their language proficiency? Generally speaking, CMC learning tasks have received a favourable response from learners as there appears to be learning improvement, active participation, interactive/collaborative learning environment (Kitade, 2000), and reduced anxiety for communication (Kern, 1995). It is likely that when the CMC lexical-based task is well designed learners can improve their vocabulary learning and will be motivated to participate in similar tasks. 9.3.1.4. Computerised vocabulary exercises Computerised vocabulary exercises can be used either to rehearse the previously learned vocabulary items or to learn new vocabulary items. Allum (2004) describes a series of computerised vocabulary exercises by simulating the three stages of learning new vocabulary items described by Nation (2001): noticing, retrieval and generative use. Noticing means paying attention to the target lexical item in language input via “decontexualisation” (Nation, 2001: 64), i.e., separating it from the flow of language message in which it is situated. The main purpose of decontextualisation is to find out the meaning of the item and establish the initial form-meaning mapping. Retrieval means meeting the lexical item subsequently and repeatedly; the word can be retrieved either receptively or productively. Each successful retrieval will strengthen the form-meaning mapping and the memory trace of the item in the mental lexicon. Generative use involves meeting the lexical item after initial learning in different contexts so that the learning can continue, i.e. other meanings can be acquired, collocations and grammatical patterns can be learned. The three stages of vocabulary learning are implemented using three types of computerised vocabulary tasks in Allum’s study. The noticing stage is achieved by matching L2 words (forms) with L1 words (meaning). It is a drag and drop exercise and learners will try to guess the meaning; if they are wrong, they will try again till the correct match is found with the help of the feedback. The retrieval stage is realised by receptive or productive use of the target words.
200
Learners are required to type in the target word in a sentence which provides the word definition (L2) in the case of productive use. The receptive exercises include matching a definition sentence to a word or choosing the right word to complete a definition sentence. The last stage, generative use, is implemented by tasks similar to those of the previous retrieval stage, involving both receptive and productive retrieval of the target item but in different contexts (sentences which contain the target word). Students are required to learn vocabulary using the computerised exercises on their own 52 as a preparatory activity, and then these vocabulary items will be used more communicatively (speaking and listening activities) in classroom learning. The vocabulary processing procedure is summarized in Figure 12. The initial learning of vocabulary items (before classroom activities) as described in the three types of exercises above is adequate for establishing the initial mapping of word forms and word meaning. Attention has been paid to both the lexical form and meaning and considerable effort is made to link the two through subsequent retrieval exercises both receptively and productively. Although the language input in all exercises is in textual form, the subsequent classroom activities provide opportunities for learners to be exposed to or to use the target items aurally or orally. It can be seen from Figure 12 that this is a good example of how to integrate CALL programs/activities into the language classroom, or even broadly into the overall language learning curriculum. The result of the first study by Allum reports an overall vocabulary gain (or learning rate) of 50% both receptively and productively. Different from many studies where CALL activities are conducted for purely experimental purposes involving typically one or two learning sessions, the study reported by Allum is conducted in an authentic classroom learning situation. Despite a relatively long period of using the computerised vocabulary exercises, learners generally reported favourable attitudes towards them and acknowledged that they did more work than before. If learners find that the learning activity can help them to improve their 52
Although Allum points out that the vocabulary exercises were designed for self-learning (at home), in the experiment students were asked to do them in class time.
201
language learning, they will be motivated and spend more time doing the activity. However, it seems that learners have little opportunity to learn useful vocabulary learning strategies that can assist subsequent learning when the computerised exercises are not available. Words Textual
L1 meaning Textual
Classroom activities - Speaking (oral) - Listening (aural) - Others
Retrieval Receptive: meaning Productive: form Textual
Retrieval in new context Receptive: meaning Productive: form Textual
Figure 12. Vocabulary processing procedure in the computerised exercises by Allum.
9.3.2. Dedicated CAVL programs Dedicated CAVL programs are similar to computerised vocabulary exercises in that they are often based on theories in which certain necessary learning stages or procedures for vocabulary acquisition will be simulated and implemented via various learning activities. But they tackle vocabulary learning in a more systematic, comprehensive way than the latter. The learning benefit should not be restricted to direct vocabulary gain but should also bring other benefits such as cultural learning (e.g. Van de Poel/Swanepoel, 2003) or vocabulary learning strategies (e.g. Goodfellow, 1994). In operation, dedicated CAVL programs often integrate different functions of other types of programs. For example, reading/listening comprehension can be used to introduce lexical items to be learned; vocabulary exercises can be used as rehearsal activities; CMC tasks can also be potentially
202
integrated into the whole learning system (e.g. Van de Poel/Swanepoel, 2003). 9.3.2.1. Lexica The program Lexica described by Goodfellow (1994, 1995, 1999) is composed of three sequential learning modules: the selection module, the lexicon-building module, and the testing module. In the selection module, the learner reads through the text and highlights the unknown lexical items that s/he is interested in. S/he then assigns these items to one of the three groups: meaning, form and context. This is done based on the judgement of the learner who must decide whether the word meaning, the grammatical, formal features, or the context (surrounding words or collocation) are important to a given item. In the lexicon-building module, learners browse the words saved in each group and study them with the help of two lexical tools: an L1 dictionary and a concordancer. Learners can access the word meaning, synonyms and collocations via the two lexical tools; they can also add notes to the items or group the items under a sub-category based on the similarity shared by some items. In the testing module, learners retrieve the lexical items they studied in a cloze test with the original texts where the items initially occur. All information the learners saved for the items (group names, notes, etc.) is displayed as retrieval clues. The test is a cued recall test, testing the production of the items. The vocabulary processing procedure is described in Figure 13. Since the lexical item to be studied is selected from the text by the learners themselves and is initially categorized on the basis of the word’s characteristics, sufficient attention should have been paid to the word form. If the learners have used all the facilities in the lexicon building module, e.g., checked the word meaning, its usage, common collocations, taken notes on the word, reassigned them to new sub-groups, there should be sufficient opportunity to establish the initial meaning-form mapping and strengthen the memory trace of that mapping. The subsequent retrieval of the items on the basis of various clues should have further strengthened the mapping. The word processing level should therefore be judged to be good. However, the empirical data show that this is only half the story. Only half of the 203
learners, who adopted the deep learning approach intended by the program design, processed vocabulary to a satisfactory level; the remaining half, who adopted a quick or shallow learning approach, did not. Goodfellow (1999: 123) distinguishes the deep and surface approaches as follows: Deep approaches to language learning, which focus on the relation between contextual meaning and linguistic structure, are presumed to guarantee quality in both process and outcome. Surface approaches, which emphasise meaning at the word level, L1 equivalence and memorisation, may indicate the absence of quality.
It is revealed in the empirical data that some learners spend less time processing selected items (in the second module) but more time retrieving the items repeatedly till the correct answer is found (in the third module). In addition, the majority of learners have not done sufficient grouping of the selected items. Among the word groups created by learners there exists a remarkable difference in terms of the quality of semantic links. A correlation is shown between the deep/ surface approaches adopted and the quality of the learning outcome; deep approaches tend to lead to higher learning rate and more accurate retrieval while surface approaches tend to lead to a lower learning rate and less accurate retrieval. As Goodfellow (1999: 126) points out himself, although the design of the program encourages learners to use certain vocabulary learning strategies, such as establishing semantic links between words or creating word associations in a network, this is never made explicit to the learner and no instruction or tutorial training is provided to make learners aware of the importance of doing so. Thus the benefits regarding vocabulary strategy learning are limited, as evidenced by the surface learning approaches adopted by half of the learners. There is no reporting on learners’ attitudes towards the program and whether learners are motivated to use the program for learning more vocabulary perhaps depends to what extent they feel the program is helpful to them.
204
Context Textual
Words Textual
Retrieval Cued productive recall
Grouping words - Meaning - Form - Context Textual
Word elaboration - L1 glosses - Concordancers - Notes - Sub-grouping Textual
Figure 13. Vocabulary processing in Lexica.
9.3.2.2. CAVOCA Groot (2000) described a computer assisted vocabulary learning program CAVOCA (Computer Assisted VOCabulary Acquisition), which is based on the work on the mental lexicon. Three stages of acquiring vocabulary are proposed: 1.
2. 3.
Noting the various properties of the new word: morphological and phonological, syntactic, semantic, stylistic, collocational, and so forth. Storage in the mental lexicon in networks of relationships that correspond to the properties described above. Consolidation of the storage by means of further exposure to the word in a variety of contexts which illustrate its various properties.
The learning process in CAVOCA is composed of four stages in sequential order: deduction, usage, examples and retrieval. In the deduction stage, the learner views a word and then three sentences appear in which the word occurs, presented in order of contextual 205
richness. Then the learner is required to do a multiple-choice exercise by finding the nearest meaning or synonym of the target word. Immediate feedback is given to prevent learning the wrong meaning by wrong guessing. According to Groot, the learner is required to infer the meaning by hypothesizing and testing the word meaning as a way to processing it intensively. However, the difficulty and constraints of inferring the meaning correctly from the context either in L1 or L2 are noted by a number of researchers (Ames, 1966; Kelly, 1990; Beck, McKeown and McCaslin, 1983; Sternberg and Powell, 1983). The learner might not follow the “graded contextual disambiguation” process (Groot: 66) by viewing the three example sentences carefully and may, instead, take an effortless short-cut by guessing the meaning. The multiple-choice questions are very likely to increase this possibility. If so, the objective of “deduction” to process the word intensively is not achieved. In the usage stage, the learner is presented with two sentences and required to choose the one in which the target word is used correctly. Immediate feedback will be given as well as additional information if relevant (other meanings, derivatives, idiomatic usage, etc.). This stage aims to consolidate the new words in the learner’s mental lexicon and illustrates the exact meaning. The same danger might occur as in the first stage since the learner is once again asked to make a choice (or a guess). For the examples stage, a number of authentic L2 passages containing the words the learner has just learned are presented, aimed at consolidating and ensuring long-term retention of the target words. The intention is good but we should not forget that to achieve this aim depends entirely on whether the learner will read these passages carefully or not. S/he might not do so because s/he considers them too difficult or uninteresting. In the lexical retrieval stage, two types of test, a translation test (from L2 to L1) and gapped cloze test, (where the initial letter of the word is given) are used; these test the receptive and productive knowledge respectively. Immediate feedback is given. The vocabulary processing procedure is summarized in Figure 14.
206
Words Textual
Retrieval Receptive and Productive recall
Words in context Textual
Words in sentences Textual
Deducing words’ meanings Textual
Deducing words’ usages Textual
Figure 14. Vocabulary processing in CAVOCA.
It is noticed that there is no explicit lexical information given to the learner, rather, the learner has to deduce the meanings and usages of the words. Theoretically, the wrong deduction will not do much harm since immediate feedback is given. However, the absence of explicit lexical information in CAVOCA means that the learner has to make the mental effort to find the word meaning first and then match it with the word form. On the one hand, these semantic processing mental efforts will be considered to be at a deep processing level in terms of the memory processing theory of Craik and his colleagues (Craik/ Lockhart, 1972; Craik/Tulving, 1975). On the other hand, a good deal of deducing of the word’s meaning and usages will encourage mere guessing since learners are prone to take short-cuts and perform activities requiring less mental effort. This implies that the learner either performs deep mental processing as expected and achieves a good learning result, or else s/he goes through the program guessing a great deal with a poor learning result. This could explain why the control group, who used the bilingual word list, did better on the recognition test and the experimental group, who used CAVOCA, did better on production.
207
The learning rates reported are 73%−70% for recognition and 40%−70%53 for production in the immediate test. Regarding vocabulary strategy learning, through simulating all the necessary steps for acquiring a word based on the mental lexicon in a condensed way, CAVOCA gives learners some ideas how vocabulary learning should be tackled. However, this instruction has never been made explicit and thus the impact is limited. It is quite unlikely that the learner would obtain any learning strategies that can be extended to learning other new words outside the program. There is no mention of learners’ attitudes towards the CALL program to indicate whether the learners were motivated or not by using the program.
9.4. The evaluation of commercial CAVL/CALL programs 9.4.1. Three major types of commercial programs The research-based CAVL programs include all four primary types of application, ranging from tool/implicit/meaning-focused electronic reading/listening comprehension with lexical glosses to tutor/explicit/ form-focused dedicated CAVL programs. In contrast, the commercial programs largely include electronic dictionaries/flash cards, computerised vocabulary exercises, or dedicated-like CAVL programs54, all treating vocabulary learning explicitly. In fact, the first and the second categories are quite similar to each other: both would include an electronic dictionary or glossary (simple or complex) and a number of vocabulary exercises. What differs is that in the former the interface would be designed as a dictionary or a flash card system where the 53 54
208
There are four experimental groups. The first and second groups were only tested receptively and the third and fourth groups were tested productively. I used dedicated-like instead of dedicated because some of the programs to be reviewed later claim to be for general language training rather than focusing on vocabulary. Nevertheless, vocabulary learning is addressed in a comprehensive, systematic way in these programs.
lexical items are to be studied and then practised in the vocabulary exercises, whereas in the latter only a simple electronic glossary is available and there are a considerable number of vocabulary exercises of different kinds. Generally speaking, commercial programs tend to combine both tool and tutor. For example, an electronic dictionary on its own is a tool, but the vocabulary exercises that follow often give an evaluation of the learner performance and thus they can be considered as tutor. So do dedicated-like CAVL programs where tutor and tool are often combined. It seems to be a tradition for vocabulary learning to be treated as explicit learning in commercial programs, particularly in the form of vocabulary exercises. This may be a lasting reflection of the drill and practice which existed at the beginning of CALL history. As mentioned on earlier occasions, drill and practice are not necessarily harmful. Decoo (1994) argues that, if certain criteria are met, drill and practice have more advantages over other more communicative types of CALL programs in classroom instruction. Similarly, N. Ellis (1995a) points out that drill and practice are necessary for learning vocabulary, at least in the initial stage of learning an L2. However, they should not become the dominating language learning activities; they have to be appropriately combined with other learning activities where language is used in a meaningful, communicative way.
9.4.2. Electronic dictionaries/flash cards In this type of program, the electronic dictionary serves not only as a tool for finding lexical information but also as the primary source for learning new vocabulary items. The simplest type is to present the L2 item and then provide the corresponding L1 translation; learners are supposed to match the two, much in the same way as the traditional flash cards. Example sentences or pictures (if relevant) can also be given. A more elaborate type is a standard electronic dictionary, providing all sorts of lexical information, L2 definition, usage, and synonyms. After the vocabulary items which are supposed to be learned are presented, vocabulary exercises often follow as a means to consolidate the learning. 209
9.4.2.1. SuperMemo SuperMemo 55 is a software package, first developed in Poland in 1985 as a learning method to enhance memorisation of learning materials. The main pedagogical feature lies in the practical application of the spaced repetition in which learning materials are reviewed at increasing intervals of time. Learning, including language learning, essentially consists in committing the new knowledge to long-term memory. In this sense, repetition, or its more efficient variant, spaced repetition, is a necessary means for learning. In operation, SuperMemo only serves as a means to store and manage information; it does not contain any learning materials and the learner needs to add learning materials to it. It was soon discovered that SuperMemo could be conveniently applied to language learning, particularly vocabulary learning. To start with, the learner puts the vocabulary item and the related lexical information into the system. The information is stored in two parts, the first part serving as the prompt question, and the second as the answer. Here is an example: Question: What do you call the sister of your husband or wife? Answer: sister-in-law. It can be seen clearly that this way of storing the lexical information resembles the way the traditional flash cards work. There are certainly other ways of organising the information in the two parts. The simplest way is to put the word form as the question and the word meaning (in L1 or L2) as the answer, or vice versa. Other information can also be added, such as a phonetic transcription or example sentences, depending on the learner’s needs. Many words can be added to the system in this way. After storing the words, the learner can begin reviewing them. S/he first clicks on the button “learn”, the information stored in the question will appear on the screen, e.g. “What do you call the sister of your husband or wife?”, then the learner is supposed to retrieve from memory the answer to the 55
210
See http://www.supermemo.com/ for more detailed information; the free version of SuperMemo 98 can be downloaded from .
question, in this case “sister-in-law”. The learner then clicks on the button “show answer”, and the stored answer will appear below the question. The learner is supposed to compare the answer retrieved from memory with the correct answer given. If the retrieved answer is given correctly and unhesitatingly, then the learner clicks on the button “Bright”; if with some hesitation but correct then the button “Good”; if correct but with substantial effort then “Pass”; if almost wrong then “Fail”; if completely wrong then “Bad”; if nothing is retrieved then “Null”. The system will store this information and schedule how this item shall be reviewed in the future. Meanwhile, the learner can go on reviewing other stored words. It is claimed that after one or two months of using SuperMemo, the system will know how many retrievals are needed for each word for the learner to remember the word. This is how SuperMemo has been applied to vocabulary learning. However, I have not been able to find any information from its official website or other related resources that explains in detail how the review of words is scheduled. Since all lexical information is provided by the learner, it is assumed that s/he has paid attention to both the lexical form and meaning. The stored lexical information is primarily textual, as with traditional flash cards. Although it is said that audio information can be added to the item, the free version of SuperMemo 98 I reviewed does not seem to support this function. It is possible that future versions may incorporate pictures into the system. However, there would be a huge amount of work on the learner’s part if s/he has to prepare all the lexical information her/himself. This means that the quality of the lexical information for learning largely depends on the way the learner inputs the information. The main activity in the program is to try and retrieve the word, or match the word form with its meaning through the repetition scheduled by the system. It is assumed that each retrieval will strengthen the meaning-form mapping of the item. Apart from this, there is no contextual use of the item. So, even if eventually the word meaning is matched to the form in the lexicon through repetition, it may not be correctly or appropriately used if there is no other opportunity to meet and use it in different contexts. Regarding the level of vocabulary gain, it can be both receptive and productive, depending on the way the lexical information is stored. If the word 211
form is stored as the question and the word meaning as the answer, the learning tends to be receptive; if the reverse, the learning tends to be productive. Finally, the amount of repetition could have an influence on the level of vocabulary gained. Apparently the software introduces no other vocabulary learning strategy other than repetition. Whether the software will motivate learners to continue to learn words with this method largely depends on the learner’s perception, on whether s/he finds it useful and enjoys this learning method. 9.4.2.2. Rosetta Stone The language learning packages produced by Rosetta Stone 56, based in the United States, include 30 languages; it probably has the widest language coverage of any language learning software. Rosetta Stone claims to use the “natural” way to help learners learn a new language by immersing them in the language and providing training in the four basic skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. Although the packages are for general language learning, a substantial number of lessons, particularly at the beginner level, are devoted to vocabulary learning. I reviewed the free online demo version for level 1 of German. Each lesson is organised in five sections: listening & reading, listening, reading, speaking and writing. There are two activities in each section: the preview of the learning materials and the guided exercises. We start with a preview of the section listening & reading of the first lesson of level 1: nouns and prepositions. There are four pictures on the screen. The word that depicts the picture is printed on each picture: ein Mädchen , ein Junge, ein Hund, eine Katze. The pictures reveal that they mean a girl, a boy, a dog, and a cat respectively. The learner can also click on a listening button on the corner of each picture to listen to the pronunciation. There are four other options. The learner can: (1) hide the text; (2) hide the picture; (3) record her/his voice; (4) compare it with the original pronunciation. In addition, s/he can repeat viewing, listening or practising the four words as often as desired before going on to the next page. There are 10 such pages and 56
212
See .
hence 40 pictures in this section. The first three pages, or the first 12 pictures, introduce 12 new words. Starting from the fourth page, lexical items are put in pairs in each picture, e.g. eine Katze und ein Auto, ein Mädchen und eine Frau, ein Mann und eine Frau, and ein Mann und ein Jung. Again there is no problem accessing the meaning via the pictures: a cat and a car, a girl and a woman, a man and a woman, and a man and a boy. There are two purposes for introducing such combinations: (1) to review the words viewed in the previous pages and (2) to introduce the conjunction and. The remaining six pages introduce three prepositions − auf (on), unter (under) and in (in) − and review the previously encountered words. When the preview is finished, the learner can start the guided exercises. The same 40 pictures will reappear in the same way as in the preview. For example, eine Katze, will be pronounced and the written form given. The learner has to choose the corresponding picture and click on it. Immediate feedback is given indicating whether the response is right or wrong. This procedure is repeated until all 40 pictures have been gone through. In the next section, listening, the preview follows the same pattern as in the listening & reading: the same 40 pictures will reappear. What is different is that the learner can only click on each picture to listen to the lexical item and does not have the help of the written form. The guided exercises follow the same pattern: a word is pronounced (without the written form) and the learner has to choose the right picture. The remaining sections, reading, speaking and writing, follow the same pattern, with the learning activities corresponding to the type of language skills to be focused on. The general impression is that it is very user-friendly. The main pedagogical features can be summarised as: (1) efficient use of the flash card method; (2) use of real pictures accompanied by textual and audio input; (3) application of incremental learning where new information is carefully integrated with old information. The first section, listening & reading, is very helpful; three types of lexical information are available simultaneously in the preview: textual, visual, and aural. The combination of the information in different channels, particularly the use of images, facilitates the encoding of the new lexical information and stores it in memory. The options available, such as hiding the text or the pictures, can easily turn the system into user-friendly 213
electronic flash cards. The subsequent exercises, which involve repeated retrieval of the lexical information with aural or textual cues, enhance the form-meaning mapping of the lexical items. Regarding the level of vocabulary gain, it appears primarily receptive as all the exercises are for recognition but not for production; even the exercise in the writing section is to assemble given words and phrases to form a sentence. Certainly vocabulary gain at the productive level is also possible, as receptive learning entails a certain amount of learning, particularly when considerable repetition is involved. The most obvious strategy introduced in this software is to use multiple media to facilitate vocabulary learning, particularly by associating the lexical meaning with real images. Although this strategy is not made explicit to the learner, some can be expected to extend it to the learning of other lexical items elsewhere. Generally speaking, this software is attractive and learners, particularly beginners, would be motivated to use it. One point worth mentioning is that the software only uses pictures to explain the meaning of the lexical item thus excluding the use of the L1; this might work for concrete items, as in the case of the lesson reviewed, but it might run into difficulties with less imageable, abstract words. Hammerly (1984) tested language teachers on solely using pictures to convey meaning and found there was only a 49%−59% chance of being successful! This might therefore be a serious weakness of the software. 9.4.2.3. Intelligent Miracle English Intelligent Miracle English57 (IME) is an English vocabulary learning software package developed in China in recent years. It is similar to SuperMemo in that it uses spaced repetition to help learners to memorise the lexical items; it boasts a learning rate of 60 words an hour. Different from SuperMemo, IME is not only a device to manage the lexical information but also pre-stores a huge amount of lexical information; different vocabulary sets58 are incorporated catering for different levels and needs. 57 58
214
See . All vocabulary items are taken from published textbooks in China; each vocabulary set is taken from one book. Currently there are 338 vocabulary sets.
I reviewed a demo version downloaded from the website. To begin with, the learner needs to choose a vocabulary set. There are two activities for each vocabulary set: to memorise the words and to practise spelling the words. To begin, an English word appears on the screen and the learner is supposed to hear its pronunciation immediately. However, this is not always the case and sometimes the sound is not clear (it is said that both real voices and artificial voices are used). The learner is asked to make a choice between “I remember it” and “I forgot it” by clicking on the corresponding button. Then the word meaning will be given in Chinese; the word class is also indicated. The learner can also request example sentences of the word, which are nonetheless not always available. Now the learner is asked whether the earlier judgement that s/he made regarding whether s/he knew the word was right or not by clicking on either the button “correct” or “wrong”. If the learner chooses “correct”, this word will not appear later, at least in this learning session. If the learner chooses “wrong”, that means the word meaning s/he retrieved is different from the meaning displayed. Then this word will reappear at least three times in subsequent learning. The first time is immediately after the next word that comes up on the screen; the second time is after two words have appeared; and the third time after nine words, on condition that the learner clicks on the button: “I remember it” each time the word in question appears. Then this word will not appear any more. If the learner chooses the button: “I forgot it” when a word first appears, the word meaning and example sentences (upon request) will be given. Meanwhile, a message appears to remind the learner: “Please listen to the word five times and read after it, trying to remember this word.” Likewise, this word will reappear at least three times subsequently. The learner can work his/her way through to the end of the list. At the end of the learning session the learner will be asked whether s/he would like to take an optional test on the items learned. If the response is yes, the test will begin. It is a recognition test involving choosing the Chinese equivalent of an English lexical item. At the end of the test, a report is given indicating which words have been answered correctly and which words wrongly. The second activity is to spell the words, in the form of cued recall. The interface is quite similar to that of the previous memori215
sation activity. Initially, a word is pronounced and the word meaning is given. The learner has to spell the word in the space provided. Immediate feedback is given. If the answer is correct, this word will not appear later; if wrong, it will reappear three times as in the memorisation activity. After all the words have been gone through, the learner is asked whether s/he would like to take a test. Surprisingly, it is still the same recognition test as in the previous activity; this means the test form, receptive in nature, is inconsistent with the type of learning, which is supposed to be productive. Compared with SuperMemo, IME is easier to use since the learner does not need to input the lexical information her/himself. As in SuperMemo, for IME attention has been paid to both the word form and the word meaning, and the spaced repetition has enhanced the form-meaning mapping for the words. Moreover, the option of displaying example sentences, if available, can give information about how the word is used. The memorisation activity is intended to make the learner pay attention to both the word form and the word meaning; the spelling activity provides good training to help the learner to master the correct spelling. In this sense, the vocabulary gain can be both at the receptive and the productive level. As with SuperMemo, there is no introduction to vocabulary learning strategies other than repetition. Whether the learner will be motivated to use this software to learn more vocabulary items depends on his/her perceived usefulness of the software. Nonetheless, there are three problems with the learning approach in this software. We shall look at them each in turn: 1.
216
From my experience of learning unknown vocabulary items with this software, it seemed that repetition on its own will not necessarily ensure a word meaning being mapped on to the word form, at least not efficiently. For example, I had great difficulty in remembering the meaning of the word inordinate, meaning excessive. I kept pressing the button “I forgot it” when this word appeared. Eventually I looked at this word and decided to break it into two parts: in and ordinary(ate). I told myself that if something is not ordinary then it must be out of the ordinary in some way. After making this simple and
2.
3.
somewhat inaccurate word association, I remembered this word meaning eventually. Certainly, the degree of difficulty in word meaning-form mapping varies greatly, from one person to another and from one word to another. Apart from the lack of help in memorising difficult 59 words, it is problematic to use only the L1 translation to provide the L2 word meaning. Without denying that L1 translation is an important tool when learning an L2, particularly at the beginning level, overuse of it in terms of building equivalent L1-L2 pairs can have negative effects, particularly when there is considerable cultural difference and linguistic distance between the two languages. Even if the initial word meaning-mapping is established, mapping the L2 vocabulary on to the L1 vocabulary is one of the major sources of lexical errors (Swan, 1997). This simplistic L1-L2 mapping will inevitably lead to lexical errors in meaning, form, cultural connotation, and usage. Although example sentences are provided in the majority of cases, the software has put too great a focus on itemised learning, ignoring the contextual roles in learning the L2 items. Knowledge of vocabulary items learned exclusively in itemised learning is likely to be incomplete or even inaccurate, in terms of both word meaning and word use. In addition, the items may not be connected with other items in the mental lexicon, but stand in isolation.
Based on the analysis above, it would seem that the software in its current form is best used as a means to review the words learned in more contextualised or communicative learning since there are activities for retrieving both the word meaning and the word form. For the software to be used efficiently for learning new words, more contextual information should be given e.g. adding lexical concordancers and other types of activities/exercises where words can be used in different contexts.
59
Word learning difficulty can be idiosyncratic or L1-related; see Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion of this issue.
217
9.4.2.4. Memorising Vocabulary Effortlessly Memorising Vocabulary Effortlessly (MVE) is another software package developed in China for learning English vocabulary; it is claimed that the software has been popular on the market for more than ten years. I reviewed a recent standard version of the program. As with IME, the first thing the learner has to do is to select a vocabulary set to work with. Then the vocabulary items will appear one by one for the initial learning activity. The learner can click on each word to listen to the pronunciation and view the word meaning (in L1) or one or two example sentences (if available). Alternatively, the word can be displayed automatically at intervals (e.g. every 10 seconds) pre-set by the learner. When s/he has gone through all the words in this way, s/he can take a test; there is no specific order and the learner can take the test even before studying the new words. The test is a cued recall test. The word meaning (in L1) is given as a retrieval cue by default and the learner has to type in the word form. To make this task less difficult, the learner can request more cues, such as the pronunciation, the phonetic transcription, initial letters, etc., to facilitate the word’s retrieval. Immediate feedback is given whether the word is correctly spelt or not. If wrong, it will be presented later at least twice till no further mistake is made. When the feedback is received, the word meaning and the example sentences (if available) will appear again. On completing the test, the learner will receive a list detailing the vocabulary items that are considered to be known and those that are considered to be frequently wrongly spelt. In this sense, the system is more intelligent and more interactive than IME. The next activity is to review these words by testing oneself; this is almost the same recall test that was taken previously. The only difference is that feedback would be given only after the test is completed. After receiving the feedback, the wrongly spelt words will reappear and the learner has to spell each word at least twice. When this is done, the learner will be asked whether s/he would like to view all the words once again. The words will appear one by one, first the L2 word form and then the L1 translation; the learner is supposed to recall the meaning on seeing the word form and then compare it with the correct meaning provided.
218
The third activity consists of a recognition test, i.e. the learner is required to recall the word meaning, either from the L2 word form to the L1 meaning or vice versa. The fourth activity is a dictation exercise; the learner is asked to write down the example sentences which have been provided in the initial learning activity. Different cues are given to make the task less difficult: keyword, translation of the sentence, initial letters of each word, and indication of the wrongly provided letters. This activity seems to be helpful in developing both the learner’s listening and familiarising him/her with real language use of the words being learned. The fifth activity is to simply practise typing the words when the word form is given; the designer of the software probably thinks it is important to copy the word in order to memorise it. The sixth exercise is again a dictation exercise; the learner can choose to do a dictation on either the words or the example sentences (the same as in the fourth activity). The seventh activity is a game, which again focuses on word form, where a missing letter has to be supplied. The eighth activity is to recall the word meaning when the word form is given, in the way similar to the memorisation activity in IME where the learner is asked to recall the meaning first and then compare it with the given meaning. If wrongly recalled, this word will appear later. The remaining three activities enable the learner to add new words and their pronunciation, or example sentences. It is not difficult to see that MVE is similar to IME in two important ways: (1) the use of large and diversified vocabulary sets (187 in total) and (2) the use of spaced repetition. There are also two notable differences between the two software packages: (a) MVE has provided more vocabulary exercises, in terms of both quantity and type, than IME, and (b) MVE has enabled the learner to edit the content by adding, for example, words or sound files. As with IME, MVE makes the learner pay attention to both the word form and the word meaning and provides plenty of exercises to establish the meaning-form mapping; the vocabulary gain can thus be both receptive and productive. Motivation is certainly an issue depending on the learner’s perception. It is claimed that this software has enjoyed a good reputation among English learners in China. Nevertheless, the intended learning approach in the software fits in well with the traditional Chinese approach to English learning: visual/oral/written 219
repetition. Despite a number of good features, such as providing different cues to facilitate word retrieval or tracking the learner performance in a more intelligent and interactive way as described above, there are five problems which detract from the effectiveness of the program. We shall look at each of these in turn: 1.
2.
3.
220
There is an imbalance between the focus on the word form and the focus on the word meaning. If we review all the learning activities available in MVE, it is not difficult to discover that only three of them (the first, third and eighth) focus on word meaning, the majority of the remaining activities being concerned with word form. Too great a focus on word form is likely to lead the learner into the trap of mindless repetition. This was my experience after trying out the software; I found that I was simply typing the words mechanically without thinking about what I was doing. Another imbalance is found in respect of the distribution of the tests. The test followed by the initial learning and the test to review the words are productive in nature, while the recognition test is scheduled after the two productive tests. It would seem that the designer should consider rearranging the order of the three tests. As with IME, mere repetition or spaced repetition sometimes does not help the word form-meaning mapping. The matching would be more efficient if specific help were given according to a specific word feature (e.g. whether it is imageable or rhymes with other known words), or its specific learning difficulty. Solely relying on the L1 translation for the L2 word is likely to cause confusion. For example, I came across two similar terms, salutary and salubrious, when trying to learn a group of largely unknown words myself in the software. Both terms are provided with the same Chinese translation: 有益于健康的, back translated into English as: helpful to the health. I had great difficulty in supplying the correct word form of these two words in recall exercises. Eventually I managed to get the right spelling for each word; however, I still did not know what the difference was between the two words. I checked the Oxford dictionary
4.
and discovered that the former is used in a figurative sense and the latter is more applied to the physical environment in relation to health. As with IME, the contextual roles in learning vocabulary items are limited in MVE; solely focusing on itemised learning will not ensure that the word can be used correctly in a real language environment.
9.4.3. Computerised vocabulary exercises 9.4.3.1. Tell Me More The language learning package Tell Me More (TMM) is produced by Auralog in France; it covers ten languages, ranging from European languages such as English and French to Asian languages such as Chinese and Japanese. I reviewed the standard version of the Chinese program intended for Francophones at the intermediate level. There are six lessons for this level and I chose the third lesson, Jiating (family). Each lesson contains a number of learning activities: pronunciation, dialogues, and exercises. In addition, there is a section called library to provide grammatical and lexical help. Although TMM is generally considered as a package for general language learning, the majority of learning activities focus on vocabulary learning, as we shall now see. The program does not specify the order with which each activity is to be carried out. We start with the pronunciation as it precedes the other two in the navigation bar. This page contains dozens of phrases or sentences written in Chinese characters, such as 我很好 (I’m fine60), 还可以 (I’m all right), 今天天气很好 (The weather is very good today), etc. Clicking on a phrase, the learner can only see the pinyin, i.e. the Westernized phonetic transcription of the Chinese characters in the phrase. The visual sound wave pattern is also given. The learner can listen to the pronunciation of the phrase and record his/her own pronunciation. Immediate feedback will be given 60
I provide the English translation in brackets for the reader’s convenience.
221
regarding acceptability of the recording. However, sometimes even a native speaker’s pronunciation will be rejected if the sound wave pattern of the recording does not match the sample wave pattern provided. As Zheng (2004) points out, TMM needs to revise the design regarding speech recognition to accommodate learner pronunciation at different speeds. One major problem is that there are no direct means to access the lexical meaning either in L1 (French) or Chinese (L2), if some of the words or phrases are unknown to the learner. The only means is to go through the lexical glosses available in the section library. However, the design of the lexical help is not very user-friendly. Only the French translation is given as a bilingual list arranged alphabetically; what is even more inconvenient is that the list is presented as a paper dictionary, which means that finding a lexical item may necessitate turning a number of pages. A learner of Chinese who has used this software extensively told me that he had to copy out the bilingual list in a notebook manually and then would consult it when necessary! In this sense, this electronic lexical glossary is not well designed, at least in terms of efficient use of the computer technology. Hyperlinks or a request for lexical information by typing the word would be a much more efficient solution. In a word, access to the meaning of unknown words is possible but rather inconvenient in TMM. The learner will continue to practise pronouncing these phrases and sentences in the dialogue, but in a more interactive and situational manner. There are many short two-sentence conversations, each accompanied by a picture. The first sentence is a question and the second is the reply. There are three replies for each question and the learner needs to choose the correct one. The initial question and the three replies are printed in both Chinese characters and pinyin. In response to a spoken question, the learner needs to choose and utter the correct reply. Immediate feedback will be given regarding the learner’s performance. In this regard, it is not clear whether the dialogue is for learning new language content or for testing the learner’s language knowledge. Next come the exercises. There are a substantial number of questions grouped according to ten types, each containing questions ranging from three to 25 in number. They are listed below: 222
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Match the L2 words (in Chinese characters) to the L1 translation (in French) according to a given picture. Match the Chinese characters with other words in pinyin (using synonyms or antonyms). Match the Chinese characters with the French translation (using synonym or antonyms). Match the Chinese characters with their antonyms in characters too. Choose a word from several that are provided to fill in the missing word in a sentence. Fill in the missing words in sentences; similar to exercise 5 but constructed differently. Write out the pinyin for the given French phrase. Put the words in correct order to reconstruct a sentence. Do a dictation exercise. Complete a crossword using pinyin.
All these exercises are intended for the learner to practise the words both in isolation and in context. Particular attention is paid to developing knowledge of the meaning of the L2 words, by relating them to their synonyms or antonyms. However, there are no specific learning activities preceding the exercises where the words are introduced in isolation or in contexts where the word meaning is explicitly given. It would seem these exercises are more suitable as tests for reviewing vocabulary items which the learner has learned elsewhere. If the vocabulary items are new to the learner, s/he needs to either check the meaning in a dictionary or work out the meaning with great effort by trying to do the exercises. Generally speaking, if most of the items are (partially) known beforehand, learners would doubtless find it more enjoyable or motivating to use the software. 9.4.3.2. English+ English+ is a language learning package produced by Emme Interactive France. I reviewed the standard version (for the advanced level) installed in the multimedia centre of the ILV at UCL. It is a 223
package for general English learning, comprising six major sections: reading, speaking, listening, writing, language (grammar) and vocabulary. Each section is constructed in the same way, containing a number of learning activities: explore, practice, game and test. The vocabulary section contains 250−300 vocabulary items spread over 10 lessons. Each group focuses on a specific topic, such as education, families in the 90s, free time, studying abroad, job interview, etc. The learner has to choose a topic to study the vocabulary items. I looked into the lesson families in the 90s. We start with the learning activity explore. The first page contains a list of 30 vocabulary items. By clicking on each word, the learner can hear the pronunciation and view the lexical information. However, the lexical information only contains the grammatical variants (present or past tense verb forms) or example sentences, but no L1 translation or L2 definition for the lexical item. If these words are unknown to the learner, s/he has to either guess the meaning from the example sentences or look them up in a paper dictionary. There is a short-cut icon for dictionary in each screen page which enables the learner to search for a specific word. However, only the word pronunciation but not the word meaning is given, rendering its use very limited. Next the learner has to do the exercises for these vocabulary items in practice. There are about 35 questions which are receptive in nature: the learner needs to drag and drop the chosen word to fill in the gap in a sentence. S/he can check whether the answer s/he has given is right or wrong and request the display of the correct answer, if s/he so wishes. The game activity for this vocabulary lesson contains one crossword puzzle. The next is a test with the same 30 vocabulary items. The test questions are similar to those in the previous vocabulary exercise, containing receptive questions only. In the vocabulary learning section of English+, explicit attention is drawn to the lexical form as the vocabulary items are initially presented, but the lexical meaning is not given explicitly. So if the learner does not know a word s/he needs to guess or work out the meaning through trying out the questions in the exercise. Both would be much less efficient than giving the lexical meaning in a direct, explicit manner. The vocabulary gain would be largely re224
ceptive given the receptive nature of the exercise; this does not mean that receptive learning cannot sometimes include a certain amount of productive learning. No particular vocabulary learning strategy has been introduced. It would have been better if vocabulary learning had not been treated separately and had been integrated into the reading, writing, listening and speaking sections. Vocabulary is best learned by combining both itemised and contextualised learning; the more the vocabulary item is encountered in (different) language contexts the more fully it will be integrated into the mental lexicon.
9.4.4. Dedicated-like vocabulary programs 9.4.4.1. Language Interactive Culture Language Interactive Culture 61 (LINC) is a language learning software package developed by the Centre for Language and Speech at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. It covers 18 European languages, an impressive endeavour for a university based software enterprise. According to Van de Poel and Swanepoel (2003: 197), the underlying assumption of LINC is that: “the learning of a second/ foreign language should be embedded in a broader, genuine, socialcultural context”. I reviewed the demo version of the English program for level 2 (intermediate level). The program comprises 10 units, each based on a short video (3 or 4 minutes) from a BBC news extract. The demo version only allowed me to review the first lesson: Jane Austin’s fashion. The lesson contains four major learning activities: video, listening, writing and processing. The learner can watch the video or read the text transcription; s/he is then supposed to perform different types of listening comprehension, vocabulary and grammar, and topic-related exercises 62 . In addition, the section background information contains a longer reading text (chosen from an English 61 62
See , Van de Poel/Swanepoel (2003), and Bouziane (2006) for more information on LINC. The topic-related exercises in processing include reflecting on the topics, formulating opinions, looking for specific information, summarising ideas, arguing for proposals.
225
newspaper or magazine) which is meant to provide the relevant information about the video topic. There is an optional section in the program called the virtual school which can link the learners to other learners or the teacher through emails or CMC, but this function requires an additional payment as well as access to the internet. Nonetheless, this idea sounds excellent. As with several programs reviewed earlier, LINC is for general language learning. However, the program has given sufficient focus to vocabulary, notably in the sections devoted to video, exercises and an extra lexical glossary. In the video section, the learner can watch a short video; if s/he finds it difficult to cope with the audio text s/he can request the display of the written text. Some “key words” are highlighted and the learner can view the gloss by a simple click. The idea is very good but only a limited number of terms 63, primarily those related to the topic or people’s names, are glossed. One wonders why some of the potentially more difficult words are not glossed although these items are available later in a separate lexical glossary. The presentation of both the audio and the textual text is likely to make the learner pay attention to the unknown lexical items, which is a prerequisite for the learning of these items. The learner can watch the video or read the text as many times as s/he wants. The questions presented in the listening comprehension section can make the learner focus on certain specific information in the text and hence enhance her/his understanding of it. As a result, the meaning of certain words becomes clearer. In addition, the availability of the glossary enables the learner to check an unfamiliar lexical item while doing the exercises on listening, writing or processing. The lexical items are arranged alphabetically according to which unit they belong to; the lexical information includes word class, L2 definitions and example sentences, etc. More than half of the exercises included in the writing section are devoted to vocabulary items. These include finding matching synonyms (receptive in nature); writing out the synonyms for the given words (productive in nature); filling in blanks with the correct form of 63
226
According to Van de Poel and Swanepoel (2003: 198), the glossed words in hyperlinks in the textual transcription are socio-culturally related.
the given word; filling in the correct prepositions, etc. Even some of the exercises designed for grammar are related to vocabulary learning, for example, supplying the correct verb form of a particular tense. In LINC, vocabulary items have been processed to a satisfactory level: the new lexical items are noticed initially in audio or textual form in the video section; the meaning can be guessed in the context or accessed in the lexical glossary later; the listening exercise enables the learner to encounter the words, again in audio form, in the context again; the writing exercises provide the learners with opportunities to gain a deeper understanding of the word meaning (synonyms or antonyms) and to be able to use the words in different contexts. Vocabulary gain is thus both receptive and productive. LINC has other good pedagogical features: the use of current affairs videos and the inclusion of the virtual school to form a learning community for learners. Generally speaking, LINC is a good learning tool for vocabulary, the only weakness being that no vocabulary learning strategies are introduced. Finally, despite its suitability for vocabulary learning, I would like to make a point regarding the use of the “authentic language” (in the sense of language being used in real-life communication) in this software. On the one hand, authentic language provides a good opportunity for learners to learn new language elements (vocabulary or grammar) and to observe how the L2 is used in real language situations. On the other hand, for it to be beneficial to the learner, the authentic language should not be too difficult. Otherwise, little learning would occur and the learner would be frustrated. If, as Van de Poel and Swanepoel indicate (2003: 198), level 2 (the unit which I reviewed) is intended for learners who have a vocabulary of at least 2,000 words and have mastered all basic grammar, it might be too challenging for this type of learner to understand the extracts directly taken from BBC news despite the help of the transcription. Similarly, the so-called “authentic” tasks involved in the exercises in the section processing are too difficult. It would seem level 2 is more suitable for more advanced learners. A similar point has been made by Bouziane (2006) in his review of level 1 of LINC.
227
9.4.5. Summary of the evaluation results I have reviewed a number of programs/tasks for vocabulary learning, including both research-based programs and commercially available packages. The research-based programs generally represent the four primary types of CAVL programs/tasks: electronic reading/listening comprehension with lexical glosses, CMC lexical-based tasks, computerized vocabulary exercises and dedicated CAVL programs; they can be situated on a continuum going from tool/implicit/ meaning-focused learning to tutor/explicit/form-focused learning. On the other hand, commercial programs generally reflect an explicit learning approach towards vocabulary learning, falling into three major categories: electronic dictionaries/flash cards, computerized vocabulary exercises and dedicated-like CAVL programs. The evaluation is conducted according to the four criteria of vocabulary processing level, level of vocabulary gain, vocabulary learning strategies and learning motivation. The evaluation of research-based programs takes into account both judgemental and empirical evaluation. A summary of the evaluation of research-based programs is presented in Table 7; a summary of the evaluation of commercial programs is presented in Table 8. 9.4.5.1. Research-based programs Regarding the research-based programs, reading/listening comprehension with lexical glosses provides the right context for meeting new words and accessing necessary lexical information such as meaning and usage. However, since the lexical learning is primarily meaningfocused, acquisition is likely to be insignificant and restricted to the receptive level. If the subsequent learning is based on vocabulary exercises (computerised or not), CMC lexical-based tasks, or even traditional learning activities, there is more opportunity for attention to be paid to forms as well. Not all CMC tasks are suitable for vocabulary learning and they need to be carefully designed to this end. Although well-designed CMC lexical-based tasks can provide the opportunity to draw learners’ attention to both lexical form and meaning and perhaps even motivate them, the necessary process,
228
negotiation of meaning, is generally reported to take much longer than other non-negotiated, elaborated tasks (Nation, 2001). Thus it is unlikely that the majority of words can be learned in this way. It is more meaningful to combine CMC tasks with other types of learning activities. Similarly, computerised vocabulary exercises can be used on their own but would be better if they were combined with other learning activities, as demonstrated by Allum (2004). Generally, judgemental evaluation is consistent with empirical evaluation. The way the vocabulary learning activities are designed can predict both the learning process and the outcome. Evidence also exists that the quality of the learning process can influence the learning outcome (e.g. Goodfellow, 1994, 1999). However, when a CALL program is sophisticatedly designed and supposed to lead to an effective learning approach, learners, faced with many options and the freedom to decide what to do, tend to take short-cuts which will lead to shallow learning approaches. Thus a mismatch between the judgemental and empirical evaluation may occur in sophisticatedly designed tutorial CALL programs. The point that needs to be raised is how to make learners follow the designed learning path of the program to achieve the desired learning objective. Should learners be provided with some kind of tutorial training to use the CALL program more effectively (e.g. Ebbrell/Goodfellow, 1996)? Or should learner actions or freedom be controlled to some degree? The latter possibility touches on learner control of the program, which is a controversial issue that has provoked considerable discussion among researchers (e.g. Shin/Westell, 2001; Cobb/Stevens, 1996; Chapelle, 2001; Hubbard, 2004). One limitation of the evaluation is that the results obtained may not always be unbiased or accurate. The main reason is that every study I looked into differs from others in a number of ways, sometimes to a considerable extent, each having their specific context and focus. We can take the learning rates as an example. Generally, the figures were obtained by dividing the number of words learned by the total number of unknown words to be learned. However, there are two notable differences. First, the total number of words to be learned varies in each study. Second, the time involved in learning the words also differs widely in each study, from 10 minutes to several hours at a 229
stretch. In other words, the “learning rates” may not always be comparable given that each study design is different. 9.4.5.2. Commercial programs As for commercial programs for vocabulary learning, the most popular way is to conceptualise the program either as an electronic dictionary or flash cards to learn the lexical items or as vocabulary exercises to practise using the lexical items (receptively and productively). The two programs together, Intelligent Miracle English, Memorising vocabulary effortlessly, produced in China for learning English, generally reflect the traditional Chinese approach to English learning (see Part IV). Although the two programs and other similar ones are perhaps widely used by Chinese learners of English, and despite the fact that they achieve a certain degree of success in vocabulary learning, the main problems innate in this type of learning approach can be summarised as follows: Repetition alone cannot guarantee that the meaning-form matching can be successfully established, particularly for difficult lexical items. Lack of contextual learning cannot ensure that the word will be accurately used in real contexts even though the basic meaning has been mastered. Solely relying on L1 for the lexical meaning is problematic, leading to lexical errors or confusion (meaning and usage). Too great a focus on form is likely to lead to a neglect of lexical meaning which will give rise to errors in this respect. The fourth point deserves further clarification. On the one hand, the focus on word form reflects the wide difference in the writing system between Chinese and English, which means that Chinese learners need to pay specific attention to the English word form to avoid spelling mistakes. (See 11.3.2. for some examples of Chinese learners’ frequently made spelling mistakes). On the other hand, too great a focus on the word form as a result of constant written repetition is likely to distract the learner’s attention from the elaboration of the lexical meaning. This may explain why very often Chinese learners
230
consider a word is learned if they can provide an equivalent Chinese translation. However, this is likely to lead to meaning confusion in lexical use (see 11.3.1. for a discussion and examples of lexical errors caused by meaning confusion by Chinese learners). In comparison, other commercial programs (made in European countries or the U.S.A) tend to show a more balanced focus on the word form and meaning, or may even be slightly weighted in favour of the latter. Taking both the commercial programs made in China and those made in Western countries, it can be seen that there is a certain amount of research being applied in different areas related to SLA behind the program design. For example, spaced repetition, based on memory research, is applied to SuperMemo, Intelligent Miracle English, and Memorising Vocabulary Effortlessly; combining images with textual/ audio input, the essential multimedia feature, is widely employed in Rosetta Stone; elaborate lexical meaning by linking the word to other items (synonyms or antonyms), an application of the findings in respect of the mental lexicon, is partially reflected in Tell Me More. On the other hand, the commercial programs often focus on one or two design features or on the application of a single learning theory while ignoring others. In this sense, their pedagogical effectiveness is limited. The programs would be more effective if they incorporated other relevant features or were complemented by other learning activities. For example, the programs that fall into the category of electronic dictionaries/flash cards, primarily focusing on itemised learning, can be combined with more contextual learning such as by adding a lexical concordancer. More specifically, some of the programs, such as Intelligent Miracle English and Tell Me More are better used to review and consolidate words which have been learned elsewhere (preferably in a more contextualised learning situation). Finally, commercial programs which are largely based on research, such as Language Interactive Culture, display a more comprehensive, dedicated approach to vocabulary learning, where the vocabulary learning is both itemised and contextualised; vocabulary items are processed to a sufficient level to facilitate further lexical elaboration and development. 231
The main limitation of the evaluation of commercial programs lies in the fact that only the judgemental evaluation is provided due to practical constraints and hence the results may not be accurate without the empirical data. Secondly, only a limited number of programs have been selected and reviewed while there are many other commercially available programs. Thus the results may not be representative and no generalisation can be made. Lastly, I have only looked at the vocabulary learning sections/aspects in some programs considered for general language learning; therefore the evaluation results only apply to the effectiveness of vocabulary learning and not to the effectiveness of other aspects of learning, such as reading, writing, or grammar.
9.5. Conclusion The evaluation for research-based programs shows that both direct and indirect vocabulary learning benefits generally correspond to how much the program is geared towards vocabulary learning in terms of tutor/tool, implicit/explicit, and meaning-/form-focused orientations. It emerges that CAVL programs which are tutor oriented provide explicit and form-focused learning activities that are of particular potential help in vocabulary learning. However, other types of CAVL programs, such as electronic reading/listening comprehension, CMC lexical based tasks, or computerised vocabulary exercises can be combined or integrated into the broad language curriculum to promote vocabulary learning. The evaluation for commercial programs shows that they primarily adopt an explicit approach towards vocabulary learning; theories or good design features are often applied in isolation without being combined with other relevant ones. Commercial programs should take into account research findings systematically to produce more efficient tools for learners to learn vocabulary. The evaluation results show that neither research-based programs nor commercial programs take into account vocabulary learning strategies seriously; how to provide systematic vocabulary learning
232
strategy instruction to learners is a key issue that emerges from the evaluation. To empower learners with useful vocabulary learning strategies is undoubtedly the only means by which we can ensure that they become efficient and autonomous in their learning approaches. One solution is to integrate training of this kind into CAVL programs, particularly the dedicated ones.
233
Vocabulary processing level Level of vocabulary gain
Electronic reading/listening comprehensions with lexical glosses
CMC lexical-based tasks
Reading Laufer/Hill, 2000 Insufficient
Listening Smidt/ Hegelheimer, 2004 Insufficient
De la Fuente, 2003
Good
Eb J
Insufficient Primarily receptive
E
Good receptive gain
Insufficient Limited in both reception and production Low productive gain
Ja
Vocabulary J Unknown learning E Unknown strategies Learning J Unknown motivation E Unknown aJudgemental evaluation bEmpirical evaluation
Dedicated CAVL programs
Good
Lexica Goodfellow, 1994, 1999 Good
CAVOCA Groot 2000 Good
Good Both receptive and productive
Good Both receptive and productive
Less Good Both receptive and productive
Less Good Both receptive and productive
Good receptive and productive gain
Good receptive and productive gain
Varied productive gain
Unknown Unknown
Insufficient Insufficient
Unknown Unknown
Insufficient Insufficient
Good receptive and productive gain Insufficient Insufficient
Unknown Unknown
Good Good
Good Good
Unknown Unknown
Unknown Unknown
Allum, 2004
Table 7. Summary of the evaluation of research-based programs.
234
Computerised vocabulary exercises
Electronic dictionaries/flash cards
Vocabulary Processing Level Level of vocabulary gain Vocabulary learning strategies Learning motivation
SuperMemo 98 version, Poland
Rosetta Stone Online demo version, U.S.A
Insufficient
Computerised exercises
Dedicated-like CAVL programs Language Interactive Culture Demo version, Belgium Good
Memorising Vocabulary Effortlessly Standard version, China Less good
Tell Me More Standard version, France
English+ Standard version, France
Good
Intelligent Miracle English Demo version, China Less good
Insufficient
Insufficient
Both receptive and productive Insufficient
Primarily receptive
Both receptive and productive
Both receptive and productive
Primarily receptive
Primarily receptive
Both receptive and productive
Insufficient
Insufficient
Insufficient
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Less good
Good
Less good
Less good
Good
Less good
Good
Table 8. Summary of the judgemental evaluation of commercial programs.
235
236
Part IV: L2 (English) Vocabulary Acquisition in China
237
238
Chapter 10. English Teaching and Learning in China
10.1. Historically identified distinct periods of ELT in China Due to the upheaval experienced by China in the last half century, the progress of English teaching/learning has been beset with difficulties, and at times there has even been complete discontinuity. According to Lam (2002: 246−247), six distinct periods can be identified, each of which is associated with a specific government language policy. I shall give a very brief summary of each. The interlude with Russian: early 1950s After gaining independence in 1949, the new Chinese government sought an alliance with its then powerful neighbour, the Soviet Union, and counted on its help to rebuild their country. Russian became the predominant foreign language taught in schools although English was allowed to continue. Soon the Sino-Russian relationship deteriorated as the Russians did not live up to the other side’s expectations, failing to treat the Chinese, in their eyes, equally and breaking promises. English, and other foreign languages, were reconsidered for incorporation into the national syllabus. The back-to-English movement: 1957−1965 After the illusion of depending on the Soviet Union was dispelled, China started to seek economic bonds with Western countries. Syllabi of English programs were drafted for different educational levels: from secondary school to universities. Learners included English majors and science and technology majors.
239
Repudiation of foreign language learning: 1966−1970 The year 1966 marked the start of the Cultural Revolution which cut the nation off from the outside world and had devastating effects economically, politically and socially. Scholars were sent to the countryside to be re-educated to be rid of “harmful ideas”64. Foreign language teachers were expelled too; most of them suffered terribly because they were suspected of being spies or worshipping foreign ideas (Adamson/Morris, 1997: 15). Students were also dismissed and set to work as labourers to learn “industrial production, agricultural production, and military affairs”, as advocated by Mao in 1966 (cited in Adamson/Morris, 1997: 15). In short, foreign language learning, including English, disappeared from the education system. English for renewing ties with the West: 1971−1976 With the formal recognition of China by the United Nations (1971) and the official visit to China by the United States president, Richard Nixon (1972), China was preparing to establish commercial, cultural and educational communication with the United States and other Western countries. ELT restarted with the goal to “serve the people as an expert” (Lam, 2002: 246). English for modernization: 1977−1990 Mao’s death (1976) marked the end of a decade of turmoil as well as the beginning of bringing the whole nation back to a normal state. ELT featured at different levels of the education system, including primary and secondary schools and universities. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping issued the Policy of Four Modernizations and called upon the whole nation to fight for the modernisation of four sectors: agriculture, industry, science and technology/defence. The Reform and Open door policy that ensued boosted the learning of English and other foreign languages. In 1982, English became the predominant 64
240
These “harmful ideas’ are covered by the term “Feng Zi Xiu” raised at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. “Feng” refers to the traditional culture, thoughts, or customs, associated with the old societies; “zi” refers to capitalism; “xiu” refers to the policy adopted in the Soviet Union, which was considered as seriously deviating from “pure socialism”.
foreign language in secondary schools. The situation continued and recent statistics show that about 95% of students were choosing English as their foreign language (British Council, 1995, cited in Cortazzi/Jin, 1996a: 63). It was during this period that China recovered from the serious damage caused by the Cultural Revolution and made tremendous progress in developing its economy and other areas, including creating and presenting a new image to the world. English for international status: from 1991 With the continued progress in all-important areas, particularly the economy, of the nation, China aimed at gaining a corresponding international position. The seal of success has been China’s joining of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001, the hosting of the Olympic Games in 2008 (Beijing) and the holding of the World Fair Exhibition in 2010 (Shanghai). The government has made tremendous efforts to improve English education all over the country. This includes redesigning the syllabi at all educational levels (primary/ secondary schools, universities and adult education), recruiting more native speaker teachers, doing research in language teaching/learning, etc. English is not only one of the important compulsory subjects for most students; it is also required for professional promotion: one has to pass the national English exam before other qualifications are considered when competing for more advanced posts. In consequence, there has been a boom in English learning throughout the country and it is continuing at the present time. This is evidenced by the ever-crowded language classrooms (evening classes, adult learning and private organisations), fast selling language learning materials (books, CDs, software, etc.) and the popularity of internationally recognised English exams (TOEFL, IELTS, GRE, GMAT, etc.).
241
10.2. Features of ELT in China 10.2.1. High motivation Motivation is a crucial factor that will tell how much effort a learner will invest in learning the language and eventually the degree of language proficiency that will be attained, as we saw in Chapter 7. For Chinese students, the economic factor primarily stimulates the learning of foreign languages. Since the ending of the Cultural Revolution in the late 1970s, the government has put the chief focus on developing the national economy. Developing the economy means communicating with the outside world or, to be more specific, communicating with developed Western countries who have attained a much higher level in overall development; to communicate means knowing foreign languages, particularly English, by far the most important language in the technological and commercial domains. Another important factor that motivates Chinese students to learn English is the combined impact of traditional ideas of Confucianism and the current educational system in China. The current educational system highlights the importance of three subjects through the whole of secondary education: Chinese, Mathematics, and English. To study in the universities or colleges is the dream of most young people and their parents; this is the modern duplication of Confucian schoolboys in times past struggling to be scholar-officials who enjoyed the highest prestige in the old imperial society. To gain access to university, one has to take and pass the national entrance examination, which includes English as one of the most important subjects. Most students will take their preparation very seriously and spare no effort to improve their English to prepare for the exam. After entering university, English remains an important subject and the course will cover at least the first two or three years. Students must also take the national Band 4 examination; a pass in Band 4 is a necessity for every student to get their degree at the end of their four years of study. More ambitious students will set higher aims to get good scores in international English tests, such as TOEFL or IELTS,
242
in order to pursue overseas study; as the economy is improving, more and more parents can afford to send their children abroad. In general, Chinese students’ motivation in English learning is instrumental: they choose to learn English because it will help them to go to university and then obtain a good job in the fast growing economic markets where English is greatly needed. As young Chinese students have more and more opportunity for contact with foreigners and to be exposed to Western culture, more and more of them develop an integrative motivation in learning English.
10.2.2. Chinese culture of learning 10.2.2.1. What is culture of learning? Culture of learning (CL) is associated with traditional beliefs and attitudes to teaching and learning, often under the influence of the specific culture of a group of people. Cortazzi and Jin (1996b: 169) describe CL this way: […] behaviour in language classrooms is set within taken-for-granted frameworks of expectations, attitudes, values and beliefs about what constitutes good learning, about how to teach or learn, whether and how to ask questions, what textbooks are for, and how language teaching relates to broader issues of the nature and purpose of education.
CL sometimes is deeply rooted in educational and cultural traditions and we are so familiar with it that we are often unaware of its existence; it is the “hidden curriculum” (Cortazzi/Jin, 1996b: 169). CL is also subject to the influence of the socio-economic environment (Cortazzi/Jin, 1996b). It is important to understand CL as it explains the learning process and learning outcome of language learning. 10.2.2.2. Chinese culture of learning: perception and practice CL is heavily rooted in culture and tradition; this is particularly true for Chinese CL which is deeply influenced by Confucianism and Taoism. The two most important philosophies have fulfilled different
243
roles for more than 2000 years. Confucianism was adopted by the old imperial authorities as the philosophical foundation for governing the nation. On the other hand, Taoism had always been practised by common Chinese people to ensure their life quality. The whole society was imbued with the two philosophies; they were passed down from generation to generation till the present time, forming the so-called Chinese “orthodoxy”. This is a unique phenomenon in human history, as Kelen (2002: 228) points out: “No other social doctrine and no other means of transmission have prevailed for so long in human history elsewhere.” Consequently, its influence is profound and immune to change. As a member of Chinese society, one does not need to read the classics written by Confucius or Lao Tzu to understand their philosophy. Their ideas have permeated into everybody’s life, influencing their daily behaviour, their thinking and attitudes. With the communication with the Western world over the past century, many new philosophies and ideologies have been imported into China and challenged the old ones. However, it is wrong to think that the new ideas have “simply dissolved the older patterns of popular consciousness” (Kelen, 2002: 228). The orthodoxy persists, continuing to influence people’s lives, including the conception of language, assumptions about language learning, and the way language learning should be conducted in the classroom, etc. Hansen (1991, cited in Kelen, 2002: 224) sees the Chinese conception of language as completely different from the Western view, claiming that the former is “prescriptive and pragmatic” while the latter is “descriptive and semantically motivated.” Kelen quotes Hansen in pointing out a fundamental assumption about the Chinese conception of language, namely, that language is the “means by which right action is achieved” or a “system of appropriate discursive acts in which there is always a positive and negative term […]” (2002: 225). According to Hansen (1991, cited in Kelen, 2002: 225−226), one important impact of these traditional ideas on language teaching is that important figures, such as great scholars or leaders, will be used to illustrate, teach, develop and regularise language use. Another important consequence is that language can be learned and taught in a prescriptive manner. It further leads to a distinct role for the language
244
teacher: “the teacher prescribes the correct words, their correct uses; the teacher corrects the students’ errors” (Kelen, 2002: 227). Kelen (2002) also claims that the “model of the indefatigable learner-teacher” 65 established by Confucius lends itself to passive learning. His main arguments are based on his observation of the language learning classroom in which the teacher controls the learning process and decides on the learning activity whereas the students just follow the teacher. On the other hand, this model has its good side, helping to inculcate positive qualities, which Kelen does not mention, such as diligence, serious commitment, high motivation, goalorientedness, respect for the learned, etc., and which are generally appreciated by both Chinese and foreign teachers. If Kelen has investigated the Chinese CL primarily from a philosophical point of view, Hu (2002) has taken a more education-oriented approach in conceptualising the Chinese CL. In particular, Hu (2002: 96−98) observes a series of features innate in the Chinese CL: (1) there is a high respect for education; (2) education involves both gaining knowledge and developing moral qualities; (3) education is perceived as a process of increasing knowledge (rather than constructing it); (4) insistence is placed on keeping a hierarchical yet harmonious relationship between the teacher and students; (5) education can be achieved by individual effort (including determination and will power) regardless of intelligence and ability or even family background. These traditional Chinese educational features are heavily rooted in Confucianism. In addition to the “passivity” of such a CL, as indicated by Kelen (see above), there are also positive aspects characterised by such a CL, particularly in promoting the idea that everyone can be educated if they so wish. It appears to be an indiscriminate education policy, appealing to everyone who wants to be educated and gain knowledge, which is in sharp contrast with the traditional Western view where only a small elite are entitled to education. Fundamentally, this Confucian view of education was consistent with the close bond between knowledge and power, 65
Confucius says: “I have listened in silence and noted what was said, I have never grown tired of learning nor wearied of teaching others what I have learnt” (1996, cited in Kelen, 2002: 233).
245
reflected in the long-standing national examination system − Ke Ju66 − held by the old imperial authority to select officials. If one had knowledge, one could be selected as an official and gain power. This would motivate people to study hard to gain knowledge, regardless of other conditions, such as intelligence, ability and social background. This Confucianist view was also favoured by the authorities as they could choose the best officials from among a huge group of educated candidates. At a practical level, such a perception of CL has helped to define the criteria of being a good teacher or student (Cortazzi/Jin, 1996b; Hu, 2002). The empirical study of Cortazzi and Jin (1996b: 187) showed that the majority of their subjects (university students) expect a good teacher to have deep knowledge; other important criteria include being patient, being humorous, being a good moral example, etc. As for what makes a good student, the subjects put hard work as the number one factor, followed by being sociable, paying attention to the teacher, respecting and obeying the teacher, etc. As a consequence of such perceptions and practice, language teaching/learning is best summarised as follows (Cortazzi/Jin, 1996a: 65): Chinese approaches to language teaching have a long-standing concern with mastery of knowledge, which is focused on the four centres of the teacher, the textbook, grammar and vocabulary. Knowledge of English is transmitted through the teacher, as an authority, a source of knowledge and an intellectual and moral example. This knowledge is also in the textbook, which is a key element in Chinese learning; texts are taught and learned in exhaustive detail. They are often memorised. Grammar and vocabulary are further elements of knowledge which are explained and transmitted. Students engage heavily in memorizing hundreds, even thousands, of words each year.
66
246
The Ke Ju examination system started in 605 and continued till 1905; the official policy was “free registration, public exam, fair competition, selecting the best”. There were many hierarchies in the examination system and the highest level exam was held in the emperor’s palace and supervised by the emperor.
10.3. Approaches to ELT Although there may be other approaches or methods that have been adopted by English teachers (Chinese or foreign) or Chinese learners, the commonly documented important ones include grammar-translation, the audio-lingual method, the “communicative approach” and, more recently, task-based learning. The reason why the term communicative approach is put in inverted commas is that it is not the real communicative approach but a Chinese version of it, a kind of “eclectic approach” (e.g. Adamson/Morris, 1997; Cortazzi/Jin, 1996a; Hu 2002; Liao, 2000) or “weak” version of the communicative approach (Liao, 2000). As Adamson and Morris (1997) observe, the macro language policy adopted in China has always guided both English curriculum development and approaches to ELT. The government has a great influence in shaping ELT: they decide what approaches should be taken in accordance with a specific language policy adopted at a given time, in consultation with appointed agencies, consisting of language experts or language teachers at different levels (Adamson/Morris, 1997). As we saw earlier, there are six distinct periods associated with a given language policy, when different approaches were adopted in respect of ELT. In the first period (“the interlude with Russian: early 1950s”), ELT was heavily influenced by the language pedagogy adopted in the Soviet Union: the grammar-translation method. This approach is described by Adamson and Morris (1997: 9) as “an emphasis on reading and writing skills, constant references to the learners” mother tongue, a focus on grammatical forms, and memorisation of grammatical paradigms”. In the second period (“the back-to-English movement: 1957−1965”), when the nation was breaking with Russian, the language teachers called for a change in ELT pedagogy as a result of disillusionment with the “Russian-style textbooks and the prevailing spoon feeding method of teaching” (Adamson/Morris, 1997: 11). The audio-lingual method emerged with the emphasis being laid on “oral skills before written ones”; it “encourages students to use English as much as possible, incorporates
247
sentence-pattern drills, and promotes learning through habit formation” (Adamson/Morris, 1997: 13). Following the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution, ELT was completely suppressed in the third period (“repudiation of foreign language learning: 1966−1970”). English reappeared in the schools to a very limited extent in the fourth period (“English for renewing ties with the West: 1971−1976”). The “teacher-centred grammar-translation methodology” (Adamson/ Morris, 1997: 16) was adopted. The fifth period (“English for modernization: 1977−1990”) was characterized by a mixture of the grammar-translation method and the audio-lingual method, and this was reflected clearly in the textbooks produced at that time. Since the beginning of the sixth period (“English for international status: from 1991”), the nation felt a real need to communicate with foreign countries and saw improving English education throughout the whole nation, particularly in secondary schools, as crucial to the task. It was clearly stated in the guidelines in the English Curriculum (for secondary schools) in 1993 that the primary goal was to develop communication (Adamson/Morris, 1997: 22). Yet to shift from the traditional grammar-translation or audio-lingual method, which most teachers felt comfortable with, to a real communicative approach was not an easy task at all. Nonetheless, the research into and advocacy of the communicative approach had started in the 1980s. This was primarily the work of Li (1984) who published her powerful and convincing article “In defence of the communicative approach” in the ELT Journal and subsequently edited a series of textbooks Communicative English for Chinese Learners (1987). As she writes in the foreword of these textbooks (1987: vi): “because the method was new in every way, it met with considerable resistance from the start”. Most teachers (and also students) still have great difficulty in accepting the new approach and dealing with the new type of teaching materials (Liao, 2000). Hu (2002) argues that the Chinese culture of learning is actually in conflict with some of the most important pedagogical assumptions underpinning the communicative approach. Hu (2002: 102) claims that fundamentally the communicative approach is “interactive” whereas the traditional Chinese culture of learning is “epistemic”; in particular the difference between the two lies in the fact that:
248
They have largely contrary assumptions about the respective roles and responsibilities of teachers and students (e.g. learner-centredness vs. teacher dominance/control). They encourage different learning strategies (e.g. verbal activeness vs. mental activeness). They reward different qualities in students (e.g. independence and individuality in CLT and receptiveness and conformity in the Chinese culture of learning).
In addition, Liao (2000) notes other practical difficulties encountered by language teachers that hinder the adoption of the communicative approach: (1) limited language proficiency, (2) lack of cultural knowledge, (3) unfamiliarity with the communicative approach, (4) pressure to cope with the old examination system. Another problem is that English teachers always have to deal with large language classrooms in which there may be more than 100 students. As a result, it seems that a real communicative approach is very difficult to apply to Chinese ELT. In reality, what has been claimed to be the communicative approach is essentially an eclectic approach combining traditional and communicative practices (Adamson/Morris, 1997; Liao, 2000). What is currently hotly debated in applied linguistics and other related fields, is the lexis-based language learning/teaching; language consists in not only individual items but also multi-word items (formulaic sequences) and mastery of these items has become the core of L2 acquisition (see also Chapter 6). Widening and promoting the research into lexis and, more broadly, phraseology, has been widely explored in recent international conferences such as “Between Europe and the Mediterranean: a shared idiomaticity” in Tunis, September, 2004, “Phraseology in Linguistics and Other Branches of Science” in Slovenia, September, 2005, “Phraseology 2005: The many faces of phraseology” in Belgium, October, 2005, and the “International Conference on Phraseology and Paremiology” in Spain, September, 2006. It seems that these new ideas and thinking have not affected Chinese ELT very much, although they have begun to attract the attention of a few Chinese researchers (e.g. Xu, 2004; Wang, 2004). It is certain that the traditional grammar-lexis dichotomy still prevails in Chinese ELT; it fits in well with the traditional Chinese culture of learning where language learning is seen essentially as “mastery of knowledge”
249
(Cortazzi/Jin, 1996a: 65); this consists in analyzing the language structure (grammar) and memorizing the many thousands of words that can be put into the structure. On the other hand, with such a tradition, vocabulary is always a focus of language learning to the point that it has never been neglected in Chinese ELT, although this learning is largely based on simple memorisation. This is not to say that the newly developed lexis-based view of language learning is of little concern to Chinese ELT since an emphasis has always been placed on vocabulary learning. The point is that the role of vocabulary learning in ELT and the learning approaches have to be reconsidered in the light of the new findings of language acquisition for one purpose only, namely, to make Chinese ELT more efficient and effective.
10.4. Other constraints of ELT in China The nation’s economic development and the national policy to promote ELT conditions for learning English are constantly improving, especially since the fifth period, as is evidenced by learners’ gradually more favourable English learning experience over the different periods (Lam, 2002). It is clear that Chinese ELT still needs to search for more appropriate approaches to ELT to better the situation. There are, however, a number of practical constraints that hinder the progress of ELT, notably, a lack of qualified teachers, over-crowded language classrooms, the absence of good teaching materials and an exam-centred educational system. As English courses feature more and more prominently in the national educational system, more and more qualified English teachers are needed. The English curriculum normally starts in the third grade of most primary schools and now the trend is to start from the first grade. In secondary school the pupils need to continue to study English for another six years. When they go on to university, the nonlanguage specialists have to take a general English course for the first
250
two years and then some of their major courses are taught in English during the remaining two years. The language policy adopted by the national education ministry requires 5% of all university non-language courses to be given in English. English will continue to be an important part of the postgraduate programmes (Masters and Doctorates). The trend is for English not to be simply treated as a foreign or second language but also as a medium to acquire knowledge (Huang/Xu, 1999). If one considers the huge school population in China, such a massive English curriculum not only requires an enormous pool of language teachers but also a high level of proficiency from them for the goal to be attained. The reality is rather disappointing. Recent statistics show that the ratio of English teachers to students (nonlanguage specialists in university) is 1:13067. Most of the teachers have just finished their four-year first degree in English and are immediately sent to teaching posts, which means they have no experience. Due to their heavy schedules and the effort they must put into preparation, they simply do not have the opportunity or time to improve professionally. As a consequence of the lack of teachers, language classrooms are invariably over-crowded. A normal class at primary or secondary school will consist of between 50 and 80 pupils. For non-language specialists in universities the situation is worse; teachers can have up to 300 students in one class. With such big classes, there is little possibility of using an interactive language learning/teaching approach and there is little alternative but to return to the traditional grammar-translation method. In such a context and given the cultural background described earlier, it is inevitable that students remain passive, that is, if they decide to attend classes at all. As for language teaching materials, there are several points to be made. First, there is a shortage of teaching materials and good ones are a rarity. Up till the 1990s, the People’s Education Press was responsible for producing language teaching materials in accordance with the national English syllabus for secondary schools for the whole country (Adamson/Morris, 1997). The same textbook could be used in 67
Currently, the number of university students is growing at a rate of 8% per year, which far exceeds the growing rate of recruitment of English teachers.
251
all secondary schools across the country. The situation in universities was rather similar, e.g. a series of textbooks College English, published by Shanghai Foreign Language Education in 1989, was in widespread use all over China for more than 10 years till the beginning of the 21st century. Other widely used textbooks include Alexander’s New Concept Series (1967) and Mainline Progress (1980). Now the situation seems to have improved, but many teachers still complain that most of the materials available for preparing students for exams are not authentic or appropriate for real language learning. Sometimes the textbooks chosen are not good at all. An article by Teng et al. (2004) shows that the textbooks used in their university were either quite unsuited to student levels or full of wrong, inappropriate or outdated expressions. Furthermore, language teachers are seldom involved in deciding what textbooks or teaching materials should be used. This is often decided by a superior authority. For example, in Yichang, central China, the textbooks in secondary schools are chosen by the education authority of the city. At the university, the situation is a little better: senior teachers put forward suggestions and these are acted upon by the authorities if the materials are well known and meet with general approval. The full freedom to choose teaching materials has never been passed on to language teachers; this is clearly a reflection of the very hierarchical and authoritative system that persists in China. It seems that in the Chinese educational system national exams are the only means of measuring students’ achievement. Secondary school pupils have to pass the national Matriculation English Test to be able to go to university. University students have to pass Band 4 or 6, of which Band 4 is a prerequisite for getting a degree. On the one hand, teachers and students are appealing for a greater focus on developing language communicative competence; on the other hand, the examination-centred education system, where the emphasis is firmly on the written language, is still thriving. This has created a dilemma in ELT. Secondary schools have to keep or improve the admission rate to universities; university teachers have to maintain the pass rate of Band 4/6; otherwise they risk a drop in salary. It is no surprise that most of them concentrate on preparing students for exams instead of focusing on oral activities that will improve their
252
communicative ability in the language. Although the government has taken initiatives to reform the language exam system, to make it less grammar-oriented and more communication-oriented, the central position of exams in the educational system, regardless of the form they will take, will not stop universities/schools/teachers focusing on them rather than on the real ability to use the language.
10.5. Recent reform in ELT in China: focus on higher education and the non-language specialist In this section, I shall focus on the recent or coming changes in language policies in universities for non-language specialists. The changes cover almost every area: syllabi, the evaluation system, teaching modes, Bands 4/6, etc. The new national university English syllabus (National Education Ministry, 2004) states that university English teaching should focus on developing English knowledge and use, learning strategies, and cross-cultural communicative competence; it should be guided by language learning theories and be operated by a system that combines multiple teaching modes and methods. The goal is to develop students’ ability to use English, particularly listening and speaking, so that they can perform effectively in English oral or written communication; moreover, they must be taught to study autonomously and to increase their cultural knowledge and awareness in order to meet the national need to develop the economy and international communication. Accordingly, an important change has been introduced into the evaluation system. Previously, evaluation solely depended on the final English exams at the end of each semester, termed the “end evaluation”. Now part of the evaluation is the “process evaluation”, including self-evaluation by individual students, mutual evaluation among students, evaluation by the teachers, and evaluation carried out by the educational administration sector. The process evaluation is
253
conducted on the basis of the record of classroom and extra-curricula activities, the record of self-study on the web, interviews or discussions, and so on. This policy seems to be more suitable for assessing students’ communicative competence than exams only. There is an even more radical change in respect of teaching mode. According to the current situation of Chinese ELT, the new policy is that teaching and learning should not be solely based on the traditional classroom but on the fast-developing information technology, particularly network technology. The aim is to make ELT more individualised, more self-initiated, and unrestricted by location and time so that both teachers and students can be actively involved in the teaching/learning process. With the new teaching mode, grammar, reading comprehension, writing, and translation are dealt with in traditional language classrooms, suitable for large numbers of students and traditional teaching approaches (e.g. teacher-centred approaches). Language learning software (stand-alone applications or network applications) will largely be concerned with listening and speaking. Students can do self-learning at their own rate and according to their own schedule; teachers will give some help to small groups of students (less than 8). The new teaching mode combines classroom teaching and language software study as shown in Figure 15. This new teaching mode is an attempt to solve the problems the university ELT is faced with. In particular, it tries to cope with the highly disproportionate student/teacher ratio. However, it still reflects a fundamental concept of the Chinese culture of learning, namely, that language is made up of knowledge and that that knowledge can be acquired by mastering different aspects of it. Listening and speaking are the basis of communicative competence and are thus considered of supreme importance, but this is no longer the teachers’ but the language learning software’s responsibility. There are two rationales for this. First, the computer is the ideal surrogate teacher to play or record oral English repeatedly without getting “bored” in the way the human teacher does. This notion is similar to what is called “Structural CALL” in the initial period of CALL development (popular from the 1960s to the 1970s). Second, listening and speaking can be done individually on computers (as it is difficult to do so in the classroom with large numbers of students). To rely on individual
254
learning on computer to develop learners’ communicative competence places a high demand on the quality of the software. Technically, it should be highly intelligent, customised, and humanised. Theoretically, it should incorporate good language learning theories and thoroughly integrate into the learning activities. If these two basic requirements cannot be met, what students can do in respect of listening and speaking on the computer will very likely follow the audio-lingual fashion: mere repetition and imitation. Another problem is whether the “artificial” interaction with the software will really lead to communicative competence (which is humanistic in nature). This is certainly an area rarely researched in the CALL field and much needs to be done before we can have a clear idea how effective this artificial interaction would be. It would seem to be a little premature to pass the responsibility for developing learners’ communicative competence from teachers to language learning software at this stage. Alternatively, CMC, which is communicative in nature, could be a good means to develop learners’ communicative competence but good language learning tasks involving pair or group learners need to be developed. Secondly, in the new teaching mode teachers are primarily responsible for giving instructions in reading, writing and translations to students. This again reflects a feature specific to L2 language learning in China where these three areas were the primary goals for a long time. In fact, these areas, particularly the first two, reading and writing, have been much more widely researched in the CALL field (at least in Europe) than other areas such as listening or speaking. In addition, fruitful findings have been achieved for the first two mentioned areas. It would seem that the new teaching mode is somewhat “odd” as it disregards these general findings in CALL. On the other hand, we should not be too critical as there may be a good reason for doing so. Chinese English teachers may have been well trained in these areas; CALL research and support in these areas may not be sufficient in Chinese L2 education. In other words, the choice made is an efficient use of human and material resources currently available in Chinese L2 education. Systematically integrating computers or, broadly speaking, old or new technologies, into the language education curriculum is the objective faced by many nations.
255
The situation in every nation is different and each may have to develop their own best approach in the course of pursuing the goal. Changes in Bands 4 and 6 are another important component of this reform. Bands 4 and 6 have been developed into a standardized test, the latest version being made up of four components: listening, reading comprehension, general knowledge, and writing. Listening used to account for 20% and has now been increased to 35%; reading comprehension has decreased from 40% to 35%. General knowledge has replaced the previous “structure and vocabulary”, accounting for 15%; it is composed of a cloze test, error correction, translation and short questions and answers. This change is in line with the progressive erosion of the dichotomy between grammar and vocabulary and aims to test learners’ ability to use language rather than their knowledge about the language. The writing component remains the same, accounting for 15%. The nation is making efforts to improve university ELT, and the reform in a series of important areas sounds very promising, despite all the problems (old or new). The reform has just started and it will take some time to see whether it will be effective and achieve its goals. The reform can be considered an important step towards improving the current situation of Chinese ELT. If the Chinese ELT authorities were to consider developing a comprehensive framework based on which Chinese learners could assess their own language achievement/ levels and compare them with language learners of other countries, such a framework would need to be close to established international standards, e.g. the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 68 . A well-constructed language assessment/ description framework can help both language teachers and language learners to understand the pedagogical goals of language learning and is hence more oriented to the attainment of the goals.
68
256
See for more information about the framework; see also for a proposal to implement the framework in the Asian context.
Students
Listening
Speaking
Reading
Writing
Translation
Computer (Stand-alone or network)
Classroom teaching
Self learning + teacher tutor
Teacher’s instruction
Teachers Figure 15. The new teaching mode combining classroom teaching and language software (The National Education Ministry, 2004: 8).
10.6. Conclusion In this chapter I provided the historical, social, cultural and linguistic backdrop to the teaching and learning of English in China, a necessary first step if we are to understand the approaches adopted and difficulties encountered in the acquisition of English vocabulary by Chinese students. The chequered career of English within the educational system until little more than two decades ago, the dearth 257
of properly trained teachers, the great cultural divide which is only now beginning to be bridged, the profound linguistic differences, the conflict between traditional Chinese and Western values which makes it difficult, sometimes almost impossible, to apply modern methods of learning, the very different relationship between students and teacher, the extreme competitiveness within the educational system where examinations have failed to encourage the development of language as a tool of communication, all these, as we have seen, are but a sample of the obstacles that have to be surmounted if Chinese students are to acquire a mastery of English, in particular its lexis.
258
Chapter 11. Vocabulary Learning Difficulties for Chinese Learners
11.1. Three areas likely to cause learning difficulties In Chapter 4 (Vocabulary Learning Difficulty), we looked at three factors that affect vocabulary learning difficulty, namely cultural difference, linguistic distance, and lexical form confusion. In this chapter, we shall see in what way these areas pose specific learning difficulty for Chinese learners and look at the typical lexical errors in each area. Three points have to be made before going further. First, it is not my intention to claim that learning difficulties necessarily lead to lexical errors. Lexical errors occur when either the lexical meaning or form is not learned or partially learned and when the target word is incorrectly comprehended or produced. Second, only lexical errors that are likely to be caused by learning difficulty are listed. This is judged by teacher experience. Third, the lexical errors illustrated are not meant to be exhaustive but to be representative and informative, so that readers can have a general idea of what kind of lexical errors Chinese learners are prone to make. The lexical errors selected below are from three main sources: (1) Chinese or native English teachers’ collection of their students’ lexical errors; (2) empirical studies on Chinese learners reported in the literature; (3) Chinese Learners’ English Corpus (CLEC)69.
69
It was compiled by Gui and Yang (2002) and contains more than one million words, composed of five types of learners: secondary school students, university students at the Band 4 level, university students at the Band 6 level, university English majors in 1st or 2nd year, and university English majors in 3rd or 4th year. The online searching engine is via: .
259
11.2. Difficulties due to cultural difference As discussed in Chapter 4, vocabulary in a language is closely related to the culture of its speakers. Learning an L2 vocabulary naturally entails learning the specific lexical concepts in the L2 culture, often associated with the speakers’ customs, beliefs, attitudes, behaviour, etc. There is a huge difference, covering a wide range of domains, between Chinese culture and the culture of English-speaking countries, or broadly Western culture. The 19th century English poet and prose writer, Rudyard Kipling, once made the widely known statement: “East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet.” Although he was referring to India as the East, this remark, though unquestionably exaggerated, applies equally well to China. Learning culture is perhaps as complex as learning language itself. Successful language learning involves the process of constructing new or different concepts of the L2 and mapping them correctly on to the L2 word forms. This reconstruction and remapping of the meaning system can be a life-long process. We also know that lexical concept gaps between the L1 and the L2, and culturally loaded words are two areas that cause difficulty in learning vocabulary even for advanced learners. There may be a number of types of lexical gaps between the L1 and the L2, but two types will definitely cause vocabulary learning difficulty: (1) a given concept in the L2 is absent from the L1; (2) two or more concepts correspond to only one L1 concept. The first type of lexical gap only makes it difficult to learn some English words such as privacy and community initially; once they are learned, they are quite safe in the learners’ mental lexicon and even reach a higher degree of automaticity and accuracy than other L2 words which have lexical overlapping with the L1 (Jiang, 2000: 68). By searching the CLEC, it is found that privacy only occurs twice in the whole one million-word corpus and community occurs 14 times. In contrast, the two words occur 9 and 378 times per million respectively in the academic component of BNC. This may suggest that learning these two words (at the productive level) is quite difficult for Chinese learners,
260
although they might be able to understand the word meaning correctly. Lexical errors caused by the second type of lexical gap are often due to the mixing up of two related but different word meanings which are not distinguished in the L1. The English word pair complex/complicated correspond to only one Chinese equivalent fuza. Most Chinese students, even when they have reached the advanced level, have difficulty in using the two English words correctly. It is the same for another pair problem/question which only has one Chinese translation: wenti. Clothes of Western style are relatively recent in China, first appearing in the 19th century. The Chinese translation of both the top and the whole (top and trousers) of the Western style is xizhuang, literally meaning western clothes and corresponding to the English word suit. Consequently, most Chinese learners use the word suit to refer to the jacket worn on its own as well as to the jacket and trousers worn together. Similarly, culturally loaded words are prone to cause lexical confusion as Chinese learners tend to attach connotations of some Chinese words to their equivalent English words which have different connotations. Often, this type of lexical error is difficult to detect since the word use can be considered accurate; nevertheless, what the (Chinese) speaker or writer intends to express might well be misunderstood by the native listener or reader. We can take humble as an example. This is very much used in Chinese as the word means to be modest and show respect to others, a virtue greatly valued in Confucianism. In contrast, humble in English is often associated with negative connotations such as weak, cowardly, poor. Consider an English conversation between a Chinese and a native English speaker, where the Chinese uses humble to describe his/her interlocutor and considers this as praise, while the other might take offence if s/he does not know the positive connotation of humble in Chinese culture. Furthermore, L2 learners may have acquired a certain degree of fluency but produce a lot of incomprehensible L2 sentences, misusing and misunderstanding culturally loaded words, or simply trying to express themselves through the eyes of their L1. This is often the case with Chinese learners of English who cannot go to an English-speaking country and most of whose learning occurs in the language classroom or on their own.
261
11.3. Difficulties due to linguistic distance As shown in Chapter 4, the major learning difficulty caused by linguistic distance is the semantic difference between the L1 and the L2. Semantic difference not only covers lexical gaps and culturally loaded words, it is also concerned with how meaning is constructed at word, phrase, and sentence levels. Many Chinese words or characters (zi) are semantically transparent due to their pictographic origin, in contrast to the abstractness of word meaning of English and many other Western languages (see Vanparys et al., 1997). Examples include fei ji (flying machine for plane), fen bi (powder pencil for chalk), shou ji (hand machine for mobile phone), dian nao (electronic brain for computer), etc. Another important feature is that the order of the words in a phrase or sentence determines the meaning of the phrase or the sentence. See the following examples (Vanparys et al., 1997: 151). Chinese yi xing zhen bai huo da zhao dai ping
yuan lou lou suo fang
English cure/doctor building = hospital administration building one hundred goods large building = department store guesthouse flat house = bungalow
It is clearly shown that in a Chinese lexical item (made up of several characters) designating a building, its typical function or feature precedes the part for the building as a modifier. In this way, the meaning of the lexical item is fairly transparent. The majority of Chinese collocations, phrases, and sentences are constructed in such a meaningful and consistent way, although there are also cases where word meaning is less transparent like in many Western languages.
262
11.3.1. Errors due to meaning confusion Due to the tremendous difficulty in handling the semantic difference between Chinese and English, learning English words places a high cognitive load on many Chinese learners who often use rote or mechanical repetition 70 in memorising English words. Often the match between meaning and form is vague, incomplete or even wrong, which inevitably leads to lexical errors. In an empirical study on lexical errors made by Chinese learners, Gu and Leung (2002) administered the Vocabulary Size Test (Goulden, Nation,/Read 1990) to 125 Chinese learners of English who were asked to write a response in either Chinese translation or English synonym(s) for each prompt English word listed in the test. By collecting the responses, they identified four types of errors: form errors, meaning errors, form and meaning errors, and part of speech errors. The last three types are related to meaning confusion. The two authors define meaning errors as “wrong responses from the retrieval of a word of related meaning, rather than of similar form” (Gu/Leung, 2002: 133). They identified two sub-types of meaning errors: paradigmatic errors and syntagmatic errors (see Table 9). Gu and Leung refer to form and meaning errors as “those errors that resulted first from a confusion of form, followed next by a confusion of meaning” (Gu/Leung, 2002: 134). They listed some examples (see Table 10). Part of speech errors are caused by “a vague match of form and meaning, without due knowledge of how the word should be used syntactically in a sentence” (Gu/Leung, 2002: 135). (See Table 11.) The two authors attributed the part of speech errors to the learners’ insufficient grammatical knowledge and claimed: “Part of speech errors may suggest a decontexualised, form-meaning pair strategy for vocabulary learning that is often found among Chinese learners of English” (Gu/Leung, 2002: 135−136).
70
It is also commonly agreed that Chinese learners’ favouring rote in learning English is partially due to the way they learned their L1, Chinese.
263
Paradigmatic
Syntagmatic
Prompt word cotton accurate hostile dig crook block hostile dig crook
Reponses by subjects maize (wheat), linen fluent, clear, real, right hate, hatred, horrible drill evildoer cement block, traffic jam, square, crowd enemy, conflict hole, well vicious
Table 9. Examples of Chinese learners’ meaning errors (adapted from Gu/Leung, 2002: 133). Target word inhabit precious precious hostile hostile crook inhabit inhabit
Form confusion inherited precise gracious hostel hesitate criminal habit no habit
Meaning confusion – Response learned, nurtured clear, detailed grateful residence doubt vicious accustomed to, customary not accustomed to
Table 10. Examples of Chinese learners’ form and meaning errors (adapted from Gu/ Leung, 2002: 134−135). Target word inhabit hostile
Error triggered habitation, inhabitant, inhabitable hostility
Table 11. Examples of Chinese learners’ part of speech errors (adapted from Gu/ Leung, 2002: 135).
11.3.2. Errors due to other areas There are other difficult areas that can be observed: pronunciation, orthography, grammatical patterns, collocation, and frequency. Generally speaking, if the L2 sounds exist or are similar in the L1,
264
they will be easy to pronounce, or vice versa. Some English vowels, such as /i:/ and /i/, are not distinguished by many Chinese learners as there is no such contrast in the Chinese sound system (Chang, 2001: 311). In the same way, Chinese learners do not always distinguish between /u:/ and /u/, /ae/, /a:/, //, or /e/, etc. (Chang, 2001: 311)71. Also, Chinese learners tend to lose the voiced feature in producing /b/, /d/, /g/ as these are voiceless in the Chinese sound system (Chang, 2001). As Chinese is a non-alphabetic language, many learners are not sensitive to the alphabetic writing system of English particularly when the word is made up of long strings of letters or the spelling does not conform to the rules. Consequently, learners of English often replace some letters with different ones, or omit them. For example, diner (dinner), docter (doctor), patten (pattern), unfortually (unfortunately), studing (studying), etc. (Chang, 2001: 313). Sometimes the wrong spelling is caused by learners’ inaccurate pronunciation as in compus (campus) and swallen (swollen) (Chang, 2001: 313). He (2004: 298) concludes that the source of spelling errors comes from negative L1 transfer, overuse or misuse of spelling regulations, mispronouncing words, and insufficient or less standard teacher/textbook language input, etc. See He (2004) for a more detailed analysis of spelling errors by Chinese secondary school students. In respect of lexical errors caused by grammatical patterns, Chinese learners generally find it difficult to learn the article the: they either use it incorrectly or do not use it at all. Many learners often confuse the gender pronouns she and he in spoken English probably because of (1) the similar sounds of the two words and (2) the two Chinese equivalents have the same pronunciation ta although the written forms are different: 他 (he); 她 (she). The absence of uncountable nouns in Chinese makes it difficult to produce the correct form of uncountable words, e.g. moneys, works, advices, etc. For the same reason, Chinese learners cannot distinguish between the present participle and the past participle of a verb when they are used as adjectives; for example: 71
This difficulty in pronouncing certain English vowels may not be unique to Chinese learners and those learners (including European learners) whose mother tongue does not have similar vowels may also face this difficulty.
265
(9)
I feel boring during the history class
(10)
We are not very interesting in this project
Another frequently quoted feature of the Chinese language is the absence of tense and inflections. It is widely documented that Chinese learners have difficulty in correctly using plurals, subject-verb agreement, and past tenses of English words. See the following examples. (11)
She brought some apple
(12)
He give his word to other people
(13)
He has been to the cinema last night
It should be noted that these errors are not only made by low level students but also by advanced learners, particularly in spontaneous speaking. It is true that in grammar tests most learners can produce the right form for each target word by using their conscious or declarative L2 knowledge. However, this knowledge might not have become proceduralised for subconscious, automatic access. This also fits in with the three-stage lexical development model of Jiang (2000, see also 2.1.2.) where morphophonological errors as such persist in learner language, particularly spontaneous oral language, for a long time, until a very advanced stage. Many Chinese learners tend to collocate English words in the same way as in Chinese. This phenomenon is not unique to Chinese learners but is rather prevalent in learners of many other mother tongues. However, the specific features of collocations of L2 words differ among learners of different L1. Consider this collocation produced by an advanced Chinese learner: reach the objective. This phrase is perfectly understandable, but sounds somewhat strange, or at least unidiomatic; we usually say: attain or achieve the objective. Apparently, the learner is confusing goal and objective, which can both be translated by one Chinese equivalent mu biao, which is often preceded by da dao, literally translated as reach. Since reach the goal is perfectly correct, the learner assumes that reach the objective should also be correct. In this case, the learner knows the basic meaning of
266
objective, but does not know its lexical constraints, or what other words it conventionally takes. Such inappropriate collocations of words are common for Chinese learners, even when they have reached an advanced level. As for frequency, Chinese learners tend to overuse certain L2 words whose underlying lexical concepts happen to be important in the L1 oral/written discourse. On the other hand, they may underuse other words whose lexical concepts do not exist in the L1. Taking connectors as an example, some connectors, such as because, so, though, but and then, which indicate direct causal relationship or order of events, feature prominently in Chinese discourse; hence it is likely that Chinese learners will overuse these words. However, they may underuse other connectors, such as therefore, thus, hence and however, relating to logical progression or alterations to the direction of an argument. Table 12 presents raw frequencies of these words between CLEC and the academic component of BNC72. From the table, it can be seen that because and so are very much overused by Chinese learners, tripling or quadrupling native speaker use. Two Chi-square tests were performed, one for the overused words (because, so, thought, but, then) and the other for the underused words (therefore, thus, however, hence) between CLEC and BNC. The result of both tests is unquestionably significant (p < 0.001), as can be seen from the table. It should be noted that the underused connectors do exist in Chinese and they are frequently used in Chinese discourse. Learners’ underuse of these connectors may be tentatively attributed to two reasons. First, the three connectors – therefore, hence, thus – are usually translated by yingci, suoyi, conger, which differ very little in meaning and can also be back translated as so. From the table it is clearly shown that so is very much overused (four times more than by native speakers) and this may explain why the other three related connectors would be underused. Secondly, underuse of these connectors may be due to the fact that they are introduced into the text books at a later stage. For example, when I looked at the frequencies of these connectors between different learner groups, I found that 72
The academic component of BNC was chosen to make it comparable to CLEC which consists of essay writing for English exams.
267
actually the learner group with the highest proficiency, the advanced English majors, used therefore almost as frequently as native speakers, if the relative frequency is calculated based on the raw frequency. Nonetheless, they still use however, thus, and hence less frequently than native speakers, but the gap is less wide than when all learner groups are included. By contrast, the learner group with the lowest proficiency, secondary school students, only used thus five times in total and the three remaining words not at all! Connector
CLEC
BNC
Because 3010 737 So 6404 1228 Though 606 350 But 6230 3607 Then 1840 922 Therefore 312 551 Thus 280 583 However 643 1217 Hence 26 130 Note: aO = overuse; bU = undersue.
Overuse/underuse percentage Oa: 308% O: 422% O: 73% O: 73% O: 85% Ub: 43% U: 52% U: 47% U: 80%
Chi-square tests
x2(4, N = 24934) = 1117.26, p < 0.001
x2(3, N = 3742) = 23.82, p < 0.001
Table 12. Raw frequencies 73 of connectors in CLEC (1.07 million words) and the academic component of BNC (in per million running words).
In general, the results support the findings of the study reported by Granger and Tyson (1996) in which they demonstrated that both overuse and underuse of connectors exist in learner language and that the overuse may indicate the L1 influence on learner language. However, the reasons, particularly for underuse of certain connectors, deserve further exploration.
73
268
What is compared is the frequency in the 1.07 million words in CLEC and the frequency per million running words in BNC. They are more or less comparable in size, therefore raw frequencies are used for each corpus.
11.4. Difficulties due to confusion of lexical forms Chinese learners have great difficulty in distinguishing words that are similar in form as they are not very sensitive to the alphabetic spelling of English words. Gu and Leung (2002) identified six categories of lexical errors (see Table 13) produced by Chinese learners based on Laufer’s 10 categories of synforms (see 4.3.: Table 1). The two authors presented an additional group of lexical errors based on syllables rather than affixes, which, according to them, was “a more appropriate way of analyzing the errors of Chinese L1 speakers when they confuse similar forms of English words” (2002: 132). They listed the following categories (see Table 14). Category 3 Category 4 Category 6 Category 8
Category 9 Category 10
Suffix present in one synform but not the other Synforms with the same root but different prefixes Synforms identical in all their phonemes except one vowel One consonant is different in the synforms One synform has one additional consonant Synforms have the same consonants but different vowels
inhabit – inhabitant, inhabitable microscope – telescope inhabit – inhibit precious – previous crook – brook block – clock crook – cook precious – precise
Table 13. Form errors classified according to Laufer’s categories (Gu/Leung, 2002: 131).
269
1 2
Similar pronunciation Same final syllable
3 4 5 6 7
Same initial syllable Same two initial syllables Same beginning and final syllables Same medial syllable Similar medial and final syllable
hostile – hostel precious – delicious, envious, previous, serious, monstrous microscope – telescope cotton – button inhabit – prohibit hostile – hostage, hospitable, host accurate – accuse accurate – accelerate inhabit – rehabilitate accurate – circulate (pronunciation of r and l may be confused as well)
Table 14. Examples of Chinese learners’ form errors based on syllables (adapted from Gu/Leung, 2002: 132).
In particular, they found one type of lexical formal error specific to Chinese learners: sometimes Chinese learners gave Chinese words that share one character with the Chinese translation of the target word but differ in the other character(s). Apparently, the learners translated the target word into Chinese and supplied another Chinese lexical item which was similar but not identical to the Chinese translation of the target word. Here the lexical confusion is caused by the form of the translated Chinese equivalent of the English word rather than the English word itself. (See Table 15.) Prompt word precious
Chinese equivalent 珍贵，宝贵
accurate microscope
准确的/精确的 显微镜
inhabit
居住
Errors elicited 珍惜 昂贵 高贵 正确的 望远镜 放大镜 移居
Back translation to value, to cherish expensive, over-priced noble right, correct telescope magnifier migrate
Table 15. Confusion of Chinese characters in Chinese equivalents (adapted from Gu/ Leung, 2002: 133).
270
11.5. Exploring lexical errors from a psycholinguistic perspective We have looked at some difficulties that Chinese learners encounter in learning English vocabulary. These difficult areas are in fact likely to result in lexical errors. Lexical errors occur in both comprehension (reading and listening) and production (speaking and writing). In order to know how lexical errors occur, we first have to know what is involved in comprehending language input or producing language output. Based on the speech production model of Levelt (1989, 1993), De Bot et al. (1997) developed a model of lexical comprehension/ production for oral and written modalities (see Figure 16). It is assumed that this model should hold true for both the L1 and L2. From Chapter 2 we know that each lexical item comprises two parts, lemma and lexeme; the lemma contains semantic and syntactic information and the lexeme the morphological and phonological information. When comprehending a lexical item, whether in oral or written form, the item has to be first decoded phonetically and then to be matched with the lexeme which will search for the corresponding lemma information in the lexicon. When both the lexeme and lemma information are accessed, the word will be comprehended as a given concept. The production of lexical items follows the same procedure, but in an inverted order. See Levelt (1993) for a detailed account of the whole process. I shall try to explain lexical errors made by Chinese learners in the light of this lexical comprehension and production model. When a Chinese learner encounters a word, say, precious, it sounds familiar to her/him, as s/he knows the word string prec___. The search for the lexeme begins and s/he finds precise, and then s/he gets the corresponding “lemma information”74 of precise. The word precious is therefore mistaken for precise, taking the form of the English word precise or its Chinese equivalent jing que de. In this case, the word precious may have or may not have been registered in the 74
For L2 learners, the L2 lemma information can be incomplete or different from that of the L1 speaker, as shown in 2.1.2.
271
learner’s L2 lexicon. If it is or was, this will probably be only the lexical form, as depicted in the formal stage of the lexical entry development (see 2.1.2.). On the other hand, when s/he tries to write a word, say pattern in a sentence, the conceptualiser (see Levelt, 1989, 1993), where concepts are formed, first produces the preverbal message for this word. The preverbal message is then matched with the lemma information of the word pattern. The lemma continues to search for the lexeme information of the word via phonological encoding; s/he finds the non-existent lexeme patten instead of pattern as the former looks very similar and is pronounced in a very similar way to the latter. It is certain that the learner has not correctly mastered the formal features of the word pattern. comprehension
production concepts
lemmas
lexicon
lexicon lexemes
decoding
speech input
written input
encoding
speech output
written output
Figure 16. Lexical comprehension/production model (adapted from De Bot et al., 1997: 315).
272
Applying the three-stage model for lexical entry development of Jiang (2000, 2002), we can predict what type of lexical errors are likely to occur in each stage: 1.
2.
3.
In the formal stage, where only the phonological information is in the lexical entry, learners may (a) make a retrieval failure (no recognition of the word), (b) pronounce or spell the word incorrectly, (c) associate it with a wrong meaning or part of speech, (d) link it with other words similar in form. In the L1 lemma mediation stage, learners may (e) use the word inappropriately in meaning or (f) in incorrect grammatical patterns (e.g. collocations). In the integration stage, learners may (g) have slip of the tongue type lexical errors, similar to those made by native speakers.
This only suggests the general pattern of lexical errors that are likely to occur at each stage. Usually errors common to the previous stages can be present in the current stage but maybe less frequently. It is also clear that a given L2 word is more likely to lead to lexical errors when it is in its formal stage in the lexicon than in other more advanced stages.
11.6. Conclusion In this chapter we went on to explore the three factors that affect vocabulary learning difficulty identified in Chapter 2 in the context of English learning in China by looking at the typical lexical errors made by learners. Multiple sources were used to collect the lexical errors, including the research literature, classroom observation, writing assignments and a learner corpus. The lexical errors made by Chinese learners, like other language errors, fall into two broad categories: interlingual and intralingual errors. Sometimes they may come from both sources, as we saw, there being no clear-cut distinction between
273
the two. Generally speaking, lexical errors are caused by imperfect match of meaning and form of the L2 words during the acquisition process, which might be due to learning difficulty, e.g. cultural and linguistic difference between the L1 and L2 or lexical form confusion, learning strategies, learning effort, mental processing, etc. To explain learner lexical errors is a complicated issue. We need to look at the learner’s L1 and L2 mental lexicon, what lexical information is contained in the lexical entry for the target word, how lexical items are retrieved and what the nature of the lexical error is, whether it is due to defective lexical representation or simply a slip of the tongue.
274
Chapter 12. Two Empirical Studies of Chinese Learners’ Approaches to Vocabulary Acquisition
12.1. An overview from the literature If vocabulary learning difficulties encountered by Chinese learners are one important source to explain their lexical development and lexical errors, the way vocabulary is learned and taught is another important source to explain the same two phenomena. Chinese learners’ approaches to English vocabulary acquisition can be generally described as “explicit learning”, as hinted at earlier. In the Chinese culture of learning, language is essentially viewed as composed of linguistic knowledge so grammar and vocabulary are always the two focal points in any language learning program. Vocabulary has been always emphasized in the language textbooks and by the teachers and the learners themselves. We shall now take a look at the textbook College English that was used extensively in universities all over China for more than 10 years. Almost all the texts are presented in the following sequential order (see also Cortazzi/Jin 1996a: 66). 1. 2.
3. 4. 5.
6. 7.
A text of one or two pages. A list of new words, for each of which three types of information are provided: (1) phonetic symbol, (2) part of speech, and (3) a Chinese or English explanation. A few phrases and expressions paraphrased in English or Chinese. Some notes for the background information about the text. An oral activity in which the students are asked to read aloud some selected sentences or phrases and pay attention to sentence boundaries and stresses. An exercise of text comprehension. A few vocabulary exercises such as matching correct definitions and filling in blanks.
275
8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
A few extra vocabulary exercises which focus on affixes to build up more words in different parts of speech. A grammar exercise on practising some structures to build sentences. A cloze test. A translation exercise. Further reading exercises.
To this end, it is clearly shown that language learning is conceptualised as linguistic knowledge, grammar and vocabulary. More attention seems to have been paid to vocabulary since most of the grammar has been covered in the six-year English course in secondary school. Now, at the university, the language learners’ primary task is to enlarge their vocabulary. Each English lesson is conducted in a way similar to the following (see also Cortazzi/Jin 1996a: 66): 1.
2.
3.
4.
276
Students are usually asked to prepare each lesson before coming to the class; this includes familiarizing themselves with the new words listed in the text, listening to the recording of the text, or practising reading the text aloud. In the classroom the teacher will ask the students to read the vocabulary items and check the pronunciation. The teacher will give more information in respect of some lexical items, such as example sentences, more meanings, and usage, etc. S/he may ask the students to read after her/him each lexical item to make sure the pronunciation is correctly mastered. Then s/he will start explaining the text: ask comprehension questions to make sure students understand the text, ask students to paraphrase some complex sentences, select more lexical items and expressions that may be useful, and some grammatical points as well. The teacher continues to go through all the exercises chronologically, one by one, or sometimes makes a selection, but goes through them in a meticulous way, to make sure that students have mastered the required vocabulary and grammar in the lesson.
In this teaching procedure, teacher talk will be dominant in the class since s/he has to present a considerable amount of linguistic knowledge (vocabulary and grammar) to the students. There may be interactional activities involving the students’ participation. However, there will probably not be enough time to organise these activities as the main effort will be put on achieving the syllabus objectives, the onus being on every teacher to do so. Although the current reform of Chinese ELT is calling for changes in both the textbooks and the teaching approaches, it will take time to see some really substantial change to the whole system. Moreover, the old system has been there for a long time and it still exerts a huge influence on the less young, adult language learners. If the reform turns out to be effective, the younger generation will undoubtedly benefit the most. It has been mentioned implicitly or explicitly in a few earlier places in this book that Chinese learners use memorisation, be it simple rote or other more sophisticated forms75, as the predominant strategy to learn vocabulary. In an investigation into Chinese university learners of English, Gan et al. (2004) found that both successful and unsuccessful learners use rote as the most valued vocabulary learning strategy. What makes the difference is that the former use other accompanying strategies such as planned review, regular reading, putting the words into use, etc., which the latter do not employ. Hu (2002: 100−101) concisely summarises language learning strategies used by Chinese learners as the four R’s and the four M’s. The four R’s stand for reception, repetition, review, and reproduction. The four M’s stand for meticulosity, memorisation, mental activeness, and mastery. There may be a number of reasons for such a specific Chinese approach to vocabulary acquisition. First, it fits in well with the traditional Chinese culture of learning. Second, it has something to do with how the L1, Chinese, is learned. Most primary school Chinese children have to spend several hours every day memorizing and practising writing Chinese characters. The way the L1 is learned will 75
Hu (2002) argues that memorisation is not necessarily associated with rote and the way Chinese learners use memorisation might suggest a deep learning approach, or learning with understanding.
277
certainly affect the way the L2 is learned, at least in the beginning. Third, it is also due to the difficulties Chinese learners encounter when learning English vocabulary.
12.2. Questionnaire: Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding vocabulary teaching 12.2.1. Constructing a questionnaire of teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding vocabulary teaching A survey of teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding vocabulary teaching was conducted in April 2005 at China Three Gorges University. A questionnaire was given to 52 English teachers of non-language specialists. It comprises two parts: the first part aims to find out what beliefs teachers hold for vocabulary teaching and learning; the second part is to find out what they actually do when teaching vocabulary in classrooms. Following Richards (1994: 1), teachers’ beliefs are defined as “the information, attitudes, values, theories, and assumptions about teaching and learning which teachers build up over time and bring with them to the classroom”. Teachers’ beliefs determine and guide their actual teaching practice. In respect of the actual teaching practice of vocabulary teaching, the questions are grouped into six categories: how to select the lexical items, how to present vocabulary, what aspects to focus on in teaching lexical items, what activities to use to assist vocabulary teaching, what vocabulary learning strategies to be recommended or taught to students, and how to help students to review vocabulary. After a final selection, 56 items (statements) were included in the questionnaire and grouped according to these seven categories (one in the first part and six in the second part). Each respondent was asked to indicate the statements that were true for them. (See Appendix 1, for the questionnaire.)
278
12.2.2. Results and discussion of the questionnaire For each statement, a percentage is calculated for the “Yes” responses out of the total responses (52). The results are set out in Table 16. Statements
Percentage n = 52
Beliefs about vocabulary teaching and learning Vocabulary should be taught explicitly in class Vocabulary should be learned off by heart from bilingual lists Students acquire a large amount of vocabulary through extensive reading Doing exercises can help learn vocabulary Vocabulary should be learned through conversations or other communicative activities Vocabulary should be consolidated by use in different contexts How do you select the lexical items to be taught? It is a key word for understanding the text. It is a frequent word that will appear in many other contexts The course book says it is important to know It belongs to the lexical field that we are studying It is a useful word for my students The word is difficult to use The word is likely to be tested in exams How do you present vocabulary? Visually (write the word out) Aurally (say the word) Kinetically (body movement, gestures, acting out the meaning, etc.) Using visual aids (videos, pictures, diagrams, real objects, etc) Using aural aids (tapes, CDs) What aspects do you focus on in teaching lexical items? Their pronunciation Their spelling Their affixes and roots Their Chinese translation Their meaning in English (a paraphrase) Related words such as antonyms and synonyms
55.77% 13.46% 90.38% 57.69% 50.00% 65.38% 80.77% 80.77% 19.23% 38.46% 71.15% 21.15% 32.69% 61.54% 57.69% 69.23% 55.77% 25.00% 61.54% 21.15% 65.38% 13.46% 65.38% 63.46%
279
88.46% I use them in good example sentences 61.54% I describe their usage 38.46% I indicate their register 76.92% I show some of their collocations 40.38% I indicate the part of speech they belong to What activities or tasks do you use to assist vocabulary teaching/learning? 65.38% Drill repetition 73.08% Vocabulary exercises (e.g. gap-filling, multiple choice, etc.) 15.38% Vocabulary games (guessing games, crosswords, etc.) 44.23% Get students to work in interactive conversations 23.08% Role plays 28.85% Listening tasks 53.85% Writing tasks 7.69% Computer software 11.54% Internet sites What vocabulary learning strategies do you recommend or teach to students? 90.38% Read extensively to enlarge and consolidate the vocabulary Use English films or songs to enlarge and consolidate the vocabulary 51.92% Participate actively in oral activities to enlarge and consolidate the 59.62% vocabulary 48.08% Think in English Organise the lexical information in a systematic way, e.g. keep a 36.54% vocabulary notebook or vocabulary cards 78.85% Use contextual or formal clues to guess the meaning Use strategies to put vocabulary in a context that will help memorise it 71.15% Learn other words in the semantic network, e.g. for types of transport, 32.69% train, car, bus, bike. 36.54% Use sound or rhymes to memorise vocabulary 19.23% Use imagery to memorise vocabulary 9.62% Ask students to reflect on their own progress in vocabulary learning 76.92% I encourage students to use vocabulary they have just learned I teach them how to use vocabulary learning strategies in a systematic 17.31% way. How do you review vocabulary with students? 1.92% Review new words in lists regularly 65.38% I review vocabulary in semantic fields 44.23% I test new vocabulary regularly
280
I regularly schedule written or oral class activities that focus on 50.00% reviewing recently learned new vocabulary I propose further reading or listening activities in which the words occur 80.77% Table 16. Percentage of vocabulary teaching beliefs and practices.
As for beliefs about vocabulary teaching and learning, what is commonly agreed by most teachers is that vocabulary can be acquired by extensive reading (90.38%). In sharp contrast, a very small number of teachers believe that vocabulary should be learned by rote from bilingual lists (13.46%). On the other hand, a considerable number of teachers also believe that explicit teaching (55.77%) and learning (doing exercises, 57.96%) can be helpful. Those who firmly believe that vocabulary should be learned by communicative activities might be a little disappointed by the moderate percentage (50%) of teachers who believe so. Regarding the belief in consolidating vocabulary by use in different contexts, the percentage (65.38%) of teachers who hold this belief is slightly better but still below Western expectations, it being generally held that language is learned by use in communicative learning. The important criteria for selecting lexical items to be taught are quite clear-cut: key words for understanding the text (80.77%), frequent words (80.77%), and useful words (71.15%). Other criteria are much less appreciated. The most favoured way of presenting lexical items appears to be by doing so kinetically (69.23%), visually (61.54%), using visual means (55.77%), and aurally (57.69%). The least favoured is using aural aids (25%). This is probably due to the fact that many teachers do not think there is enough time to play recordings to students in the class and students are supposed to listen to recordings on their own after class. It also could be that these teachers simply do not value oral aids as much as visual aids in teaching vocabulary. As for what aspects to focus on in teaching lexical items, the majority of teachers choose to focus on example sentences (88.46%) and collocations (76.92%). Other important aspects are the English meaning (65.38%) of the lexical items, related words such as antonyms or synonyms (63.46%), but not the Chinese meaning
281
(13.46%) which students can easily access from bilingual dictionaries or the vocabulary section of the textbooks. Formal information such as pronunciation (61.54%) and affixes and roots (65.38%) is also frequently attended to, except spelling (21.15%) which is probably considered to be so basic that students are supposed to take care of it themselves. In addition, word usage (61.54%) is another aspect that they will pay more attention to. Despite other possible reasons, the fact that word register (38.45%) is not emphasized by the majority of teachers is probably due to teachers’ insufficient knowledge of this area. For all sorts of reasons, most of these teachers have not been exposed sufficiently to authentic oral/written English to allow them to have knowledge of word register comparable to that of native speakers. In a sense, they are still language learners themselves. It seems that these teachers prefer traditional activities to assist vocabulary teaching/learning, notably, vocabulary exercises (73.08%), drill repetition (65.38%), and writing tasks (53.85%). Again, activities involving communicative language use, such as interactive conversation (44.23%), role plays (23.08%), and vocabulary games (15.38%), are less used. So are listening tasks (28.85%). Using computers to assist vocabulary learning comes out the lowest: internet sites (11.54%) and computer software (7.69%). Obviously these teachers do not use computer or internet resources to assist vocabulary teaching, despite the fact that vocabulary teaching/learning could be easily aided by computer technology. It would seem that there is still a long way to go before the goal is attained of integrating computer software or other computer mediated learning means into language learning as outlined in the reform of the university English education system (see Chapter 10). What is apparently needed is teacher training to train teachers to use computers efficiently to assist language teaching and the development of good quality language learning software. In accordance with the popular teacher belief that vocabulary should be learned through extensive reading, encouraging students to read extensively to enlarge and consolidate the vocabulary is the most popular strategy (90.38%) in which teachers would like to instruct their students. Accordingly, to guess the word meaning via contextual or formal clues is also a popular strategy (78.85%) that teachers would recommend to their students. They recommend putting words in con-
282
text (71.15%) to help to memorise the vocabulary. They tend to encourage students to use the newly learned vocabulary (76.92%) and to participate in oral activities to practise vocabulary (59.62%). Some memory strategies, such as imagery (19.23%), rhyming (36.54%), and using semantic networks (32.69%), are clearly not popular. It is the same for organizing lexical information systematically (36.54%). Maybe some teachers do not use these strategies themselves or do not see much value in them despite the fact that they involve deep mental processing and would doubtless lead to more efficient learning. The least popular strategy is to ask students to reflect on their own progress in vocabulary learning (9.62%); most teachers probably take it for granted that students should assume responsibility for their own progress in learning. Finally, only a small number of teachers (17.31%) claim that they have instructed students systematically in vocabulary learning strategies. The most popular recommendation for reviewing vocabulary is to propose further reading or listening in which the words will occur (80.77%). Also, teachers will often review words with students in semantic fields (65.38%) or schedule other classroom activities that will allow words to be reviewed (50%). Only one teacher (1.92%) claims that s/he would review words with students in lists regularly; more teachers claim that they test new words regularly (44.23%). In conclusion, the predominant teacher belief is that vocabulary should be learned through extensive reading. Explicit teaching and learning of vocabulary is also needed as complementary means. It would seem that teachers generally hold the view that vocabulary learning is essentially the students’ own responsibility. That vocabulary can be learned in a communicative context does not have unanimous approval. This probably reflects the fact that communicative teaching is still rather controversial among Chinese English teachers: some welcome it wholeheartedly while others are quite sceptical about its value. They prefer traditional activities, such as drill repetition or vocabulary exercises, to communicative activities or computer mediated learning to assist vocabulary teaching/learning. They encourage students to read extensively as the primary learning strategy to learn vocabulary; in addition, they recommend strategies to guess the word meaning, and to memorise vocabulary from context. It seems that
283
teachers tend to value less memory strategies, such as imagery and rhyming that involve greater cognitive effort, or metacognitive strategies, such as organising lexical information or self-checking lexical progress. This shows that teachers themselves may have limited knowledge of vocabulary learning strategies. The most important message conveyed by this questionnaire is that systematic instruction in vocabulary learning strategies is largely absent in these teachers’ language teaching practice.
12.3. Questionnaire: Students’ approaches to vocabulary learning 12.3.1. Constructing a questionnaire of process-oriented vocabulary learning strategies A survey of vocabulary learning strategies was administered to 109 Chinese first year university students majoring in subjects other than languages in April 2005 at the China Three Gorges University. A questionnaire was designed based on the learning process-oriented taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies (see 7.4.4.3.). Eight distinctive stages can be identified for acquiring vocabulary, from discovering the new word to making use of the newly learned word. In compiling the taxonomy, any strategies that fitted in with the eight stages were included. Strategies specific to Chinese learners were also selected, combined with references to a number of existing taxonomies of vocabulary learning strategies, such as Schmitt’s taxonomy (1997) and Cohen and Chi’s (2003) Language Strategy Use Inventory and Index. Finally, 55 strategies were formulated in my processoriented vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire. Applying the six-category language learning strategies identified by Oxford (1990), I assigned the 55 vocabulary learning strategies to four categories: memory, cognitive, metacognitive, and social. Authors do not always distinguish between cognitive and memory strategies as the latter
284
necessarily involve cognitive effort. In other words, cognitive strategy is a hypernym of memory strategy. Following Schmitt (1997), memory strategies are treated as being more similar to the mnemonic type of strategies, which require deep mental processing and effort. Cognitive strategies will cover those strategies involving direct, mechanical means of committing vocabulary to memory as well as strategies involving mental processing. Students are required to indicate the frequency of each strategy they actually use. Frequencies range from never, rarely, sometimes, often and always, equated with the number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively. (See Appendix 2 for the questionnaire.)
12.3.2. Results and discussion of the questionnaire An average is calculated for the frequency of use of each strategy. Each strategy listed is preceded by the initial code of the category they belong to (cf. Schmitt, 1997). See Table 17 for the results. Strategies 1. How do you discover new vocabulary? COG1 From text books and classroom learning activities COG2 From lists of vocabulary arranged alphabetically COG3 From lists of vocabulary arranged semantically SOC1 From English conversations with others (teacher, classmates, foreigners) MET1 From reading English materials (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.) MET2 From English songs and movies/TV programmes MET3 From the internet (online English pages, chatting) 2. What do you do on encountering new vocabulary? MET4 Ignore it MET5 Ignore it first and come back later to it COG4 Try to guess the meaning from the context COG5 Analyse affixes and roots for the meaning SOC2 Ask classmates or the teacher for the meaning COG6 Consult a bilingual dictionary
Av.
Frequency
4.13 2.76 2.38
often sometimes rarely
2.17
rarely
2.95
sometimes
2.78 2.33
sometimes rarely
2.81 3.63 3.62 3.03 2.64 3.63
sometimes often often sometimes sometimes often
285
COG7 Consult a monolingual dictionary 3. When learning a new vocabulary item, what aspects do you study? COG8 Study the pronunciation COG9 Study the spelling COG10 Study the part of speech (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) COG11 Study the Chinese translations COG12 Study the English explanations COG13 Study the affixes and roots COG14 Study the example sentences COG15 Study the way the word is used (e.g. prevent sb from doing sth) COG16 Study the collocations (e.g. make money/ a profit) 4. How do you organise the information about the new vocabulary?
1.99
rarely
4.28 4.36 3.47 4.45 2.76 2.73 3.45
often often sometimes often sometimes sometimes sometimes
3.50
sometimes
3.82
often
COG17 Jot down the information on paper MET6 Organise the information in a vocabulary notebook MET7 Make vocabulary cards COG18 Use the vocabulary section in the textbook COG19 Use vocabulary lists (e.g. those in vocabulary books for Band 4) 5. How do you memorise vocabulary? COG20 Say the word aloud several times COG21 Copy the word out several times COG22 Look at the word several times COG23 Memorise bilingual lists COG24 Do vocabulary exercises MEM1 Connect the word to its synonyms or antonyms MEM2 Connect the word with other already known words that have a formal resemblance (e.g. dam, damage) MEM3 Compare words similar in meaning and study them together MEM4 Group and organise words (e.g.. in a meaningful way: part of speech, topic, etc.) MEM5 Place the word in a context (a meaningful sentence, conversation, or story) to remember it MEM6 Make up a phrase or a sentence containing the word MEM7 Listen to the sound recording of the words
2.48
rarely
3.28 2.14 2.67
sometimes rarely sometimes
2.23
rarely
3.88 3.54 3.34 2.49 2.60 2.78
often often sometimes rarely sometimes sometimes
2.83
sometimes
3.14
sometimes
2.61
sometimes
3.32
sometimes
2.42 2.71
rarely sometimes
286
MEM8 Make up rhymes to link words MEM9 Practise words (e.g. verbs) by acting them out MEM10 Make a mental image of new words (or the sentence with the word) MEM11 Draw pictures to illustrate the meaning of new words COG25 Visualize the word form mentally COG26 Remember the affixes and roots of new words 6. How do you review vocabulary? MET8 Review words periodically MET9 Test yourself on new words SOC3 Test new words with classmates 7. How do you retrieve vocabulary? COG27 Look at the meaningful parts of the words (affixes or roots) COG28 Make an effort to remember where I first met the words 8. How do you make use of new vocabulary? MET10 Try to use new words in speaking and writing MET11 Make an effort to use idiomatic expressions MET12 Try to think in the target language with the new vocabulary SOC4 Interact with native speakers/teachers/classmates with the new vocabulary
2.23 2.05
rarely rarely
2.95
sometimes
2.01 3.78 3.02
rarely often sometimes
3.42 2.72 2.22
sometimes sometimes rarely
3.02
sometimes
3.58
often
3.25 2.88
sometimes sometimes
2.48
rarely
1.98
rarely
Table 17. Average of vocabulary learning strategy use frequency.
The average frequency for each strategy indicates the general trend of strategy use among these students. It is seen that students mostly discover new lexical items in textbooks and language classes (4.13). They sometimes find new items themselves when reading other materials (2.95), listening to English songs or watching movies (2.78), and from vocabulary lists in alphabetical order (2.76). On the other hand, they rarely discover new words from interactive conversation (2.17), internet (2.33), or vocabulary lists arranged semantically (2.38). It seems that language textbooks and classes are the main source for new lexical items, which is quite understandable since introducing new lexical items and exercises for practising vocabulary feature prominently in textbooks. Only occasionally do they take the initiative to look for new words outside the context of classroom learning. The
287
fact that they rarely find new words in interactive conversation implies that they probably have little opportunity to speak or rarely voluntarily seek opportunities to use the language in real communicative situations. Vocabulary lists arranged semantically rarely appear in language learning materials, which is why students use such lists markedly less frequently than those arranged in alphabetical order. On encountering new words, students often try to guess the meaning from the context (3.62) or come back to the words later (3.63). They may check in a bilingual dictionary (3.63) but very rarely a monolingual dictionary (1.99). Little use of the latter type is probably due to their lack of English proficiency. Occasionally they ignore the words (2.81) or else ask classmates or teachers for the meaning (2.64). Sometimes they will use word part knowledge to work out the meaning (3.03); acquiring word part knowledge seems to be an important component of building up vocabulary knowledge in Chinese ELT, e.g. there are many exercises on building words with affixes in the textbook. When studying a new word, very often they will focus on four types of word information: Chinese translation (4.45), spelling (4.36), pronunciation (4.28), and collocation(s) (3.82). Less frequently they will attend to other types of information: word use (3.50), part of speech (3.47), example sentences (3.45), English explanation (2.76), and lastly affixes and roots (2.73). It is normal that the most important information about new words for these learners is the meaning in Chinese, and matching it with the word form (spelling, pronunciation). Other types of information, such as word use, part of speech, English explanation, etc., may be important but are not given priority and are therefore less attended to. The results regarding how to organise new vocabulary information show that generally these students do not have their own systematic way of storing vocabulary information. They only use vocabulary notebooks occasionally (3.28), less frequently relying on the vocabulary section in the textbook (2.67). If their primary goal is to remember the meaning of the word as shown above, they probably do not see the need to arrange neatly all information relating to the word, particularly as this would involve more time and effort.
288
The most popular strategies for memorising lexical items are mechanical means, such as repeating the words orally (3.88) or by copying the written forms (3.54), or else by doing so mentally (3.78). Interestingly, the students do not seem to use bilingual lists (2.49) as often as they make use of rote, despite the fact that the two are closely associated with each other. It is possible that they dissociate the bilingual lists from the vocabulary lists/section in their textbooks. The results also show that the students do occasionally use different types of deep processing memory strategies, such as placing words in context (3.32), comparing (3.14) and grouping (2.61) words, remembering word affixes and roots (3.02), making mental images of words (2.95), associating words with similar forms (2.83), and listening to the words to help remember them (2.71), etc. They rarely draw pictures (2.01) to help memorise words, thinking perhaps that this might be considered too childish; the same would be for acting out the word meaning (2.05). Nor do they make up their own rhymes to link words (2.23), this obviously being more challenging than linking words verbally (2.42) or by images. The students do not often review words systematically: they sometimes review words periodically (3.42), test words themselves (2.72), but rarely test words with others (2.22). Similarly, they do not make much use of newly learned vocabulary. They occasionally use the words in speaking or writing (3.25) or make an effort to use idiomatic expressions (2.88). Seldom do they use the words interactively (1.98), which might be due to their lack of opportunity to speak with native speakers or simply to their failure to take the initiative to speak with teachers or classmates. To think in English by incorporating the new words is also rarely used (2.48). Another way to interpret the results is to look at each of the eight groups of strategies that correspond to the eight steps of vocabulary acquisition (see Table 18). This can give us a rough idea how much effort learners make in vocabulary learning at each step and how often they use the strategies of each group. Table 18 gives an average of frequency for each group of strategies.
289
Group strategies 1. Discovering new vocabulary 2. Encountering new vocabulary 3. Studying new vocabulary 4. Organizing information about new vocabulary 5. Memorizing vocabulary 6. Reviewing vocabulary 7. Retrieving vocabulary 8. Making use of new vocabulary
Mean 2.79 3.05 3.65 2.56 2.87 2.79 3.30 2.65
Use frequency sometimes sometimes often sometimes sometimes sometimes sometimes sometimes
Table 18. Mean of use frequency of group strategies.
Table 18 seems to show that the students only use strategies adequately in the third step, i.e. when studying the various aspects of the new vocabulary item (3.65). They also make considerable effort to retrieve the new item when they encounter it again at the seventh step (3.30). The remaining steps are not adequately addressed, particularly regarding organizing the lexical information (2.56), making use of new vocabulary, reviewing vocabulary (2.79) and memorising vocabulary (2.87). If we group all the 55 strategies according to the codified category they belong to, we can see how often the students make use of each category of strategies in learning vocabulary. (See Table 19) It is clearly seen that in respect of vocabulary learning, students generally use more cognitive strategies, followed by metacognitive strategies, memory strategies and, least of all, social strategies. This is true in terms of both the number and the average frequency of use of strategies in each category. Category of strategies Cognitive Metacognitive Memory Social
Total number of strategies 28 12 11 4
Table 19. Mean of use frequency of codified strategies.
290
Mean of use frequency 3.25 2.89 2.64 2.25
In conclusion, the results of the questionnaire generally confirm what has been found for Chinese learners in respect of vocabulary learning. They rely on textbooks and classroom learning activities as the primary source to discover new lexical items. They lack the initiative to seek other sources or opportunities to do so, especially from social interactive conversations. They will try to get the meaning of new words by either guessing or checking in a bilingual dictionary. They focus on studying the Chinese meaning and formal information of the new lexical item. Generally they do not have a systematic way of recording the lexical information of new lexical items. They use rote (oral/written repetition) as the primary strategy for memorising words and the focus is apparently on the word form and the Chinese meaning. Other memory strategies are also used, but less frequently. They do not have the habit of reviewing words systematically, which means words are often learned only once. In compensation, they use more retrieving strategies to recall the word on later encounters. They seldom put newly learned words into use. By looking at the strategies grouped according to the eight learning steps identified, it is found that only the third step (studying various types of word information) and the seventh step (retrieving) are dealt with adequately; the remaining steps are carried out rather inadequately. By grouping the strategies according to the four categories, cognitive, metacognitive, memory, and social, it is found that for these students vocabulary learning primarily involves cognitive, metacognitive and memory processing and effort, all of which is done individually and seldom socially or interactively.
12.4. Conclusion Firstly, it seems that both the teachers and the students believe that vocabulary should be learned explicitly, which is consistent with what we saw earlier (see Chapter 10). For both teachers and students, vocabulary is primarily learned through individual activities, involving
291
cognitive, metacognitive, and memory effort, but also, though less often, by means of social interactive activities. Students rely more on mechanical means to memorise lexical items, which is inefficient and may well lead to lexical errors as most students simply link the Chinese meaning with the English form for a given word regardless of the differences in meaning, connotation and use between the two words in each language. Secondly, teachers opt for extensive reading as a primary means for students to learn vocabulary. It seems that teachers have not given sufficient help to their students who, for a variety of reasons, do not often read other materials except textbooks, contrary to what the teachers would have expected. Lastly, it is found that teachers generally do not incorporate systematic vocabulary learning strategy instruction into their teaching; they themselves may not have sufficient knowledge of strategy use or training. This might explain why students have not made adequate use of strategies: mere unawareness. It might also explain why students seldom read extensively despite their teachers’ encouragement to do so: they are simply not equipped with the necessary strategies to do so efficiently. We need to introduce a series of vocabulary learning strategies systematically to students. The students first have to know about these strategies and then they can choose those that suit them and make effective use of them. This also calls for teacher training for strategy instruction. One solution would be to design CAVL software that would allow students to acquire useful vocabulary learning strategies in the course of learning new vocabulary.
292
General Conclusion
Acquiring an L2 essentially involves acquiring its vocabulary, consisting of thousands of individual or multi-word items. What needs to be acquired for a lexical item includes formal, morphological, semantic and syntactic information. Once acquired, this knowledge can be accessed consciously as declarative knowledge or otherwise as procedural knowledge where the retrieving process is fast and automatic. How well a word is known is assessed from four angles, depth and breadth, on the one hand, which determine to what extent the word is known, and reception and production, on the other, which determine the degree to which the word can be retrieved for language use. We saw too that the acquisition of L2 vocabulary is an incremental process. First, the word form needs to be mapped on to the word meaning. Once this basic link is established, however imperfectly, more information can be progressively added and the item integrated with other words through subsequent learning and exposure. Even though much modification is made to the initial meaning-form mapping, it is necessary to ensure that this first stage is successful. In the subsequent build-up of knowledge, listening and cultural awareness emerge as key factors. In the first instance, perception, pronunciation and long-term retention are reinforced; in the second, the lexical confusions and errors caused by interlingual factors are reduced. Vocabulary acquisition has been regarded as both implicit and explicit, the focus being either on the meaning or the form of the new items. While explicit learning is more likely to make the meaningform link, implicit learning provides opportunities for incorporating and consolidating words within the mental lexicon. Successful vocabulary acquisition programs consist in integrating explicit learning with implicit learning; initially learning is explicit whereas subsequently the two are complementary and can both serve to promote later learning. Although vocabulary learning is often perceived
293
and spoken of in terms of one-word items, the quantity of multi-word items is much larger. Furthermore, all that has been said in respect of breadth and depth, reception and production, meaning-form mapping, listening, cultural awareness, and explicit/implicit learning, is applicable to these items, which often constitute more of a learning challenge. Although some approaches have been developed in respect of some such items, in particular idioms, notably imagery and mnemonic techniques, there is a need for suitable approaches to promote the learning of other types of multi-word items. To return to explicit and implicit learning: to date these approaches have been primarily conceptualised in terms of language learning programmes or activities. These external factors do not take into account individual learning differences. Internal factors should also be considered in order to improve learning efficiency. Learners need to be aware of their learning styles, which will influence the learning strategies they employ. Developing learning strategies is the most efficient way to facilitate autonomous learning, particularly in terms of implicit learning where learners are supposed to read extensively on their own. If learning strategies are used appropriately, they will help learners to learn vocabulary more efficiently, which will in turn increase their motivation, a crucial factor in determining the L2 competence ultimately attained. This is what I called a learner-focused approach, summarised in the “learner-focused model of SLVA” (see Chapter 7: Figure 7). On the basis of the knowledge acquired in respect of vocabulary acquisition and CALL, I have attempted to construct a comprehensive framework to conceptualise CAVL so that it can be developed into a legitimate sub-domain of CALL. In line with the development of CALL, CAVL has graduated from the simple, drill and practice type of tutor to the current integrated tutor and tool stage where both intelligent tutors, which take into account efficient vocabulary acquisition processes, and CMC tools, which emphasise collaborative learning and social interaction, combine and complement each other. The CAVL applications that can be generally classified as tutor and tool fall into two broad categories: lexical programs/tasks and lexical resources/aids, the former comprising primary learning activities, the latter supplying additional lexical information. The lexical programs/
294
tasks can be further sub-divided into four categories that range from tool/implicit/meaning-focused to tutor/explicit/form-focused. While dedicated tutorial CAVL programs are particularly geared to vocabulary learning in terms of pedagogical efficiency, other types of program can also contribute to vocabulary learning in a variety of ways if appropriately used in combination with each other or simply with other language learning activities. The efficiency of all types of programs has been evaluated using the CAVL evaluation framework that I constructed; this takes into account both the vocabulary learning process and the learning outcome, both the direct learning benefit and the indirect affective impact. We see that the success of a given CAVL program largely depends on the quality of the vocabulary processing, i.e. how successful the initial lexical meaning and form mapping is. Given that all types of CAVL programs can be conducive to vocabulary learning to varying degrees, it seems more sensible to integrate them systematically into the vocabulary learning curriculum than to favour one or more to the exclusion of others. This would be a further goal for CAVL. In line with these differences between individual learners (discussed in Chapter 7), I drew attention to those that exist between learners of different cultures. Since the focus of my interest has been on Chinese students learning English in China, it was important to determine the salient characteristics. One, which is obviously a barrier to attaining oral, interactive, communicative competence, is the prevalent view, held by teachers and students, that language is a type of knowledge just as with other subjects that are studied. Linguistic knowledge is thus passed from the giver, the teacher, to the students, the receivers, who are supposed to retain it by memorisation. So it is with vocabulary and, given such a conceptualisation of learning, it is not uncommon to come across students who have learned whole dictionaries or lists of several thousand words by heart but who cannot communicate in English. My empirical investigation into the current situation has shown that both teachers and students hold the view that vocabulary learning should be explicit and that it should be achieved primarily through individual learning effort. Students typically rely on mechanical means to memorise vocabulary items, often focusing on mapping the
295
L2 word form on to the Chinese translation while ignoring other memory strategies that require more mental effort. Teachers, on the other hand, do not incorporate strategy instruction systematically into their language courses. They typically recommend that the students read extensively to enlarge and consolidate vocabulary items, which the majority of students apparently fail to do as they lack the necessary means or strategies to cope with the unfamiliar reading context. Fundamentally, this specifically Chinese approach to vocabulary learning can be attributed to the Chinese culture of learning, the way the L1, Chinese, is learned. It seems that the prerequisite to improve the situation would be to give systematic strategy instruction to learners.
296
References
Adamson, B. / Morris, P. 1997. The English curriculum in the People’s Republic of China. Comparative Education Review. 41, 3–26. Adolphs, S. / Durow, V. 2004. Social-cultural integration and the development of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 107–126. Aitchison, J. 1994. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell. Alexander, L. G. 1967. New Concept English. London: Longman. Alexander, L. G. 1980. Mainline Progress A and B. London: Longman. Allum, P. 2004. Evaluation of CALL: Initial vocabulary learning. ReCALL. 16/2, 488–501. Al-Seghayer, K. 2001. The effect of multimedia annotation modes on SLVA: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology. 5/1, 202–232. Ames, W. S. 1966. The development of a classification scheme of contextual aids. Reading Research Quarterly. 11/1, 57–82. Anderson, J. R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press. Anderson, R. C. / Freebody, P. 1981. Vocabulary knowledge. In J.T. Guthrie (ed.) Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 77–117. Asher, J. J. 1964. Towards a neo-field theory of behaviour. Journal of humanistic psychology. 4, 85–94. Asher, J. J. 1972. Children’s first language as a model for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal. 56, 133–139. Asher, J. J. 1983. Learning another language through actions. Los Gatos, California: Sky Oaks Productions, Inc. Asher, J. J. / Kusudo, J. / de la Torre, R. 1974. Learning a second language through commands: The second field test. The Modern Language Journal. 58/1–2, 24–32.
297
Atkinson, R.C. / Raugh, M. R. 1975. An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 104/2, 126–133. Barcroft, J. 2002. Semantic and structural elaboration in L2 lexical acquisition. Language Learning. 52/2, 323–363. Barcroft, J. 2004. Second language vocabulary acquisition: A lexical input processing approach. Foreign Language Annals. 37/2, 200–208. Barlow, M. 2004. Collocate 1.0. Houston: Athelstan. Beck, I. L. / McKeown, M. G. / McCaslin, E. S. 1983. Vocabulary development: All contexts are not created equal. The Elementary School Journal. 83/3, 177–181. Beheydt, L. 1987. The semantization of vocabulary in foreign language learning. System. 15, 55−67. Beheydt, L. 1990. CALL and vocabulary acquisition in Dutch. In P. J. Kingston, C. Zähner, A. Beutner (eds) Languages, continuity, opportunity. London: CILT, 186–192. Bialystok, E. 1995. Towards an explanation of second language acquisition. In B. Gillian et al. (eds), Language and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 115–138. Bialystok, E. / Sharwood Smith, M. 1985. Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second-language acquisition. Applied Linguistics. 6, 101–117. Boers, F. 2000. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics. 21/4, 553–571. Boers, F. 2004. Expanding learner’s vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary. In M. Achard, S. Niemeier (eds) Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 211–232. Boers, F. / Demecheleer, M. 2001. Measuring the impact of crosscultural differences on learners’ comprehension of imageable idioms. ELT Journal. 55/3, 255–262. Boers, F. / Demecheleer, M. / Eyckmans, J. 2004. Etymological elaboration as a strategy for learning figurative idioms. In P. Bogaards, B. Laufer (eds) Vocabulary in a second language,
298
selection, acquisition and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 53–78. Boers, F. / Lindstromberg, S. 2005. Finding ways to make phraselearning feasible: the mnemonic effect of alliteration. System. 33, 225–238. Bouziane, A. 2006. Review of LinC (Language Interactive Culture) English-beginners. CALICO Journal. 23/3, 219–230. The British Council. 1995. English language teaching profile of the People’s Republic of China. Beijing: The British Council. Carroll, J. B. / Davies, P. / Richman, B. 1971. The American heritage word frequency book. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc. Chang, J. 2001. Chinese speakers. In M. Swan, B. Smith (eds) Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 310–324. Chapelle, C. 1998a. Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. F. Bachman, A. D. Cohen (eds) Interface between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 32–70. Chapelle, C. 2001. Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheng, C. 2004. Theory and practice of data-driven learning. In A. He, L. Wong. / M. Xu, X. Cheng (eds) Application of corpora to foreign language education: Theory and Practice. Guangzhou: Guangdong Higher Education Press, 95–104. Chiswick, B. / Miller, P. 2004. Linguistic distance: a quantitative measure of the distance between English and other Languages. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from: . Chun, D. M. / Plass, J. J. 1996. Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal. 80/2, 183–198. Coady, J. 1993. Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in context. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, J. Coady (eds) Second language reading and vocabulary learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 3–23.
299
Coady, J. 1997. SLVA: A synthesis of research. In J. Coady, T. Huckin (eds) Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 273–290. Coady, J. / Magoto, J. / Hubbard, P. / Graney, J. / Mokhtari, K. 1993. High frequency vocabulary and reading proficiency in ESL readers. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, J. Coady (eds) Second language reading and vocabulary learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 217–227. Cobb, T. 1997. Is there measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System. 25/3, 301–315. Cobb, T. / Stevens, V. 1996. A principled consideration of computers and reading in a second language. In M. C. Pennington (ed.) The power of CALL. Houston, TX: Athelstan, 115–135. Cohen, A. D. 1987. The use of verbal and imagery mnemonics in second-language vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 9, 43–62. Cohen, A. D. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. Cohen, A. D. 2003. The learner’s side of foreign language learning: where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? IRAL. 41, 279–291. Cohen, A. D. / Chi, J. C. 2003. Language Strategy Use Inventory and Index. Retrieved: January 10, 2005 from . Cohen, A. D. / Dörnyei, Z. 2002. Focus on the language learner: motivation, styles and strategies. In N. Schmitt (ed.) An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Arnold, 170–190. Cohen, A. D. / Oxford, R. L. / Chi, J. C. 2005. Learning style survey: assessing your own learning styles. Retrieved January 10 2005 from . Cohen, A. D. / Paige, R. M. / Kappler, B. / Demmessie, M. / Weaver, S. J. / Chi, J. C. / Lassegard, J. P. 2003. Maximizing study abroad: A language instructor’s guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). Colpaert, J. 2004. Design of online interactive language courseware: conceptualisation, specification and prototyping. Research into
300
the impact of linguistic-didactic functionality on software architecture. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Antwerp, Belgium. Retrieved June 8, 2005, from . Condon, N. / Kelly, P. 2002. Does cognitive linguistics have anything to offer English language learners in their efforts to master phrasal verbs? ITL Review of Applied Linguistics. 137–138, 205–231. Confucius. 1996. The analects. Translated by A. Waley. Ware: Wordsworth. Cortazzi, M. / Jin, L. 1996a. English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching, 29, 61–80. Cortazzi, M. / Jin, L. X. 1996b. Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (ed.) Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 169–206. Cowie, A. P. 1998. Introduction. In Cowie A. P. (ed.) Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Craik, F. I. M. / Lockhart, R. S. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 11, 671–684. Craik, F. I. M. / Tulving, E. 1975. Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 104/3, 268–294. Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopaedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dagneaux, E. / Denness, S. / Granger, S. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System. 26, 163–174. Day, R. / Omura, C. / Hiramatsu, M. 1991. Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7/2, 541–551. De Bot, K. 1992. Bilingual production model: Levelt’s speaking model adapted. Applied Linguistics. 13/1, 1–25. De Bot, K. / Paribakht, T. S. / Wesche, M. B. 1997. Towards a lexical processing model for the study of second language vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from ESL reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19/3, 309–329.
301
De Cock, S. 1998. A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 3/1, 59–80. De la Fuente, M. 2003. Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in SLVA. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 16/1, 47–81. De Ridder, I. 2002. Visible or invisible links: does the highlighting of hyperlinks affect incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language Learning & Technology. 6/1, 123–146. De Saussure, F. 1974. Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana, Collins. Decoo, W. 1994. In defence of drill and practice in CALL: A reevaluation of fundamental strategies. Computers & Education. 23/ Decoo, W. / Heughebaert, E. / Schonenbert, N. / Van Elsen, D. 1996. The standard vocabulary programs of Didascalia: In search of external versatility and didactic optimisation. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 9/4, 319338. Dekeyser, R. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. In J. Doughty, M. L. Long (eds) The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 313–348. Desmarais, L. / Duquette, L. / Renié, D. / Laurier, M. 1997. Evaluating learning and interaction in a multimedia environment. Computers and the Humanities. 31, 327–349. Dörnyei, Z. 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal. 78, 525–523. Dörnyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching. 31, 117–135. Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Dörnyei, Z. 2002. The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (ed.) Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 137–117.
302
Dörnyei, Z. / Ottó, I. 1998. Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London). 4, 4369. Dörnyei, Z. / Durow, V. / Zahran, K. 2004. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87–106. Drum, P. A. / Konopak, B. 1987. Learning word meanings from written contexts. In M. G. McKeown, M. E. Curtis (eds) The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 73–87. Dunn, L. M. / Dunn, L. M. 1981. PPVT: Peabody picture vocabulary test. Revised version. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Dunn, R. / Griggs, S. 1988. Learning styles: Quiet revolution in American secondary schools. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Duquette, L. / Renié, D. / Laurier, M. 1998. The evaluation of vocabulary acquisition when learning French as a second language in a multimedia environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11/1, 3–34. Ebbrell, D. / Goodfellow, R. 1996. Learner, teacher and computer – A mutual support system. In New Horizons in CALL, Proceedings of Eurocall 96. Szombatheley. Hungary: Berzsenyi Daniel College. Ehrman, M. E. 1996. Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ehrman, M. E. / Oxford, R. L. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal. 73, 1–13. Ehrman, M. E. / Oxford, R. L. 1990. Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal. 74/3, 311–327. Ehrman, M. E. / Leaver, B. L. / Oxford, R. L. 2003. A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System. 31, 313–330. Ellis, N. (ed.) 1994a. Implicit and Explicit learning of language. London, San Diego: Academic Press.
303
Ellis, N. 1994b. Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive mediation. In N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and Explicit learning of language. London, San Diego: Academic Press, 211–282. Ellis, N. 1995a. Vocabulary acquisition: psychological perspectives. The Language Teacher. 19/2, 12–16. Ellis, N. 1995b. The psychology of foreign language vocabulary acquisition: Implications for CALL. Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning. 8/23, 103–128. Ellis, N. 2001. Memory for language. In P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 33–68. Ellis, N. 2002. Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 24, 143–188. Ellis, R. / He, X. 1999. The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21/2, 285–301. Ervin-Tripp, S. 1974. Is second language learning like the first? TESOL Quarterly. 8, 111–127. Eyckmans, J. / Beeckmans, R. / Van de Velde, H. 2002. The paired vocabulary test. Paper presented at the Conference of Second Language Vocabulary Colloquium, Leiden, Holland. Feyten, C. M. 1991. The power of listening ability: an overlooked dimension in language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal. 75, 173–180. Francis, W. N. / Kučera, H. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gan, Z. / Humphreys, G. / Hamp-Lyons, L. 2004. Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese Universities. The Modern Language Journal. 88/2, 229–244. Gardner, R. C. 1985. Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gary, J. O. 1975. Delayed oral practice in initial stages of second language learning. In M. Burt, H. Dulay (eds) New directions in second language teaching, learning and bilingual education. Washington, D. C.: TESOL, 89–95.
304
Gary, N. / Gary, J. O. 1982. Packaging comprehension materials: towards effective language instruction in difficult circumstances. System. 10/1, 61–69. Gass, S. / Selinker, L. 2001. Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gass, S. 1988. Second language vocabulary acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 9, 92–106. Goodfellow, R. 1994. A computer-based strategy for foreign-language vocabulary learning. Unpublished PhD thesis, Open University, UK. Goodfellow, R. 1995. A review of the types of CALL programmes for vocabulary instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2–3, 205–226. Goodfellow, R. 1999. Evaluating performance, approach and outcome. In K.Cameron (ed.) CALL: Media, design, and applications. Lisse: The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, 109–140. Goulden, R. / Nation, P. / Read, J. 1990. How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics. 11/4, 341–363. Granger, S. (ed.) 1998a. Learner English on Computer. London/New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Granger, S. 1998b. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: collocations and lexical phrases. In A. P. Cowie (ed.) Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 145–160. Granger, S. 2002. A Bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung, S. Petch-Tyson (eds) Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–33. Granger, S. / Hung J. / Petch-Tyson S. (eds) 2002. Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Granger, S. / Tribble, C. 1998. Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger (ed.) Learner English on Computer. London/New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 199–211.
305
Granger, S. / Tyson, S. 1996. Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes. 15/1, 1727. Groot, P. J. M. 2000. Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology. 4/1, 60–81. Gu, Y. / Johnson, R. K. 1996. Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning. 46/4, 643–679. Gu, Y. / Leung, C. B. 2002. Error patterns of vocabulary recognition for EFL learners in Beijing and Hong Kong. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching. 12, 121–141. Gui, S. / Yang, H. 2002. Chinese English Learner Corpora. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Hammerly, H. 1984. Contextualized-visual aids (filmstrips) as conveyors of sentence meaning. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 22/2, 87–94. Hansen, C. 1991. Language in the Heart-Mind. In R. Allinson (ed.) Understanding the Chinese Mind. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 75–124. Harley, B. 1996. Vocabulary learning and teaching in a second language. Canadian Modern Language Review. 53, 3–12. Harrington, M. / Levy, M. 2001. CALL begins with a ‘C’: Interaction in computer-mediated language learning. System. 29, 15–26. He, A. 2004. Analysis of English spelling errors of Chinese students. In A. He, L. Wong. / M. Xu, X. Cheng (eds) Application of corpora to foreign language education: Theory and Practice. Guangzhou: Guangdong Higher Education Press, 288–298. Hémard, D. 2004. Enhancing online CALL design: The case for evaluation. ReCALL. 16/2, 502–529. Henriksen, B. 1999. Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21, 303–317. Hirsh, D. Nation, I. S. P. 1992. What vocabulary is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language. 8, 689–696. Hoijer, H. 1994. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In L, Samovar, R.E. Porter (eds) Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont, CA: Wardsworth, 194–200.
306
Horst, M. / Cobb, T. / Nicolae, I. 2005. Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on-line database. Language Learning & Technology. 9/2, 90–110. Howarth, P. 1998. Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19/1, 24–44. Hu, G. 2002. Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 15/2, 93–105. Huang, Y. / Xu, H. 1999. Trends in English Language Education in China. ESL Magazine. 2, 26–28. Hubbard, P. 2001. The use and abuse of meaning technologies. Contact. 27, 82−86. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from . Hubbard, P. 2003. A survey of unanswered questions in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 16/2−3, 141–154. Hubbard, P. 2004. Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos, C. Browne (eds) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 45–67. Hubbard, P. / Siskin, C. B. 2004. Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL. 16/2, 448–461. Huckin, T. / Coady, J. 1999. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21/2, 181–193. Huitt, W. 2001. Motivation to learn: An overview. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved July 1 2005, from . Hulstijn. J. 1992. Retention of inferred and given word vocabulary learning. In P. J. Arnaud and H. Béjoint (eds), Vocabulary and applied linguistics. London: Macmillan, 113–125. Hulstijn, J. 2001. Intentional and incidental learning: a reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (ed.) Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 258–286.
307
Hulstijn, J. 2003. Incidental learning and intentional learning. In J. Doughty, M. L. Long (eds) The handbook of second language acquisition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 349–381. Hulstijn, J. / Hollander, M. / Greidanus, T. 1996. Incidental learning by advanced foreign language students: the influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal. 80, 327–339. Jiang, N. 2000. Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics. 21/1, 47–77. Jiang, N. 2002. Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 24, 617–637. Jiang, N. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics. 25, 603–634. Johns, T. 1991a. Should you be persuaded – Two examples of DataDriven Learning, English Language Research Journal. 4, 1–13. Johns, T. 1991b. From printout to handout. Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. English Language Research Journal. 4, 27–45. Johns, T. / King, D. (eds). 1991. Classroom concordancing. English Language Research (new series), 4. Jones, L. C. / Plass, J. J. 2002. Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal. 86/4, 546–561. Jones, M. / Haywood, S. 2004. Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 269–300. Judd, E. L. 1978. Vocabulary teaching and TESOL: A need for reevaluation of existing assumptions. TESOL Quarterly. 12/1, 71–76. Jung, U. 1988. Introduction, or a ‘Petit Tour’ of the World of CALL, in U. Jung (ed.) Computers in applied linguistics and language teaching (pp. 1−20). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Kelen, C. 2002. Language and learning orthodoxy in the English classroom in China. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 34/2, 223–237.
308
Keller, H. H. 1978. New perspective on teaching vocabulary. Language in Education: Theory and practice. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics. Kelly, P. 1980. La comprehension à l’audition. Memoire présenté à l’Université Catholique de Louvain pour avoir l’équivalence avec une licence en philologie romane de l’Université de Londres. Kelly, P. 1985. A dual approach to FL vocabulary learning: the conjoining of listening comprehension and mnemonic practices. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. Kelly, P. 1986. Solving the vocabulary retention problem. ITL. 74, 1–16. Kelly. P. 1989. A particular application of the RALEX method of foreign language learning. Le Langage et l’Homme. 24/70, 153–160. Kelly, P. 1990. Guessing: no substitute for systematic learning of lexis. System. 18, 199–207. Kelly, P. 1992. Does the ear assist the eye in the long-term retention of lexis? International Review of Applied Linguistics. 30/2, 137–145. Kelly, P. 1995. The importance of listening − a personally illustrated view. Zielsprache English. 25, 13–19. Kelly, P. / Li, X. 2005. A new approach to learning English vocabulary: More efficient, more effective, and more enjoyable. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Kelly, P. / Li, X. / Vanparys, J. / Zimmer, C. 1996. A comparison of the perceptions and practices of Chinese and French-speaking Belgian university students in the learning of English: The prelude to an improved programme of lexical expansion. ITL. 113–114, 275–303. Knight, S. 1994. Dictionary: the tool of last resort in foreign language reading? A new perspective. The Modern Language Journal. 78, 285299. Kolers. P. A. 1963. Interlingual word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 2, 251–300.
309
Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Krashen, S. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal. 73/4, 440–464. Krashen, S. 1996. The case for narrow listening. System. 24, 97–100. Krashen, S. / Terrell, T. 1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kupelian, M. 2001. Korean EFL students’ acquisition of culturally loaded words. The Korea TESOL Journal. 4/1, 17–36. Labrie, G. 2000. A French vocabulary tutor for the web. CALICO Journal. 17/3, 475–499. Lado, R. 1964. Language teaching: a scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lam, A. 2002. English in education in China: Policy changes and learners’ experiences. World Englishes. 21/2, 245–256. Lantolf, J. P. 1999. Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Culture in second language teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–46. Laufer, B. 1990. “Sequence” and “order” in the development of L2 lexis: Some evidence from lexical confusions. Applied Linguistics. 11/3, 281–296. Laufer, B. 1997. The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you know and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady, T. Huckin (eds) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20–34. Laufer, B. 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics. 19/2, 255–271. Laufer, B. / Elder, C. / Hill, K, Congdon, P. 2004. Size and strength: do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21/2, 202–226. Laufer, B. / Hill, M. 2000. What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning & Technology. 3/2, 58–76.
310
Laufer, B, Nation, I. S. P. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics. 16, 307–322. Laufer, B. / Paribakht, T. S. 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning. 48/3, 365–391. Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT press. Levelt, W. J. M. 1993. Language use in normal speakers and its disorders. In G. Blanken, E. Dittman, H. Grimm, J. Marshall, C. Wallesch (eds) Linguistic disorders and pathologies. An international handbook. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1–15. Levelt, W. J. M. / Roelofs, A. / Meyer, A. S. 1999. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 22, 1−75. Levy, M. 1997. Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lewis, M. 1993. The lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. 1997. Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In J. Coady, T. Huckin (eds) Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 255–270. Lewis, M. (ed.) 2000a. Teaching collocation: further development in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. 2000b. Learning in the lexical approach. In M. Lewis (ed.) Teaching collocation: further development in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications, 155–185. Li, X. 1984. In defence of the communicative approach. ELT Journal. 38/1, 2–13. Li, X. (ed.) 1987. Communicative English for Chinese Learners. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Li, X. / Song, X. / Zimmer, C. / Vanparys, J. / Kelly, P. 1999. WUFUN: A new approach to more efficient and effective vocabulary learning. ITL. 125–126, 181–194. Liao, X. 2000. Communicative Language Teaching Innovation in China: Difficulties and Solutions. ERIC Document ED443294.
311
Liu, D. / Zhong, S. 1999. Acquisition of culturally loaded words in EFL. Foreign Language Annals. 32/2, 177–188. Long, M. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 413–468. Lozanov, G. 1979. Suggestology and outlines of Suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and Breach. Meara, P. 1990. A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research. 6/2: 150–154. Meara, P. 1996a. The vocabulary knowledge framework. Vocabulary Acquisition Research Group Virtual Library. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from . Meara, P. 1996b. Word Associations in a Foreign Language. Vocabulary Acquisition Research Group Virtual Library. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from . Meara, P. / Buxton, B. 1987. An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testin. 4, 142–151. Mel’čuk, I. 1998. Collocations and lexical functions. In A. P. Cowie (ed.) Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 23–53. Melka, F. 1982. Receptive versus Productive Vocabulary: A survey. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin. 6/2, 5–33. Melka, F. 1997. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt, M. McCarthy (eds) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 84–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, G. A. 1990. WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database. International Journal of Lexicography. 3/4, 235–312. Miller, G. A. 1996. The Science of Words. New York: Scientific American Library. Miller, G. 1999. On knowing a word. Annual Review of Psychology. 50, 1–19. Miller, G. A. / Fellbaum, C. 1991. Semantic networks of English. Cognition. 41, 197–229.
312
Mitchell, R. / Myles, F. 1998. Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold. Mondria, J.-A. / Mondria-de Vries, S. 1994. Efficiently memorizing words with the help of word cards and ‘hand computer’: Theory and applications. System. 22, 47–57. Mondria, J.-A. / Wiersma, B. 2004. Receptive, productive, and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary learning: what difference does it make? In P. Bogaards, B. Laufer (eds) Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–100. Mondria, J-A. / Wit-de Boer, M. 1991. The effects of contextual richness on the guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied Linguistics. 12, 249–267. Montague, W. E. / Adams, J. A. / Kiess, H. O. 1966. Forgetting and natural language mediation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 72, 829–833. Myers, I. B. / McCaulley, M. H. 1985. A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists. Nagy, W. E. / Herman, P. A. / Anderson, R. C. 1985. Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly. 20, 233–253. Namei, S. 2004. Bilingual lexical development: a Persian-Swedish word association study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 14/3, 363–388. Nation, I. S. P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation. I. S. P. / Meara, P. 2002. Vocabulary. In N. Schmitt (ed.) An introduction to applied linguistics. London: Edward Arnold, 35–54. The National Education Ministry. 2004. The College English Syllabus. Beijing: Higher Education Press. The National Education Ministry. 2004. The university English syllabus. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from .
313
Nattinger, J. 1980. A lexical phrase grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly. 14, 337–344. Nattinger, J. / DeCarrico, J. 1992. Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nord, J. R. 1975. Sens-it-Cell. System. 3/1, 16–23. Nord, J. R. 1978. Developing listening fluency before speaking: An alternative paradigm. Paper presented at the 5 th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Montreal, Canada. Nurweni, A. / Read, J. 1999. The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian university students. English for specific purposes. 18/2, 161–175. Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ogden, C. 1937. A short guide to Basic English. Cambridge: Orthological Institute. Oller, J. W. 1978. Pragmatics and language testing. In B. Spolsky (ed.) Approaches in language testing. Advances in Language Testing. Series 2. Arlington, Virginia: Center for Applied Linguistics, 39−57. O’Malley, J. M. / Chamot, A. U. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostyn, P. / Kelly, P. 1979. Tune In. Antwerp: Plantyn. Ostyn, P. / Godin, P. 1985. RALEX: An alternative approach to language teaching. The Modern Language Journal. 69/4, 346–355. Ostyn, P. Vandecasteele, M. / Kelly, P. / Deville, G. 1985. Towards an optimal program of FL vocabulary acquisition. Paper presented at the 5th European Symposium on LSP, Leuven, Belgium. Oxford, R. 1989. Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System. 17/2, 235–247. Oxford, R. 2001. Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (ed.) Teaching English as a second language or foreign language. Boston: Heinle and Heinle/Thomson Learning, 359–366. Oxford, R. 2003. Language learning styles and strategies: concepts and relationship. IRAL. 41, 271–278.
314
Oxford, R. L. / Scarcella, R. C. 1994. Second language vocabulary learning among adults: State of the art in vocabulary instruction. System. 22/2, 231–243. Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. L. 1993. Research update on teaching L2 listening. System. 21/3, 205–211. Oxford, R. L. / Nam, C. 1998. Learning styles and strategies of a partially bilingual student diagnosed as learning disabled: a case study. In J. M. Reid (ed.) Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents, 52–61. Paige, R. M. / Cohen, A. D. / Lassegard, J. / Chi, J. C. / Kappler, B. J. 2002. Maximizing study abroad: A students’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA). Paivio, A. / Desrochers, A. 1979. Effects of an imagery mnemonic on second language recall and comprehension. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 33, 17–28. Paivio, A. / Desrochers, A. 1980. A dual-coding approach to bilingual memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology. 34, 388–399. Paivio, A. / Desrochers, A. 1981. Mnemonic techniques in secondlanguage learning. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73/6, 780–795. Paradis, M. 1987. The assessment of bilingual aphasia. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Paribakht, T. S. / Wesche, M. B. 1997. Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady, T. Huckin (eds) Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 174–200. Pawley, A. / Syder, F. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds) Language and communication. London: Longman, 191–226. Pearlmutter, N. J. / Garnsey, S. M. / Bock, K. 1999. Agreement processes in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language. 41, 427–456.
315
Peterson, E. / Coltrane, B. 2003. Culture in Second Language Teaching. Digests from online resources of the Centre for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from . Pimsleur, P. 1970. Some aspects of listening comprehension. Proceedings of the Canadian conference on language laboratories, Montreal. Pitts, M. / White, H. / Krashen, S. 1989. Acquiring a second language through reading: a replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language. 5/2, 271–275. Plass, J. 1998. Design and evaluation of the user interface of foreign language multimedia software: A cognitive approach. Language Learning & Technology. 2/1, 35–45. Postovsky, V. A. 1974. Effects of delay in oral practice at the beginning of second language acquisition process. The Modern Language Journal. 58/5–6, 229–239. Postovsky, V. A. 1975. The priority of aural comprehension in the language acquisition process. Paper presented at the 4th AILA World Congress, Stuttgart, Germany. Postovsky, V. A. 1977. Why not start speaking later? In M. Burt, H. Dulay, M. Finocchiaro (eds) New directions in second language teaching, learning and bilingual education. Washington, D.C.: TESOL, 17–26. Pressley, M. / Levin, J. R. 1981. The keyword method and recall of vocabulary words from definitions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning. 17/1, 72–76. Prytulak, L. S. 1971. Natural language mediation. Cognitive Psychology. 2, 1–56. Qian, D. 1999. Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 56/2, 282–307. Qian, D. 2002. Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52/3, 513–536. Read, J. 1993. The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing. 10, 355–371.
316
Read, J. 1997. Vocabulary and testing. In N. Schmitt, M. McCarthy (eds) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 303–320. Read, J. 1998. Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In A. Kunnan (ed.) Validation in language assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 41–60. Read, J. 2004. Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined? In P. Bogaards, B. Laufer (eds) Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 209–227. Reber, A. S. / Wakenfield, F. F. / Hernstadt, R. 1991. Implicit and explicit learning: individual differences and IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 17, 888–896. Reeds, J. A. / Winitz, H. / Garcia, P. A. 1977. A test of reading following comprehension training. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 15, 307–319. Reid, J. 1998. Teachers as perceptual learning styles researchers. In J. Reid (ed.) Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents, 15–25. Richards, J. / Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. 1976. The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 10, 77–89. Richards, J. C. 1994. Teacher thinking and foreign language teaching. The Language Teacher. 18/2. Retrieved 2005, January 20, from . Roediger, H. L. 2005. Memory (psychology), Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2005, retrieved June 10 2005, from . Ruder, K. / Hermann, P. / Schiefelbusch, R. 1977. Effects of verbal imitation and comprehension training on verbal production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 6, 59–72. Sapir, E. 1970. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. London: Rupert Hart-Davis.
317
Scarcella, R. / Oxford, L. R. 1992. The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics. 2/2, 129–158. Schmidt, R. 1994. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review. 11, 11–26. Schmitt, N. 1997. Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt, M. McCarthy (eds) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 199–227. Schmitt, N. 1998. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning. 48, 281–317. Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, N. (ed.) 2004. Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schmitt, N. 2005. Current Trends in Vocabulary Learning and Teaching. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds) Handbook of English Language Teaching. Dordrecht, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Schmitt, N. / Meara, P. 1997. Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19, 17–36. Schmitt, N. / Carter, R. 2000. Lexical phrases in language learning. The language teacher. 24, 1–7. Retrieved June 15 2005 from . Schmitt, N. / Carter, R. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–22. Schmitt, N. / Dörnyei, Z. / Adolphs, S. / Durow, V. 2004. Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (ed.) Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 55–86. Schoonen, R. / Verhallen, M. 1998. Aspects of vocabulary knowledge and reading performance. Paper presented at the Annual
318
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, April. Schouten-Van Parreren, C. / Van Parreren, C. F. 1979. De verwerving van een vreemdtalige woordenschat: een literatuurstudie. Levende Talen. 341, 259–270. Schur, E. 2002. Density and complexity in the semantic networks of native and non-native speakers. Paper presented at the Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition Colloquium. Leiden: University of Leiden. Sciarone, A. G. 1979. Woordjes leren in het vreemde talen onderwijs. Muideberg: Coutinho. Scott, M. 1996. WordSmith tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scott, M. / Johns, T. 1993. Microconcord manual: An introduction to the practices and principles of concordancing in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shin, J. / Wastell, D. G. 2001. A user-centered methodological framework for the design of hypermedia-based CALL systems. CALICO Journal. 18/3, 517–537. Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singleton, D. 1999. Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal behaviour. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Smidt, E. / Hegelheimer, V. 2004. Effects of online academic lectures on ESL listening comprehension, incidental vocabulary acquisition, and strategy use. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 17/5, 517–556. Smith, B. 2004. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 26, 365398. Söderman, T. 1993. Word association of foreign language learners and native speakers– Ashift in response type and its relevance for a theory of lexical development. In H. Ringbom (ed.) Near-native proficiency in English. Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 91–182. Spolsky, B. / Sigurd, B. / Sato, M. / Walker, E. / Arterburn, C. 1968. Preliminary studies in the development of techniques for testing
319
overall second language proficiency. Language Learning. 3, 79–101. Steil, L. K. 1980. Secrets of being a better listener. U.S. News & World Report, Inc. 65−66. Sternberg, R. J. 1987. Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. McKeown, M. E. Curtis (eds) The nature of vocabulary acquisition. New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 89–105. Swan, M. 1997. The influence of the mother tongue on second language vocabulary acquisition and use. In N. Schmitt, M. McCarthy (eds) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 156180. Taylor, R. P. (ed.) 1980. The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee, teacher’s college, Columbia University. New York: Teacher’s college Press. Teng, H. / Niu, Q. / Wolff, M. 2004. China’s EFL goals: Are they being met? English Today. 20/3, 37–44. Twaddell, W. F. 1973. Vocabulary expansion in the TESOL classroom. TESOL Quarterly. 7, 61–78. Van de Poel, K. / Swanepoel, P. 2003. Theoretical and methodological pluralism in designing effective lexical support for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 16/2−3, 173–211. Vanparys, J. / Zimmer, C. / Li, X. / Kelly, P. 1997. Some salient and persistent difficulties encountered by Chinese and Francophone students in the learning of English vocabulary. ITL. 115–116, 137164. Vanpatten, B. 2002. Processing instruction: An update. Language Learning. 52/4, 755–803. Vermeer, A. 2001. Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics. 22, 217–234. Wang, L. 2004. Corpora and Second Language Acquisition: Chunks, noticing and concordancing. In A. He, L. Wong. / M. Xu, X. Cheng (eds) Application of corpora to foreign language education: Theory and Practice. Guangzhou: Guangdong Higher Education Press, 61–71.
320
Waring, R. 1999. Tasks for assessing second language receptive and productive vocabulary. Unpublished PhD thesis. Retrieved April 20, 2003, from . Wenden, A. 2002. Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics. 23/1, 32–55. Wesche, M. / Paribakht, T. S. 1996. Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: depth versus breadth. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 53/1, 13–40. Wesche, M. / Paribakht, T. S. 2000. Reading-based exercises in second language vocabulary learning: an introspective study. The Modern Language Journal. 84/2, 196–213. Whitson, V. 1972. The correlation of auditory comprehension with general language proficiency. Audio-Visual Language Journal. 10/2, 89–91. Whorf, B. L. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (edited by Carroll, J. B.). Cambridge, Mass.: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Willis, D. 1990. The lexical syllabus. London: Collins COBUILD. Willis, J. / Willis, D. 1989. Collins COBUILD English Course. London: Collins COBUILD. Winitz, H. 1977. Nonauditory auditory disorders. Otolaryncologic Clinics of N. America. 10, 187–192. Winitz, H. 1978. The Learnables. Kansas: International Linguistics Corporation. Winitz, H. / Garcia, P. A. / Frick, R. 1985. Teaching language through comprehension. In P. B. Westphall, N. W. Conner, N. Choat (eds) Meeting the call for excellence in the foreign language classroom. Lincolnwood, Illinois: National Textbook Co, 14–29. Winitz, H. / Reeds, J.A. 1973. Rapid acquisition of a foreign language (German) by the avoidance of speaking. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 18/3, 245–247. Wode, H. 1999. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 21/2, 243–258.
321
Wolter, B. 2001. Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon. A depth of individual word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 23, 41–69. Wray, A. 2000. Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: principle and practice. Applied Linguistics. 21/4, 463–489. Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xu, M. 2004. Corpora and cognitive schema theory. In A. He, L. Wong. / M. Xu, X. Cheng (eds) Application of corpora to foreign language education: Theory and Practice. Guangzhou: Guangdong Higher Education Press, 48–60. Yoshida, K. 1990. Knowing vs. behaving vs. feeling: studies in Japanese bilinguals, in L. Arena (ed.) Language proficiency: Defining, teaching, and testing. New York: Plenum. Zähner, C. / Gupta, G. / Olohan, M. 1994. Lexical resources in CALL. Computers & Education. 23/1−2, 75–80. Zheng, T. 2004. Review of Tell Me More Chinese Beginning & Advanced. CALICO Journal. 21/3, 671–680.
322
List of CAVL/CALL programs/tasks reviewed
Research-based programs/tasks: CAVOCA: Groot, 2000; see references Computer vocabulary exercises: Allum, 2004, see references Lexica: Goodfellow, 1994, 1995, 1999; see references The lexical CMC task: De la Fuente, 2003; see references The listening CALL task: Smidt/Hegelheimer, 2004; see references Words in your ear: Laufer/Hill, 2000; see references
Commercial programs: English+: Emme Interactive France, France; . Intelligent Miracle English: Hai Long, China; . Language Interactive Culture: Centre for Language and Speech (University of Antwerp), Belgium; . Memorising Vocabulary Effortlessly: Pu Gong Ying, China; . Rosetta Stone (German version): Rosetta Stone,USA; . SuperMemo 98: SuperMemory, Poland; . Tell Me More (Chinese version): Auralog, France; .
323
List of useful online lexical tools
BNC (searching engines): ; . CLEC (Chinese Learners’ English Corpus) (searching engine): . COBUILD concordance and collocations sampler: . Lexical Tutor: . WordNet (searching engine): .
324
Appendices
Appendix 1: A questionnaire for English teachers at Chinese Three Gorges University (translated from Chinese) Please indicate the statements that are true for you (multiple answers can be selected); you can provide some extra information in the space after the word ‘others’ if this is your case. A.
Beliefs about vocabulary teaching and learning
I have the following beliefs about vocabulary teaching and learning: Vocabulary should be taught explicitly in class Vocabulary should be learned off by heart from bilingual lists Students acquire a large amount of vocabulary through extensive reading Vocabulary is better learned in context Doing exercises can help learn vocabulary Vocabulary should be learned through conversations or other communicative activities Vocabulary should be consolidated by use in different contexts Others: B.
Teaching vocabulary in the classroom
1. How do you select the lexical items to be taught? I select a lexical item according to the following criteria: It is a key word for understanding the text. It is a frequent word that will appear in many other contexts The course book says it is important to know It belongs to the lexical field that we are studying It is a useful word for my students The word is difficult to use The word is likely to be tested in exams Others:
325
2. How do you present vocabulary? I present vocabulary in the following ways: Visually (write the word out) Aurally (speak the word out) Kinetically (body movement, gestures, acting out the meaning, etc.) Using visual aids (videos, pictures, diagrams, real objects, etc) Using aural aids (tapes, CDs) Others: 3. What aspects do you focus on in teaching lexical items? I focus on the following aspects of lexical items Their pronunciation Their spelling Their affixes and roots Their Chinese translation Their meaning in English (a paraphrase) Related words such as antonyms and synonyms I use them in good example sentences I describe their usage I indicate their register I show some of their collocations I indicate the part of speech they belong to Others: 4. What activities or tasks do you use to assist vocabulary teaching/learning? I use the following activities or tasks to assist vocabulary teaching/learning: Drill repetition Vocabulary exercises (e.g., gap-filling, multiple choice, etc.) Vocabulary games (guessing games, crosswords, etc.) Get students to work in interactive conversations Role plays Listening tasks Writing tasks Computer software Internet sites Others:
326
5. What vocabulary learning strategies do you recommend or teach to students? I recommend or teach the following vocabulary learning strategies to my students: Read extensively to enlarge and consolidate the vocabulary Use English films or songs to enlarge and consolidate the vocabulary Participate actively in oral activities to enlarge and consolidate the vocabulary Think in English Use contextual clues or form resemblance to guess the meaning Organise the lexical information in a systematic way, e.g. keep a vocabulary notebook or vocabulary cards Use strategies to put vocabulary in a context that will help memorise it Use sound or rhymes to memorise vocabulary Use imagery to memorise vocabulary Ask students to reflect on their own progress in vocabulary learning Learn other words in the semantic network – types of transport, train, car, bus, bike. I encourage students to use vocabulary they have just learned I teach them how to use vocabulary learning strategies in a systematic way. Others: 6. How do you review vocabulary with students? I review vocabulary with students in the following ways: I review new words in lists regularly I review vocabulary in semantic fields I test new vocabulary regularly I regularly schedule written or oral class activities that focus on reviewing recently learned new vocabulary I propose further reading or listening activities in which the words occur Others:
327
Appendix 2: A questionnaire for students at Chinese Three Gorges University (translated from Chinese)
Survey of vocabulary learning and strategies You are required to indicate the frequency of each strategy you actually use Use frequency (F): 1 = never, 0 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = always 1. How do you discover new words? From textbooks and classroom learning activities From lists of vocabulary arranged alphabetically From lists of vocabulary arranged semantically From English conversations with others (teacher, classmates, foreigners) From reading English materials (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.) From English songs and movies/TV programmes From the internet (online English pages, chatting)
F: F: F: F:
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5
F:
1
2 3
4 5
F: F:
1 1
2 3 2 3
4 5 4 5
F: F: F: F: F: F: F:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2. What do you do on encountering new vocabulary? Ignore it Ignore it first and come back later to it Try to guess the meaning from the context Analyse affixes and roots for the meaning Ask classmates or the teacher for the meaning Consult a bilingual dictionary Consult a monolingual dictionary
3. When learning a new vocabulary item, what aspects do you study? Study the pronunciation Study the spelling Study the affixes and roots Study the Chinese translations Study the English explanations Study the example sentences Study the way the word is used (e.g. prevent sb from doing sth)
328
F: F: F: F: F: F: F:
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Study the collocations (e.g. make money/ a profit) Study the part of speech (noun, verb, adjective, etc.)
F: F:
1 1
2 3 2 3
4 5 4 5
F: F: F: F: F:
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5
F: F: F: F: F: F: F: F: F: F:
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
F:
1
2 3
4 5
F: F: F: F: F:
1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4 4
F: F: F:
1 1 1
2 3 2 3 2 3
F: F: F:
1 1 1
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
4. How do you organise the information about the new vocabulary? Jot down the information on paper Organise the information in a vocabulary notebook Make vocabulary cards Use the vocabulary section in the textbook Use vocabulary lists (e.g. those in vocabulary books for Band 4) 5. How do you memorise vocabulary? Say the word aloud several times Copy the word out several times Look at the word several times Memorise bilingual lists Do vocabulary exercises Connect the word to its synonyms or antonyms Connect the word with other already known words that have a formal resemblance (e.g. dam, damage) Compare words similar in meaning and study them together Group and organise words (e.g. according to meaning, part of speech, topic, etc.) Place the word in a context (a meaningful sentence, conversation, or story to remember it) Make up a phrase or a sentence containing the word Listen to the sound recording of the words Make up rhymes to link words Practise words (e.g. verbs) by acting them out Make a mental image of new words (or the sentence with the word) Draw pictures to illustrate the meaning of new words Visualize the word form mentally Remember the affixes and roots of new words 5.
3 3 3 3 3
5 5 5 5 5
4 5 4 5 4 5
How do you review vocabulary?
Go over words periodically Test new words on your own Test new words with classmates
329
6.
How do you retrieve words?
Look at the meaningful parts of the words (affixes or roots) Make an effort to remember where I first met the words 7.
F:
1
2 3
4 5
F:
1
2 3
4 5
F: F: F:
1 1 1
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
F:
1
2 3
How do you make use of new vocabulary?
Try to use new words in speaking and writing Make an effort to use idiomatic expressions Try to think in the target language with the new vocabulary Interact with native speakers/teachers/classmates with the new vocabulary
4 5
Note: This vocabulary learning and strategy survey tries to replicate the process of how a new word is encountered by the learner till it is mastered and becomes a part of the learner’s mental lexicon. The rationale is explained in 7.4.4.3. in the learning process oriented framework. The wording of the questions in the survey has drawn on findings from several works: Oxford’s ‘Strategy Inventory for Language Learning’ (SILL) (1990), Cohen and Chi’s ‘Language Strategy Use Inventory and Index’ (2003) and Schmitt’s ‘Vocabulary learning strategies taxonomy’ (1997).
330
Index
Acquisition formulaic sequences, 128-129, 134-135, 137, 310, 321 idioms, 138-141 language, 19, 21-22, 38, 76, 78, 80, 84, 86, 122, 155, 252, 300301, 304, 306, 310, 312, 314, 316, 318 Chinese culture of learning, 245, 250, 251, 256, 277, 279, 298 Chinese Learners’ English Corpus, 261-262, 269-270, 326 Collocations, 29, 45, 65, 120, 122, 125-126, 132, 164, 202, 205, 264, 268, 275, 282-283, 288, 307, 314, 326, 328, 331 Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), 22, 173-176, 178, 180, 181, 187-188, 191-192, 203, 210-211, 231, 256-257, 296, 299300, 302, 304-309, 311, 313, 321322, 324-325 Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning (CAVL), 22, 171-237, 294297, 325 development, 22, 174-176, 188 evaluation, 191-192, 297 Computer-mediated Communication (CMC), 179, 182, 185, 186, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 228, 230, 234, 236, 257, 296, 325 Corpora, 119-123, 131-135, 142, 178, 184, 301, 307-308, 323-324 Culturally loaded words, 87-90, 262264, 312, 314 Culture, 19-20, 76, 85-90, 94, 98-99, 127, 137-142, 145, 156, 168, 188,
227, 233, 237, 242, 245, 250, 262-263, 301, 303, 309, 312, 317318, 325 Data Driven Learning (DDL), 133134, 137, 179 Dictionary use, 111-112, 117, 310 Foreign language Learning, 19, 242, 250, 300, 302, 304, 311 Formulaic sequences, 120-137, 142, 164, 251, 299, 305, 310, 320-321, 324 Input, 33, 38, 57, 60, 79-84, 105, 108, 128-129, 132-136, 142, 151, 176, 179, 181, 184, 186, 187, 193, 194, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 215, 218, 233, 267, 273, 300, 306, 312, 323 Keyword method, 156- 162, 300, 318 Knowledge declarative, 31, 32, 40, 46, 51, 56, 58-59, 106, 295 procedural, 31-33, 40, 46, 51, 56, 58, 59, 106, 295 Language distance, 91, 92, 93 learning strategies, 154-156, 159, 162-163, 279, 286, 305, 317 proficiency, 21, 38, 65, 69, 73-74, 82, 87, 92-93, 134, 137, 143, 161, 176, 202, 244, 251, 309, 322-324 Learner differences, 143, 165 Learning explicit, 38, 103-104, 107-108, 114, 118, 175-176, 180, 182, 185, 211, 230, 277, 295, 304, 306, 319 implicit, 38, 103-104, 107-108,
331
118, 142, 175-176, 179, 185, 295-296, 304, 319 incidental, 105, 107, 109, 112118, 179, 310 intentional, 103-107, 117, 310 style, 22, 82, 143, 149-156, 165168, 181, 296, 302, 305-306, 317, 319 Lemma, 56, 58, 62-63, 71, 273, 275 Lexeme, 56, 273 Lexical approach, 131-134, 313 association, 58 chunks, 120, 132 competence, 27, 30, 56, 63 concept, 61, 66, 86-88, 98-99, 262, 269 entry, 54-56, 58-59, 62, 64, 195, 273-276 errors, 58, 65, 97, 200, 219, 232233, 261-267, 271-277, 294 glosses, 109, 111, 185, 196, 210, 224, 230, 236 information, 54, 58, 62, 112, 162, 164, 179, 184, 195-196, 209218, 224-230, 275, 282, 285286, 292-293, 296, 313, 329 items, 33, 36, 44, 46, 48, 50, 64, 65, 66, 94, 95, 105, 110, 113, 114, 119, 163, 166, 173, 177181, 193-196, 204-205, 211, 215-216, 228-229, 232, 273, 276-283, 289-294, 327-328 relations, 64-67 Lexical Frequency Profile, 43-44, 47 Lexicon, 28, 39-42, 53, 64-74, 119, 141, 166, 177, 205, 213, 273, 275, 299, 306, 324 L1, 53, 72, 74 L2, 28, 30, 53-55, 64, 69, 71-74, 273 mental, 29, 35, 39-40, 46, 53, 54, 56, 64-74, 195, 202, 207-210,
332
219, 227, 233, 262, 275, 295, 321, 324, 332 Linguistic distance, 91-99, 219, 261, 264, 301 Listening comprehension, 75, 77, 83, 185, 196-199, 204, 210, 227-230, 234, 236, 310-311, 318, 321 Memory episodic, 31, 303 explicit, 103, 106-107 implicit, 103, 106-107 long-term, 31, 83, 187, 212 semantic, 31, 56 Metaphor, 20-21, 54, 67, 74, 139-140, 300 Mnemonic techniques, 141-142, 157, 162, 296, 317 Motivation, 22, 132, 137, 143-148, 156, 159, 165-168, 186, 193, 195, 199, 221, 230, 236-237, 244-247, 296, 302-309 Multi-word lexical items, 22 Output, 30, 33, 59, 133, 179, 186, 273, 306 Reading comprehension, 38, 110, 115, 179, 196, 199, 256, 258, 319 Second Language Acquisition (SLA), 19, 27, 63, 78-83, 87, 91, 99, 105, 114, 119, 121, 123, 131, 134, 143, 149, 159, 179, 182, 185, 193, 233, 251, 301, 304, 323 Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (SLVA), 19, 21-22, 27, 75, 87, 91, 93, 105, 118, 165-168, 189, 296, 299, 302, 304 Semantic error, 31, 56, 61, 65, 67 relations, 64 Semantization, 37, 300 Suggestopeodia, 78 The Lexical Syllabus, 130 Vocabulary active, 39, 313
breadth, 21, 33-40, 44-48, 51, 166, 194, 295-296, 319, 323 depth, 21, 28, 30, 33-40, 44-51, 71, 110, 115, 164, 166, 194, 295, 296, 303, 319, 323, 324 knowledge, 21, 27-51, 71, 110, 115, 162, 166, 187, 290, 299, 313-316, 319, 321, 323 learning difficulty, 62, 85-88, 98, 261-262, 275 passive, 314 production, 21, 29-32, 39-41, 44, 48-51, 55, 58, 60, 97, 114-115, 118, 120, 136, 166, 186, 194, 195, 205, 209-210, 216, 236, 242, 272-274, 295-296, 304, 313, 320 productive, 36, 39-43, 47, 314, 323
reception, 21, 29, 39-40, 44, 48, 50-51, 166, 194, 236, 279, 295-296 receptive, 36, 39-40, 43, 307, 323 size, 28, 35, 38-39, 45-49, 160161, 313 testing, 47, 97, 305-306, 314 use, 30-33, 39, 46-47, 50 Vocabulary Knowledge Scale, 27, 44, 46, 48, 71, 115 Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire, 160 Vocabulary Learning Strategies, 114, 118, 156, 159-168, 187-188, 193, 195, 199, 204, 206, 218, 229-230, 234, 280, 282, 285-286, 294, 308, 320, 329, 332
333
