Chapter Two

Review of Literature

2.1. The Nature of Vocabulary

It is essential to specify what we mean by vocabulary. The Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary of Current English defines vocabulary as “a list of words
used in a book, etc. usually with definitions or translations”. We also conceive
of vocabulary as words, but words with a wide range. The concept of the term
`word` has long been problematic and ambiguous to deal with in linguistics in
general. The reason behind such an ambiguity stems from the difficulty of
both its definition and its identification (Lyons, 1968:203; Crystal, 1971:190).
The concept of the term `word` is ambiguous to define or identify
explicitly, and it is not sufficient to be used as the starting-point for linguistic
analyses. Many linguists turn away looking for another linguistic unit, a
smaller one and more accurate to begin with rather than the concept of ‘word’
(Crystal, 1971:192). That alternative is a ‘morpheme’ which is defined as
“the smallest bit of language which has a meaning and moreover this meaning
is different from (contrast with) the meanings of all other morphemes in the
language”. That is to say, a morpheme can be characterized by having three
features (a) it has a phonetic shape, (b) it has a meaning and (c) it has a
syntactic role to play in the construction of larger grammatical units (ibid).
However, vocabulary has been understood to mean “the stock of
vocabulary items of a language that is at the disposal of a speaker or a
writer”(Hodges, 1984:10; Mondraia, 2001:23).

5
 Chapter Two
It has been claimed that there is a mystery surrounding the mechanics of
vocabulary learning, but one thing we can be sure of is that learners cannot
immediately learn words; rather they learn them gradually after a period of
time from numerous exposures (Schmitt, 2000:4). A considerable amount of
words can be learned by repetition, the number of repetitions needed to
remember a word depends on the level of its difficulty (Gu, 2003:81). The
increasing nature of vocabulary learning manifests itself in a number of ways.
Everyone had the experience of being able to recognize and understand a word
when he sees it in a text or hears it in a conversation, but not being able to use
it in different situations. This shows that there are different degrees of
knowing a word. Being able to understand a word is known as receptive
knowledge and is normally connected with listening and reading. If someone
is able to produce a word of his own accord when speaking or writing, then
that is considered productive knowledge (passive/active are alternative terms)
Schmitt, 2000:5).
There are many types of problems that face the learner in his attempt to
master the use of lexical items because of the complex nature of vocabulary. A
number of different meanings may belong to the same lexical item, and how
many meanings it has may not be clear. For example the lexical item “bank”
may have one form, but it has different meanings, i.e. it may refer to the
(river side, financial institution. etc.), which is called homonyms, different
lexical items that happen to have the same phonological and orthographical
shape. Another difficulty is raised by what is known as polysemy which is
regarded as simple extensions of a single lexeme. For English speakers it is
clear that a ‘head’ might be a part of human body or a head of the department

6
 Chapter Two
or head of the bottle, etc. Polysemy may cause problems to a learner who does
not have the ability to recognize it (Wilkins, 1974:21).
Moreover, another difficulty that causes confusion is the occurrence of
lexical combinations, i.e. idioms and colloctions. Robins (1971) states that
idioms refer to the “habitual associations of more than one item, that tend to
be used together, with a semantic function not readily deducible from each
other” (p.65). The failure to use expected collocations and the occasional use
of items that do not collocate are common indicators that a person who speaks
a language fluently and with grammatical accuracy is not actually a native
speaker. The ability to determine the possible collocations takes place only
through exposure to language (Wilkins, 1974:22).

2.2. Vocabulary and Context: Learning Words From Context

Context plays an important role in L2 lexical learning. Research on both
first and second language development supports the conclusion that most
vocabulary learning occurs naturally when learners attempt to understand new
words they hear or read in context (Paribakht and Wesche, 1999:196). It has
been suggested that learning vocabulary through context should be employed
as the main approach to enhancing vocabulary knowledge. In order to
facilitate this enhancement, teachers need to encourage learners to read and
develop their skill in guessing from context (Chin, 1999:1-2). Guessing from
context is the most important vocabulary learning strategy and it is a typical
representative of the incidental vocabulary learning approach when it is not
applied systematically and intentionally (Nation, 1990:130).
When learners actively try to identify the meaning of unknown words,
the main strategy they use is guessing. It is true that the vast majority of

7
 Chapter Two
words in L1 come from extensive and multiple exposures through use rather
than direct instruction, and therefore, vocabulary learning in a second
language should follow the same route (Coady, 1993:20). Moreover, some
EFL/ESL studies suggest that learners are often unable to guess the meaning
of an unknown word from a text (Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984; Kelly, 1990;
Haynes, 1993). This suggests that: first, L2 learners in general, due to their
inadequate grasp of target language skills, are less effective guessers and less
effective incidental learners of English vocabulary, and if this is true for
intermediate to advanced learners; second, beginning L2 learners who do not
have the basic language skills in the target language to make sense of new
words and their contexts would have much more trouble learning vocabulary
incidentally (Gu, 2003: 74).
Guessing from context is not always an easy strategy to apply, for as it is
asserted by Waring (2001:5) that guessing from context to be properly
processed and successfully manipulated, learners must at least, know about
95% of the vocabulary items surrounding the unknown one, i.e. they should
know about 19 out of every 20 vocabulary items of a text. Although guessing
from context does not result in a full understanding of the vocabulary item
meaning, it greatly contributes to vocabulary development (Hunt, 1998:53).
After determining which vocabulary items to be guessed in a text, Nation
and Coady (1988:104-5) proposed the following summarized steps, to be
followed by learners: guess which part of speech the unknown vocabulary
item belongs to, investigate the immediate context, i.e. vocabulary items that
precede and follow the unknown vocabulary item, investigate the wider
context, i.e. clauses that precede and follow the clause in, which the unknown

8
 Chapter Two
vocabulary item occurs guess the meaning of the unknown vocabulary item,
and check the guess in the dictionary.
Moreover, Ying (2001:18) exemplifies several types of context clues that
learners can make use of while reading. They are as follows:
a. Morphology (e.g. prefixes suffixes and roots).
b. Reference vocabulary items (e.g. pronouns that refer to persons or things).
c. Cohesion (e.g. the connection of what follows with what precede.
d. Synonyms, Antonyms and Hyponyms.
d. Definitions
e. Alternatives
f. Restatements
g. Phrases used for Clarification
h. Examples
i. Summary
j. Comparison and Contrast
k. Punctuation
In fact, learning new words from context might well be only the first step
learners employ, and they should carry on, with metacognitive choice of
words and treatment, to encode the new word together with the context where
it appears (e.g., remembering the word together with the surrounding
sentence). Some may even try to create a sentence using the new word and
thus put it back into context (Sanaoui, 1995:16).
As vocabulary is an open set and not a closed system with a limited
number of rules, learning all the words is an impossible task. Moreover, some
low frequency and low range words may not deserve much learning effort, as
the chance of encountering them is small. Therefore learners have to guess

9
 Chapter Two
unknown words in context (Laufer, 1990:288). Learners can often get at least
part of words meaning from the way it is used in the sentence. Guessing from
context represents learner’s own knowledge dealing with cues from the words
themselves and the surrounding text. The success of learners in guessing can
be affected by two factors such as the number of times they encounter a word
and the variety of contexts where it is embedded (Nation and Coady, 1988:98;
Brown, 1994:42).
Despite the obvious importance of context in vocabulary learning,
Sternberg (1987) claims that, even if most vocabulary is learned from context,
one should not conclude that “this is the fastest or most efficient way of
learning specific vocabulary” (p.94). Many teachers consider it only natural
to present new words in context since they believe that context is helpful in
providing the full range of meaning and also that words studied in context are
better retained. Indeed, this is how new vocabulary is presented in many
textbooks.
Moreover, both teachers and students must be aware of how context
functions to restrict meaning as well as to disclose it. Deighton (1970:152)
specifies three variables that limit the use of context: (a) a reader’s experience
determines what a context may disclose to him/her; (b) the portion of context
where the unknown word is embedded ought to be placed close to the word to
gain effectiveness; and (c) there must be an evident link between the unknown
word and its context. Context use needs inference, which encourages students
to identify an explicit and implicit connection between the unknown word and
its context or apply their background knowledge to the unknown word;
however, most developing students are not able to perform it on their own
(Vacca and Vacca 1989:32).

10
 Chapter Two
We are used to thinking of knowledge as something `stored`, `held` or
contained in a body of knowledge`. That conception lends itself very easily to
conception of learning as ``acquiring knowledge``, collecting it form books,
lectures, and other media. We are following a different, complementary
insight here, that knowledge is something active in situations and contextual in
its very nature. Knowledge is something that happens rather than something
that is stored and applied when appropriates. Figure (1) is meant to indicate a
sense of knowledge as essentially tied to context in which information, the
contributions of other people, and the value of tools make sense. What
provides the sense or meaning is the learner’s involvement in tasks or
activities against a background of goals or interests within a larger community
and both a personal and community. The importance of context in providing
the sense or meaningfulness of information and skills has been a persistent
theme in recent philosophical thought and learning theory (Graves, 1998:15).

Figure (1)
Knowledge Embedded in Contexts

Access to People Access to Information Access to Tools

Knowing / Learning
Context of Meaning
Tasks / Activities
Goals / Interests
Community
(Life)
History

11
 Chapter Two
2.3. Word Knowledge and Word Learnability
Applied linguists argue that learning vocabulary in a foreign language is
much more than making form-meaning correspondences and simply collecting
individual words. Knowing a word means knowing at least its form, its
meaning, and its basic usage in context receptively and productively
(Richards, 1976:77: Nation, 2001:160).
Since a word is a complex of features (phonological, orthographic,
morphological, syntactic, and semantic) and since a word is related to other
words in a language, its knowledge would imply familiarity with the above
features and with the lexical relation of that word (Laufer, 1990:288).
Everyone realizes that the meaning of a word must be learned before that
word can be of any use. In addition, there is the practical matter of mastering
either the spoken or the written form the word before it can be used in
communication. Schmitt (2000) claims that `` a person who has not thought
about the elements of word knowledge, may believe that vocabulary
knowledge consist of just these two elements-meaning and word form. But the
potential knowledge that can be known about a word is rich and complex``
(P.5).
Nation (1990:31) proposes the following list of the different kinds of
knowledge that a person must master in order to know a word:
a. The meaning (s) of the word.
b. The written form of the word.
c. The spoken form of the word.
d. The grammatical behaviour of the word.
e. The collocations of the word.

12
 Chapter Two
f. The register of the word.
g. The associations of the word.
h. The frequency of the word.
These are known as types of word knowledge, and most or all of them
are necessary to be able to use a word in the wide variety of language
situations that a learner might come across. However, the different types of
word knowledge are not necessarily learned at the same time, each of the word
knowledge types is likely to be learned in a gradual manner, but some of them
may be developed later than others and at different rates (Schmitt, 2000:6).
The subsequent integration of new lexical knowledge normally requires
repeated input processing in which the learner has the opportunity to develop a
mental representation of the word form and features of its meanings, as well as
other kinds of lexical knowledge such as word form’s network links with other
words and syntactic constraints (De Bot, Paribakht, & Wesche, 1997:309).
Furthermore, Laufer (1990:291) says that the components of word knowledge,
both active and passive can be counted as follow:
a. Form: recognizing the spoken and the written form; being able to pronounce
and spell the word correctly.
b. Word structure: recognizing the basic free morpheme and the bound
morphemes; being able to produce some derivations of the word.
c. Syntactic pattern in a phrase/sentence.
d. Meaning: referential, affective (the connotation of the word), pragmatic (the
suitability of the word in a particular situation).
e. Lexical relations of the word with other words such as synonymy,
antonymy, hyponymy.
f. Common collocations.

13
 Chapter Two
However, the similarity of form, (spoken and/or written) between words
may result in confusion of the two words, in comprehension and in
production, for example ‘embrace’ is often misinterpreted as ‘embarrass’,
‘simulate’ as ‘stimulate’ (ibid).
Dealing with word structure entails that knowing a word means knowing
of the underlying form of that word and the derivations that can be made from
it. When learning a word we also learn the rules that enable us to build up
different forms of that word or even different words from that word (Richards,
1985:180). With regular derivations, the problems are not great; ‘walked’,
‘walking’, ‘walks’, are recognized as derived from ‘walk’. We also
derive ‘solidity’, ‘solidify’, ‘solidly’, ‘solidness’, ‘consolidate’, from the
underlying form ‘solid’. Moreover, many pairs or groups of words have an
identical root, but different affixes and different meanings, e.g.,
‘comprehensible/comprehensive’. A learner who is familiar with only one
meaning of, for example, ‘industry’ may interpret ‘industrious’ as
‘industrial’. Moreover, even if the learner has learned the two adjectives, it is
hard to remember the right meaning of each one because of the similarity of
structure (Laufer, 1990:294).
Learning the syntactic behaviour of a word may be difficult when it
differs from the syntactic pattern of an equivalent word in L1. The following
examples of errors illustrate the difficulty:
1. * depend in, *enjoy from
2. * advices, * furnitures
Dealing with lexical relations, for example, synonymy, we can say that it
is the relationship of ‘sameness’ of meaning, e.g. ‘answer’, ‘reply’. The
search for synonyms is a longstanding pedagogical exercise, but it is as well to

14
 Chapter Two
remember that lexemes rarely have exactly the same meaning (Crystal,
1971:163).
In addition, knowing a word means knowing the degree of probability
of encountering that word in speech or print. For many words we also
know the sort of words most likely to be found associated with the words
(Richards, 1985:178).
Furthermore, knowing a word involves knowing how to use the word
syntactically, semantically and pragmatically or discoursally. McCarthy
(1984:16) illustrates a range of approaches to vocabulary teaching which draw
on work on functions of lexical patterning above the level of the sentence.
McCarthy (ibid) shows that using lexis in discourse is not an abstract
static exercise in classification into sets or normal collocations, but a dynamic
process of continuous re-classification.
However, one of the main concerns of teachers is how to help students
deal with (i.e. understand, extract, assimilate, evaluate, summarize) authentic
academic texts which, by their nature, require a fairly advanced level of
proficiency in order to be understood. By `advanced level of proficiency` we
mean a good vocabulary size, because although it is possible to find examples
in texts where grammatical structure is crucial to understanding the subtle
nuances of meaning, it could be argued that what is more important for
comprehension is knowing what the words mean (Coady, 1993:10).
As Verhoeven and Jong (1992:147) put it `knowing words is the key to
understanding and being understood`. In fact, there are several approaches one
could adopt in order to develop students` vocabulary; Coady (1993:23) for
example, identifies several main positions on what he calls the vocabulary
instruction continuum. It seems clear that L2 learners need some explicit

15
 Chapter Two
teaching of specific vocabulary items together with some kind of strategy
training for improving and managing their learning, in order to gain the
required exposure to lexis and build up word knowledge.
However, many learners focus on one meaning they know and find it
very difficult to use another-even if the one they know has no sense in that
new context. Their factors affecting learnability may involve the target word’s
relationships to other word (‘interlexical factors’) and cross linguistic
influences or transfer from the learner’s L1. There could be danger in teaching
associated words, such as synonyms or opposites, at the same time. Teaching
‘right’ and ‘left’ together could result in students confusing form and
meaning being unsure afterwards whether ‘left’ means ‘left’ or whether it
means ‘right’. A similar confusion can occur with words that share a number
of semantic features; for example, ‘rigid’ ‘stiff`’, ‘unbending’, ‘inflexible’,
‘stubborn’, or ‘under’, ‘below’, ‘lower’, or ‘axle’ and ‘shaft’. Students
may end up not being clear about what is the difference between them
(Nation & Newton, 1997:135).
Nation and Warning (1997:121) propose three-dimensional models to
describe a person’s vocabulary knowledge depending on:
* The number of words known.
* The amount of knowledge present for each word (depth of knowledge).
* How quickly the word can be utilized (automaticity).

2.4. Aspects of Knowing a Word

Ellis (1994:212) argues for dissociation between explicit and implicit
learning where formal recognition and production rely on implicit learning,
but the meaning and linking aspects rely on explicit, conscious processes.

16
 Chapter Two
Implicit learning involves attention to the stimulus but does not involve
other conscious operations. It is strongly affected by repetition. Explicit
learning is more conscious; the learner makes and tests hypotheses in a search
for structure. Explicit learning can involve search for rules, or applying given
rules, it is strongly affected by the quality of the mental processing. What
Read (1993:355) calls the mediational aspect is the mapping or linking of
knowledge of the word form to knowledge of the meaning of the word. What
this means is that, especially for high frequency words, teachers should
explain the meaning of words, and learners should do exercises, look up
dictionaries, and think about the meanings. After brief attention to spelling
and pronunciation however, experience in meeting and producing the word
form should be left to encounters in meaning focused use. Table (1) provides a
broad overview of the different kinds of knowledge and the most effective
kinds of learning. It is important to note however that it is possible and helpful
to approach the learning of word forms, for example, through explicit
learning, but that essentially the most effective knowledge for this aspect of
vocabulary is implicit and there must be suitable repeated opportunities for
this kind of learning to occur.

Table (1)
Kinds of Vocabulary Knowledge and the Most Effective Kinds of Learning

Kind of knowledge Kinds of learning Activities

Form implicit learning involving repeated meetings as in
noticing repeated reading
Meaning strong explicit learning depth of processing through the
use of images, elaboration,
deliberate inferencing
Grammar collocation implicit learning repetition
Use
Constraints on use explicit learning explicit guidance and feedback
(Nation, 1990: 52)

17
 Chapter Two
The grammar and collocation aspects of use involve pattern recognition
and production and thus are most effectively the goal of implicit learning. The
constraints on vocabulary use are more closely related to meaning and would
benefit more from explicit learning. That is, the teacher and learner should
discuss where and when certain words should not be used (Ellis and Sinclair,
1996:236-238).

2.5. The Receptive/Productive Distinction

A crucial distinction is often made between respective/productive
vocabulary. Like most terminology, the terms receptive and productive are not
completely suitable because there are productive features in the receptive
skills-when listening and reading we produce meaning. Receptive vocabulary
means words that students can recognize when they meet them in reading, but
they cannot use them properly in writing. These words are easily forgotten
since the connection between them and the student’s memory is weak.
Productive vocabulary means words that students understand and use them
appropriately in writing and speaking. However, it has been claimed that for
every vocabulary item, there is a knowledge dimension and a skill dimension,
and knowing a word should only be a condition for using the word
automatically in a wide range of contexts (McCarthy 1984:15).
It should be noted that a learner’s active/productive vocabulary is always
smaller than his or her passive/receptive vocabulary (Carter, 1987:6). That is,
learners might be able to recognize a given lexical item when it is presented to
them, or they may be able to guess its meaning, but this is not the same thing
as recalling items for use (Nation, 1990:36).

18
 Chapter Two
In fact, evidence suggests that passive vocabulary requires conscious and
explicit learning mechanisms whereas the active vocabulary involves mostly
implicit learning and memory (Ellis, 1994:237). Oxford and Crookall (1990)
have stated that ‘knowing L2 word involves not just the ability to recognize
the word or to match it with its L1 counterpart, rather knowing L2 word
involves being able to use the L2 word communicatively in any of the four
main language skills (reading, listening, speaking and writing)’ (P.9).
Furthermore, it has been proved that spoken vocabulary is often smaller than
written vocabulary, which is in turn smaller than receptive (reading and
listening) vocabulary. This is similar to the fact that, for many learners,
proficiency is more difficult to reach and support in speaking than in writing
and more difficult in writing than in reading and listening (ibid).
The ability to productively use new vocabulary is extremely important
and has been highlighted through the communicative approach and the
proficiency movement (Oxford et al, 1989:30).
Teichroew (1982:31) shows the inconsistent use of the terms
‘receptive’ and ‘productive’ in relation to test items and degrees of knowing
a word and considers that the distinction is arbitrary and would be more
usefully treated as a scale of knowledge. Lennon (1996:34) sees the distinction
between active and passive vocabulary as being the result of different types of
association between words. Active vocabulary can be activated by other
words, because it has many incoming and outgoing links with other words.
Passive vocabulary consists of items, which can only be activated by external
stimuli. That is, they are activated by hearing or seeing their forms, but not
through associational links to the words. Meara (1996:31) thus sees active and
passive as not being on a cline but representing different kinds of associational

19
 Chapter Two
knowledge. Nation and Newton (1997:53) criticize this view believing that
language use is not only associationally driven, but more basically is meaning
driven. Being able to actively name an object using a second language word
can be externally stimulated by seeing the object without necessarily arousing
links to other second language words.
However, Coady and Huckin (1997:68) argue that two of the most
widespread assumptions about vocabulary development are:
(1) For an individual, receptive lexical competence is well ahead of productive
lexical competence.
(2) Receptive lexical competence develops more quickly than productive
lexical competence. One of the most intriguing questions in vocabulary
learning research is what it takes for a word to become productive. What is
it that decides when a learner for the first time takes one of the many lexical
items from its receptive vocabulary and uses it productively?
Scholars in linguistics have speculated about potential causes and
investigated some of the aspects involved. Some of the factors that are
believed to play a part are firstly related to learning conditions in the form of
exposure and practice, and secondly to word specific variables. We assume
that a word’s frequency determines its likelihood of appearing in the input; in
other words that frequency determines exposure. The second factor, word
specific variables, includes form features such as phonotactic regularity and
image ability. According to Ellis and Beaton (1995:47) a word is more likely
to be used productively if it is-among other things- short, easy to pronounce
and easy to recall because it is easy to create images for. The terms receptive
and productive apply to a variety of kinds of language knowledge and use.
When they are applied to vocabulary, these terms cover all the aspects of what

20
 Chapter Two
is involved in knowing a word. Table (2) lists these aspects using a model,
which emphasizes the parts. It is also possible to show the aspects of what is
involved in knowing a word using a process model, which emphasizes the
relations between the parts. At the most general level, knowing a word
involves form, meaning and use (Nation and Newton, 1997:40).
Table (2) What is Involved in Knowing a Word
Spoken R What does the word sound like?
P How is the word pronounced?
Form Written R What does the word look like?
P How is the word written and spelled?
Word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word?
P What word parts are needed to express the
meaning?
Form and meaning R What meaning does this word form
signal?
Meaning P What word form can be used to express
this meaning?
Concept and referents R What is included in the concept?
P What items can the concept refer to?
Associations R What other words does this make us think
of?
P What other words could we use instead of
this one?
Grammatical functions R In what patterns does the word occur?
P In what patterns must we use this word?
Use Collocations R What words or types of words occur with
this one?
P What words or types of words must we
use with this one?
Constraints on use R Where, when, and how often would we
(register, frequency..) expect to meet this word?
P Where, when, and how often can we use
this word?

(Nation, 1990: 40)

21
 Chapter Two
However, it seems that receptive learning and use is easier than
productive learning and use, but it is not clear however why receptive should
be less difficult than productive.
2.6. Dictionary Use and Vocabulary Learning
The debate of whether dictionaries should be used in the foreign
language classroom, and what dictionaries, if at all, should be used has always
been a lively one amongst language teachers and lexicographers (Krashen,
1989:240).
Most studies on the effectiveness of dictionaries in vocabulary learning
have been conducted in L1 settings, and most have compared dictionary
definitions with contextual guessing. In general, results in these studies
favoured the contextual guessing approach i.e. guessing and learning words
from context (Crist, 1981; Crist & Petrone, 1977). These results were,
however, confounded by the fact that the contextual guessing groups read
texts that included definitions or examples, and were exposed to dictionary-
like situations as well as natural texts (Knight, 1994:285).
Recent years have witnessed a large interest in dictionary research in L2
contexts (e.g. Hulstijn, 1993: 149; Laufer & Hadar, 1997: 193; Laufer & Hill
2000: 60). Knight (1994:289), for example, discovers that while incidental
vocabulary learning through contextual guessing do take place, those who use
a dictionary as well as guess through context not only learn more words
immediately after reading but also remember more after two weeks. She also
finds that low verbal ability participants benefit more from the dictionary than
high verbal ability participants, WHO, in turn, benefit more from contextual
guessing (Sinclair, 1987: 290).

22
 Chapter Two
2.7. Some Factors Affecting Vocabulary Learning
There seems to be general agreement in the literature that vocabulary is
rarely explicitly taught in foreign language classrooms (Carter 1987:14;
McCarthy: 1990:viii, Lewis 1993:117; Oxford and Scarcella 1994:231). It is
assumed that, after a certain level has been achieved, the learner can be left to
his/her own devices and will continue to ‘pick up’ new words on contact
through extensive reading. In an ideal world where learners do read a lot, this
might be sufficient, but in many experiences, this is certainly not the case in
the majority of establishments catering for non-English, specialists.
Krashen (1981:40) is well known for his input-processing model of
language learning and many teachers have intuitively applied some of the
maxims of ‘natural approach’ regardless of the constraints of the actual
teaching situation. Krashen maintains that if the learne’s attention is focused
on extracting the meaning from the input, then new language will be learned
this naturally. For learning to occur in this way, however, certain conditions
have to be met (ibid). The learner must be motivated by the subject and want
to understand the message being communicated; the input must be
comprehensible. In other words, at a level only slightly higher than that
already attained by the learner and the learning environment must be stress-
free. Unfortunately, in an EFL school learning environment, this is very rarely
the case.
In their preface, Gairns and Redman (1986) give a pretty accurate
description of how vocabulary is generally taught at random today and
realistically conclude that:

23
 Chapter Two
‘In a school learning environment with limited time
available, conflicting student interests, and the
constraints imposed by other syllabus demands, we
cannot leave lexis to take care of itself in this random
fashion and assume that the students will acquire the
vocabulary which best suits their needs’. (p.1).
It is precisely true because vocabulary comes up everywhere and
anywhere in the classroom that the teacher needs to take control of the
situation and have a principled approach about how and when to deal with it in
the most constructive manner. Nation (1990:1-2) agrees that a systematic
approach to vocabulary by both the teacher and the learner is called for. He
gives three main reasons for this. Firstly, research has indicated which areas of
vocabulary learning need special attention. In particular, class time spent
looking at useful words, those that are representative of common patterns for
example, or on skills, like guessing meaning from context, is well justified.
Secondly, there are many different ways of dealing with vocabulary according
to the needs and level of the learners. It is part of the teacher’s job to find out
which techniques are the most appropriate in a given situation. Thirdly,
learners themselves often state that their biggest problems in learning a
language are linked to a lack of vocabulary, by it for reading, writing or
speaking. Clearly, the teacher needs to give more guidance in these matters.
Carter (1987) suggests that the lack of explicit vocabulary instruction
especially at higher levels may be due to a ``paucity of what teachers consider
appropriate models for vocabulary` (p.7).
Oxford and Scarcella (1994:235) come close to supplying a model with
their research-based approach to teaching adults, which includes need

24
 Chapter Two
analysis, personalisation, learning strategies and a variety of partially
contextualized activities. Lewis (1993: 117) also calls for classroom
procedures which ` help students to identify lexical items correctly, encourage
recording in helpful, non-linear formats, and encourage transfer from short
term memory to long term memory.
The teacher needs to take into account a certain number of factors that
affect vocabulary learning and, those factors are grouped under two main
headings: the role of memory, and the use of contextualized, semi
contextualized and decontextualized activities.

2.7.1. The Role of Memory

At its simplest level, learning a foreign language is all about memory-
remembering new combinations of meaningful sounds and symbols to
communicate with a new speech community. But we have different types of
memory which are used for doing different things. Stevick (1982:63) uses the
image of stencils on a small table to represent short-term memory (STM).
When we try to put more than a certain number of these stencils on our small
table, others fall off on to the floor and are lost, just as new words are
forgotten if they are not recycled in some way and make it into our long term
memory (LTM). In an EFL situation, our students do not have the advantage
of being surrounded by the language they are learning; exposure is
nevertheless very limited and it is up to the teacher to ensure that essential
vocabulary is returned to the worktable in an effort to get it up onto the wall’,
to continue with Stevick’s stencil image. What is essential becomes harder to
define as the learner progresses, so the reviewing element of the course, while

25
 Chapter Two
probably teacher-initiated, should become more learner-centred, allowing
more room for individual responses (Plowman, 1996: 13).
Various researchers have tried to discover the number of repetitions that
are necessary for a word to be ‘known’, their results vary greatly but suggest
that between five and sixteen repetitions of a word in context are required
(Nation, 1990:43-44). It also appears that distributed practice of these items
rather than massed practice is more effective for long term retention (Stevick,
1982:65) and that there are optimum times for reviewing new vocabulary-ten
minutes after the first presentation, the 24 hours later, a week later, then long
intervals (Pimsleur 1969: 73; Russell 1979: 21).
In order to anchor a new word in our brain and facilitate its rapid
retrieval, we have to generate as many links as possible with the existing
semantic network. The L1–L2 connection is an obvious starting point, but the
more links the better, hence the utility of exercises based on word association,
collocation, semantic fields and identifying lexical chunks.
Over-concentration on learning single words may hinder the
development of the L2 phrasal lexicon and deny the opportunities for rapid
retrieval and fluent, connected speech in the stressful conditions of speaking
and writing (McCarthy 1990:45).
By involving the learners in activities, which require them to think
creatively, make new associations, solve problems, and make and test
hypotheses about language, we will be helping them to retain it. Having said
that, there are words, which will go straight into our permanent memory with
seemingly little or no effort due to the intensity of the exposure. This
phenomenon works at a very personal level and depends, among other things,

26
 Chapter Two
on individual learning styles and emotional and cognitive associations. The
Community language learning method makes full use of a connected notion of
personal investment, where the majority of language learnt is initiated by the
learners themselves, stemming from subjects they choose to raise
(Curran 1976:25). Another aspect of memory that deserves mention here is the
use of mnemonic devices and the keyword technique in particular. Most
people are familiar with one mnemonic technique or another and make
frequent use of at least one in their everyday lives to remember. In spite of
conclusive evidence from experimental research (reported by Nation
1990:168) which proves the superiority of the keyword technique over other
methods of learning vocabulary, its use in language learning remains limited.
Disadvantages of keyword include the time-consuming nature of the
enterprise and possible negative effects on spelling and pronunciation
(Carter 1987155). Another reason for its lack of popularity was mentioned in a
recent article by Pincas (1996) that “Memory improvement is generally
regarded as a low-level activity, mechanical, non-intellectual and therefore,
especially in academic circles, as non-educational” (p.14).

2.7.2. Decontextualized Vocabulary Learning

Decontextualized techniques are probably what most people think of as
vocabulary learning. Such techniques include - rote learning of paired or
unpaired word lists, the use of flashcards and bilingual dictionaries. All of
these techniques promote the idea that there is always a one-to-one
relationship between L1 and –L2 item and pay no attention to the key role that
context plays in aiding retention and recall. Despite the research into

27
 Chapter Two
language learning, which has highlighted the importance of systematic and
paradigmatic relations between words in our mental lexicon, rote - learning of
discrete items from vocabulary lists remains the most common strategy among
learners (Meara, 1980:237).
There are ways of making lists easier to learn; where possible, learners
can be encouraged to construct their own lists of words they want to learn and
to include definitions, synonyms and collocates, as well as, or instead of, the
L1 equivalent, flash cards or personal vocabulary notebooks that include this
kind of information are a good alternative to the traditional list (Schmitt and
McCarthy;1997: 19). As far as dictionaries are concerned, they should be used
as a tool serving to confirm the learner’s previous guesswork. There has been
a recent explosion in dictionary publishing and there are now many
monolingual dictionaries available written specially for the learner. These
represent a clear advantage over bilingual dictionaries as they show the new
word in its natural environment, often with examples taken from a corpus
(Carter and McCarthy 1988:82).

2.7.3. Contextualized Vocabulary Learning

We may speak of contextualized or indirect vocabulary learning when
the learner is using one or several skills-reading, writing, listening, speaking-
in order to carry out a specific communicative task. The learner’s attention is
focused on the task rather than on the language, but incidental vocabulary
learning may occur either through exposure to new language in written or oral
form, or as the learner activates his/her own store of words to produce speech
or writing. Vocabulary learning can be maximized during productive task
work by the careful design of worksheets, which draw the learner’s attention

28
 Chapter Two
to keywords (Newton, 1995:159). Naturalistic practice, through simulations,
role-plays and discussions, is the cornerstone of the communicative approach
and when accompanied by noticing activities can contribute to vocabulary
learning. Reading extensively is widely held to be the best way to increase
one’s vocabulary. While reading are exposed to masses of new language in
context; and the relationship between reading and vocabulary has been
described as the old couple and the interdependence of the two is a constant
source of difficulty and frustration for the learners. The learners have to read
more in order to increase their vocabulary, but when they try they are often
quickly deterred, if not defeated, by the amount of unknown words they come
across in authentic texts (Dubin, 1989:283). Extensive reading needs to be
encouraged from the start by introducing learners to graded readers. They get
students into the habit of reading for longer and out of the habit of diving for
the dictionary at each unknown word. Guessing the meaning from context has
been described as the most important vocabulary learning strategy and goes
hand in hand with an extensive reading programme.
Teaching the learner how to identify the part of speech, make use of
prefixes, roots and suffixes and infer from their own knowledge of the world
will help him to at least narrow down the meaning so that he can continue to
read and still follow the story (Nation, 1990:130). The main difficulty in
getting EFL learners to read more is one of motivation. When we read in our
mother tongue, it is for an authentic purpose-to find out or check some
information or simply for pleasure. When learners read in a foreign language,
it is not usually for such authentic reasons, buy merely a language learning
exercise (Nuttal, 1982:57). This being the case, it is clear that reading is often
limited to the strict minimum imposed by the teacher. It is true that those who

29
 Chapter Two
enjoy reading in their L1 are more likely to transfer the habit to the L2 and
some research seems to support the transfer of L1 reading skills to the L2 once
a threshold level has been attained. If there is no pleasure in reading in the L 2,
then there is very little that can be done to get the learner to read more in the
L2. There is a strong argument here for allowing the learner to choose his/her
reading material for himself/herself, whenever that is possible. Alternatively,
techniques such as pre-reading exercises can be used to stimulate interest in a
set text and clearly defined tasks can provide a purpose for the reading
exercises itself (Grabe, 1991:375).
Nevertheless, the incidental vocabulary learning that occurs during skills
practice is usually insufficient to promote steady vocabulary growth. Oxford
and Crookall (1990:10) point out that reading and listening do little to increase
the student’s productive knowledge and that production practice mainly
reinforce their existing schemata.
In order to expand and enrich the learner’s lexicon, we also need to make
use of semi-contextualized activities that can give them the opportunity to
`play` with old and new words and discover how they all fit together.

2.7.4. Semi-Contextualized Activities

Techniques suggested by Oxford and Crookall (1990:15) in this category
include word grouping, word association, visual and aural imagery, keyword,
physical response and sensation. The first three are combined in a further
technique called semantic mapping. These techniques lie halfway along the
continuum between decontextualized and fully-contextualized vocabulary
learning. They combine the advantage of both by focusing directly on form
and providing some degree of context. They can be used to present new lexis,

30
 Chapter Two
to review previously seen lexis or generally to increase the learner’s
awareness of how words are related. Word grouping exercises can help to
make the learner aware of some of the organising principles that exist within
the lexicon.
Words can be grouped in many different ways. Gairns and Redman
(1986:3) list thirteen categories that cover phonological and grammatical sets
as well as semantic fields. Rudzka et al (1981:37), drawing on the work of
Lehrer (1974), produced probably the first book that set out to help students
systematically increase their vocabulary. Written for intermediate and
advanced students, ‘The words you need’ made extensive use of componential
and collocational grids to analyse words drawn from the same semantic field.
While criticised for its apparently prescriptive approach, this book tackled the
problems facing advanced learners head on and can perhaps be regarded as the
precursor of the lexical approach. This is described by Lewis (1993: 62) who
rejects the use of grids and matrices as too atomistic and proposes an
alternative system of collocation boxes and word lobsters for recording
common word partnerships.
Word association exercises are useful for activating existing schemata,
highlighting differences between apparent word pairs and generally raising
awareness of collocation which is the major problem for advanced learners
(Brown, 1974:11). Brainstorming exercises used as pre-reading or pre-
listening tasks, are a common feature of course books and the technique is also
widely used outside language learning. Encouraging learners to represent their
brainstorming in word trees or semantic maps gives them the chance to utilize
the creative capacities of the right brain and to start to become aware of the
multitude of relations that exist between words (McCarthy and O’ Dell,

31
 Chapter Two
1994:57). Semantic mapping can also help learners to recall words better as
the spacial arrangements is imprinted in their memory, and is a good
alternative to the list format usually favoured by students for recording new
words (Oxford, 1996:30). Mapping is also a good way of demonstrating to
students that they all have their own individual mental lexicon, which they can
develop according to their own, needs and interests.
Unfortunately, most educational systems do not encourage an
individualized approach to learning and students are obliged to learn the same
things in the same way to facilitate testing and assessment. Due to this
conditioning there may be some resistance to these vocabulary learning
techniques, which demand more creative thought and free association of ideas.
The learners may feel frustrated because often there is no `right` answer to be
found, so they think they are wasting their time, playing with words. There
also seems to be a common belief that classroom activities cannot be
pedagogically sound and `fun` at the same time. If the learner is to continue to
expand his vocabulary, he needs to take charge of it, firstly by setting himself
targets based on his needs, then by selecting what is most useful from the
masses of new items he is exposed to, and finally by finding effective ways of
recording and recycling the new language. (Plowman, 1996:17).

32