Meara 1980

Vocabulary acquisition: a neglected aspect of language learning. Paul Meara Introduction Vocabulary acquisition is part of the psychology of second language learning that has received short shrift from applied linguistics, and has been very largely neglected by recent developments in research. This neglect is all the more stri ing in that learners themselves readily admit that they e!perience considerable difficulty "ith vocabulary, and once they have got over the initial stages of acquiring their second language, most learners identify the acquisition of vocabulary as their greatest single source of problems. This article is an attempt to redress this neglect. #t summarises the current "or being done on vocabulary acquisition, and dra"s attention to a number of studies carried out by e!perimental psychologists "hich may have implications for the development of vocabulary in the second language. The article ends "ith a number of questions "hich have not been investigated in any depth, but "hich seem to me to be "orth loo ing at more closely. A: Bibliographies and general works $espite the comments above about the general level of neglect in the study of vocabulary acquisition, there do e!ist a number of bibliographies of relevance to anybody "or ing in this field. The most important of these is $ale and %a&i 19'(, a very e!tensive "or , not primarily concerned "ith foreign language acquisition, but containing three relevant subsections "ith some 1)0 references. The 19'( edition of this "or is actually a re"or ing of an earlier edition, and this may account for the fact that most of the references relate to second language "or carried out in the 19(0s. The most recent bibliography dealing specifically "ith *+ vocabulary acquisition is T"omey 19,9. This "or is patchy in its coverage, ho"ever, and a fuller bibliography, using a larger database, is in preparation -Meara, in prep... The principal impression that emerges from these bibliographies is that research in vocabulary acquisition has been largely atheoretical and unsystematic. There are no 1

Meara 1980 clear theories of vocabulary acquisition, and the level of research activity is in general fairly lo". T"omey, for instance, contains a large number of references "hich are short articles aimed at providing practical tips for teachers concerned "ith particular items of vocabulary for a particular target audience -e.g. /ro"n 19,01 Martin 19,'1 2alt 19,'1 %idout 19,,., and on the "hole, research in the field has avoided the serious theoretical questions that arise once one moves a"ay from this very basic level. 3 number of generalised approaches to vocabulary acquisition do e!ist. 4alisson 19,0 discusses vocabulary teaching at length, and considers the effectiveness of different types of vocabulary learning e!ercises. These ideas are e!panded in 4alisson 19,9. 3n approach to vocabulary teaching based on contrasting le!ical structure is to be found in 5olec 19,0 -cf. also $agut, 19,,, for a shorter argument on the same lines.. T"o other large6scale "or s, $ale, 78%our e and /amman 19,1 and 78%our e 19,0 are also "orth mentioning at this stage. They are both concerned e!clusively "ith first language vocabulary development, but the ideas discussed are clearly of some relevance to second language learners. The also e!ists a number of shorter articles "hich dra" attention to the need for further "or on vocabulary acquisition. Marton 19,, discusses the problems of idioms, "hich he sees as the biggest obstacle to fluent comprehension in advance learners. *ord 19,0 dra"s attention to the importance of *eopold8s 1908 study of semantic development in a bilingual child -cf. also 9oshida 19,8 for an empirical study along these same lines.. 3 brief but e!cellent critique of vocabulary research is *evenston 19,9, "ho reiterates a number of points made in this paper, criticising applied linguistics for its general neglect of vocabulary learning in favour of the study of syntactic development. *evenston discusses a number of research pro:ects "hich have only recently begun, and "hich are therefore difficult to assess satisfactorily. These include *evenston8s o"n "or , -/lum and *evenston 19,8 and *evenston and /lum 19,,., "here it is argued that the le!ical simplification strategies used by learners may follo" universal rules1 and *innarud 19,9, "ho suggests that foreign language learners may have characteristically lo" levels of vocabulary richness compared to normal spea ers. -7n this use of type to en ratios as a measure of learners8 vocabulary cf. also ;ebber 19,,, <hilpot 19,, and Meara 19,8.. 3ll these pieces of "or are small6scale, ho"ever, and none of them adds up to a coherent and impressive body of no"ledge at this stage. 3part from these general "or s, and a fe" small poc ets of isolated research "or mentioned above, there also e!ists a number of fields "hich have been or are being investigated in a fairly systematic fashion, and are thus important because they comprise the bul of the "or on vocabulary acquisition. +

Meara 1980 B: Vocabulary control The best developed and most systematic "or in the field is to be found in attempts to :ustify the selection of vocabulary items for inclusion in courses and e!aminations on the basis of frequency counts and similar ob:ective measures. This "or is too "ell6 no"n to need discussion here. 4ood summaries can be found in /ongers 190,1 Mac ey 19')1 and 2yracuse =niversity %esearch >orporation 19,(. $espite their obvious merits, frequency counts are no" very much out of favour "ith applied linguists -cf. ;il ins, 19,+, for a fairly typical criticism of this sort approach.. #n contrast to the very carefully chosen vocabulary of earlier course boo s, many modern boo s appeared to rely almost entirely on sub:ective assessments of the usefulness of "ords. Van ? -19,,., for instance, contains no discussion of "hat criteria "ere used for the inclusion of "ords in the Threshold *evel vocabulary -cf. also 5offman 19,'.. #n general, language teachers seem to be una"are of more recent developments in "ord counts. ;est8s General Service List 19)( is often cited by publishers and e!amining boards as guiding their choice of "ords in readers and e!aminations for learners in ?nglish, for e!ample, despite the fact that both this list and the related Thorndi e6*orge list have no" been superseded by the more recent @ucera6Arancis count -@ucera and Arancis 19',.. %ecent counts for a number of other languages commonly taught to learners also e!ist, and ought to be more "idely no"n. These include Builland and >hang6 %odrigue& 19'0 for 2panish1 Builland, /rodin and $avido"itch 19,0 for Arench1 and Builland and Traversa 19,( for #talian. 3n important feature that differentiates most of these modern counts from their earlier counterparts is the use of computers in their preparation. 3ll the early counts "ere carried out by hand -the Thorndi e6*orge count "as in fact begun during the $epression as a "ay of providing "or for the unemployed., and "ere accordingly both e!pensive and slo" to reach completion. The rapid processing facilitated by computers ma es it possible to produce "ord counts at minimal cost, and to eep them regularly updated. This use of computers to carry out simple statistical analyses of te!ts is a development "hich is li ely to be of some importance to language teachers, as it has considerable implications for the preparation teaching materials. >omputer programs "hich "ill do "ord counts and similar basic statistics on continuous te!t have e!isted for some time, and they are no" beginning to appear in the form of easy6to6use pac ages, designed for amateurs "ith no real e!perience of computer programming, and they require only minimal instruction before they can be used. 3n e!cellent e!ample of an easy to use pac age of this sort is the Oxford Concordance Project -5oc eyand Marriott 19,96801 /urnard, 5oc ey and Marriott 19,9.. This pac age produces basic "ord counts for te!ts of any reasonable length, alphabetical listings, frequency listings, concordances "ith (

Meara 1980 conte!ts of specified lengths, and so forth. Though the pac age is primarily aimed at literary scholars, its uses are of course not limited to literary te!ts. #t could also be used, for e!ample, to provide accurate frequency counts of the vocabulary used in 8special6 purpose8 situations or to prepare a glossary to accompany set te!t, and so forth. =se of tools of this ind seems li ely to become increasingly important in the preparation teaching materials -cf. *yne and 19,)1 >ulhane 19,,1 and Bohnson 19,+. 3n interesting general introduction to this sort of "or is Morton 19,9.. This outline of research into vocabulary control and selection has been deliberately brief, and is not intended to be a comprehensive one. 7n the "hole this "or is "ell6 no"n and reasonably familiar. My main reason for raising it here is because "or of this type has played such a preponderant part in the study of vocabulary acquisition that no revie" "ould be complete "ithout at least a cursory mention. 5o"ever, the "or is also important because it illustrates t"o aspects of research into vocabulary acquisition "hich are characteristic of the field is "hole, and therefore deserve further comment. #n the first place, this "or is characteristic in that it concentrates on "hat is basically a problem to do "ith the management of learning, rather than "ith the learning process itself 6 i.e. the ob:ect of this type of research is to decide "hat "ords are to be taught, not to find out ho" "ords are actually learned. This is an important point, and "ill be returned to later at the end of the ne!t section. #n the second place, this "or also illustrates ho" easy it is to fall into the trap of accepting uncritically a "hole set of assumptions, and to design a large research programme around these assumptions, "ithout ever calling their validity into question. #n this case, the central assumption is that it really is necessary to place a severely restricted upper limit on the number of "ords that the learners can reasonably be e!pected to acquire in a foreign language. 2ome simple arithmetic indicates that a vocabulary of +000 "ords could be learned in 11 months if ne" "ords "ere acquired at a rate si! per day. This figure does not appear to be "ildly e!cessive, given "hat "e no" about the capacity of the brain to acquire ne" information. Cevertheless, most teachers "ould undoubtedly consider +000 "ords to be "ell beyond the capacity of many learners, even over a five6year course instruction -cf. for instance, ;ic lo" 19,0, and /arnard 19,1, "here these assumptions are made quite e!plicit.. Co doubt there is some practical :ustification, based on e!perience, for this general belief that learners cannot easily acquire a large foreign language vocabulary in a short space of time, but the theoretical basis for this agreement is by no means clear. This is obviously an area in "hich further research "ould be most useful. C. Mnemonics The second ma:or area of research to be discussed is one "hich has, in a "ay, addressed itself to this problem, challenging the assumption that massive vocabularies cannot be 0

Meara 1980 acquired by introducing mnemonic techniques into the teaching of vocabulary. The best studied of these methods is the 8 ey"ord8 method "hich has been the ob:ect of considerable attention in the last fe" years particularly in the =nited 2tates -3t inson and %augh 19,)1 3t inson 19,)1 %augh and 3t inson and 19,01 <ressley 19,,1 <ressley and *evin 19,81 <ressley -in press.1 2inger 19,,.. #n this method, the target language "ords are associated "ith phonetically similar *1 "ords -called ey"ords. in the first stage of learning, and then, in the second stage, these ey"ords are associated "ith the *1 translation of the original target language "ord by means of a stri ing visual image. Thus for e!ample %augh and 3t inson suggests that the 2panish "ord >3/3**7 -pronounced cob6eye6oh DsicE. might be lin ed to ?nglish ?9? and ?9? to 57%2? via the image of horse "ith a great side cyclopean eye in the middle of its forehead. 7r more prosaically, >3/3**7 might be lin ed to the ?nglish "ord >3/, "hich in turn "ould be lin ed to 57%2? via the image of horse dra"ing a cab. The papers listed above report a number of e!periments "hich compare more traditional "ays of learning vocabulary -e.g. list repetition. "ith this ey"ord method, and despite its initial implausibility, present some impressive results in support of this sort of practice. %augh and 3t inson -19,0., for e!ample, report that learners using the ey"ord method can cope "ith very long list of "ords -'0 items. and still get 80 percent correct on a subsequent test, a figure that is considerably better than that produced by learners using repetition and rehearsal methods. More importantly, the ey"ord groups preserve their advantage over time, and sho" less evidence of forgetting than is found "ith control groups. This evidence is very impressive at first sight, but "or of this ind is actually rather problematical at a deeper level, and needs to be treated "ith some caution. The most obvious problem is that e!periments of this sort treat vocabulary items as discreet pairs of translation equivalents, and completely ignore the comple! patterns of meaning relationships that characterise a proper, fully formed le!icon, as opposed to a mere "ord list. *earning vocabulary is not :ust a matter of acquiring translation equivalentsF it is "ell6 no"n that languages rarely map their le!ical items onto each other in a one6to6one fashion. 2ome le!ical structuring must go on even "hen the shortest "ord list is learned, and any vie" of vocabulary acquisition "hich treats the problem as a simple matter of pairing "ords "ith their translation equivalents is an oversimplified one, "hich cannot adequately account for ho" these semantic relationships are built up in a foreign language vocabulary. 3ll the e!perimental studies of vocabulary acquisition "hich ma e use of mnemonic devices are basically subscribing to model of 8paired associate learning8 "hich does not seem to me to be sufficiently rich to account for "hat is involved in the acquisition of a second language vocabulary -cf. for e!ample >rothers )

Meara 1980 and 2uppes 19', "here a model of vocabulary acquisition based on paired associate learning e!plicitly discussed.. 3 second problem that characterises the ey"ord studies is that they are generally one6 off e!periments that do not study real language learners in the course of learning a language, but only sub:ects prepared to ta e part in a small number of e!perimental sessions in a laboratory setting. This means that the sub:ects tested often have initial vocabulary of &ero, and it is unclear ho" far and results in such e!periments might be generalisable to more advanced learners. More importantly, it means that the comparison bet"een the ey"ord method and other methods is usually limited in practice to methods that can also be contained "ithin a single e!perimental session, such as rote learning by repetition. ;hether the ey"ord method is in the long6term more effective than other methods "hich are not readily comparable "ith it, such as the 2ilent ;ay, or Total #mmersion, or even methods "hich place special emphasis on vocabulary acquisition such as 4ouin8s 2eries Technique -4ouin 1880. or /arter8s >omaparative Method -/arter 19,01 /ec er 19,,., is typically a question "hich is not as ed. #ndeed, even "ithin its o"n terms of reference, the comparisons made are rather spurious. #t is difficult to imagine that even the most ardent believers in rote learning methods might require their students to use this method "ith lists containing '0 items. #t seems important, then, that these laboratory tests should be complemented by properly controlled longitudinal classroom tests, before their findings are "idely accepted. 3 third problem is that the ey"ord method is used principally in situations "here the target language "ord is required to evo e the native language equivalent. The phonetic lin idea seems to "or reasonably "ell in this respect, and the method does seem to have some value as far as recognition vocabulary is concerned. The value of the method for developing active vocabulary is much less clear, ho"ever, and it seems li ely that the practice of stressing crude phonetic similarities bet"een *1 "ords and target language "ords "ould in the long6term have a serious detrimental effect on the pronunciation of target language "ords. 3 final point to be made about this "or is that %augh and 3t inson, at least, have a highly directive approach to the choice of ey"ords. 7ne might have e!pected that this choice could easily be left to the individual learner, but %augh and 3t inson actually go to some lengths to stress that not all ey"ords are equally effective, and only ey"ords sho"n by e!tensive research to be effective should be used. 3 more recent mnemonic technique is the 5oo ;ord technique, described by <aivio 19,8 and <aivio and $esrochers 19,9. This research is still in its infancy, but seems to '

Meara 1980 suffer some of the same problems as the ey"ord method. The same criticism also applies to 7tt, /la e and /utler 19,', "ho report a number of studies using 8elaborative techniques8 -*ado, /ald"in and *obo 19',1 /utler, 7tt and /la e 19,(1 @nop 19,114roberg 19,+1 5olley 19,11 cf also 2et&ler and >lar 19,'.. . !eneral comments 2o far "e have covered t"o areas of research in the broad field of vocabulary acquisition. These t"o areas may at first sight appear to be relatively unconnected. #n fact, ho"ever, they are both lin ed in that they share common defectF their concern "ith the peripheral aspects of vocabulary acquisition rather than central ones. #n the case of research into the uses of frequency counts, "e have already seen ho" the management of learning rather than an understanding ho" learning ta es place and "hat it involves, is the principal driving force behind the investigations reported. /asically, the learners8 load is lightened for them by "or ing out beforehand "hich "ords are li ely to be of use to them, and "hich ones are not "orth the trouble of learning. ;hat happens to the "ords that are learned is not in question. ;ith mnemonics, too, the emphasis is placed squarely on the management of the learning process, the main theoretical questions as ed being ones concerned "ith the effectiveness of different forms of presentation. /oth these approaches, then, are concerned "ith "hat is basically the periphery of acquiring ne" vocabulary. 9et it must be obvious that these peripheral aspects, important though they may be, leave unans"ered a large number of questions "hich are of considerable relevance to our understanding of ho" vocabulary is acquired. *earning ne" "ords is not an instantaneous process 6 if it "ere, and if presentation "ere the only critical variable involved, then "ords "ould not be forgotten and need to be re6 learned. 3s it is, ho"ever, it seems that "ords are absorbed slo"ly over time, and that only gradually do they become fully integrated into the learners8 personal stoc of "ords, "hen they can use them "ith the same sort of fluency and that characterises the "ords they use in their native language. 2ome "or that is relevant to this rather more difficult question is discussed in the sections that follo". There does e!ist a reasonably large body of e!perimental "or "hich has attempted to investigate ho" bilingual spea ers store "ords in their mental dictionaries. These studies may not appear to be of direct relevance to language teaching and language learning, but in fact their relevance is often greater then appears at first sight. Their importance lies in the fact that they provide us "ith some clues about "hat the end product of learning a foreign language might consist of, and "hat sort of behaviour can be e!pected of a fluent bilingual. #nformation of this ind should, in theory at least, enable us to compare the behaviour of non6fluent bilinguals 6 i.e. language learners 6 ,

Meara 1980 "ith that of fluent bilinguals, and so to ma e inferences about the "ay a developing vocabulary in a second language gro"s. /asically, this "or can provide us "ith a model, albeit a s etchy one, against "hich to assess the more limited abilities of less fluent learners. Most of the "or to be described in the ne!t sections is not ostensibly concerned "ith foreign language learners1 the sub:ects used in these e!periments are usually 8balanced bilinguals8 6 i.e. spea ers "ho are :udged to be equally fluent in both their languages. The main purpose of this research has been to compare t"o types of bilinguals 6 compound and coordinate 6 a distinction first dra"n by ?rvin and 7sgood 19)0. ?rvin and 7sgood argued that the "ay in "hich a language "as acquired might be e!pected to produce different types of structuring in a bilingual8s mental dictionary. >ompound bilinguals, those "ho have acquired the t"o languages together in a single environment, usually in infancy, might be e!pected to have a single set of meanings tagged by t"o sets of labels, one for each language. #n contrast, ?rvin and 7sgood argued that coordinate bilinguals, "ho learned their t"o languages in largely separate environments, might develop "hat are effectively t"o separate le!icons, one for each language, "hich function independently of each other. 3gain, this "or may not seem to be directly relevant to second language acquisition, but the relevance is there, nonetheless. *ambert has argued that certain types of teaching method may be more li ely to produce behaviour characteristic of one type of bilingual, rather than the other. $irect Method teaching, for instance, "hich tries to eliminate reference to a learner8s mother tongue, might be more li ely to produce the learners "ith the characteristics of coordinate bilinguals. ?!perimental evidence to support this claim is not available, ho"ever, and a rather different claim has been put for"ard by %iegel 19'8. %iegel argues that this dichotomy is a false one, and that there is actually a natural development from a sort of compound system to one "hich is closer in ind to the classical coordinate model, irrespective of the language acquisition bac ground. The reason "hy this "or is of some relevance to second language acquisition is that many of the 8balanced bilinguals8 the used as sub:ects in these e!periments are actually far from equally fluent in their t"o languages. #n fact, the criteria used to decide on an acceptable level of ability in the second language are often ill defined and crude, and in practice the term 8bilingual8 can mean anything from fully and equally fluent in both languages, to someone "ho has only barely begun to acquire their second language and could not be considered equally fluent by any stretch of the imagination. The unsatisfactory nature of the tests used to measure second language fluency -often only 8

Meara 1980 self6ratings, or impressionistic :udgements made by the e!perimenter. is a ma:or fla" in this literature. #t does mean, ho"ever, that a number of the studies, despite their pretensions, are actually concerned "ith ordinary language learners. The "or to be considered in the ne!t sections fall into t"o partsF -a. e!periments concerned "ith the general question of "hether the bilingual8s le!icons are separate or independent, and -b. e!periments concerned "ith the semantic relationships that e!ist bet"een "ords in the bilingual8s le!icons. 3 third area 6 the ability of bilinguals to handle "ords in each of their t"o languages in very demanding situations such as tachistoscopic recognition tas s, or dichotic listening tas s, and so forth 6 "ill not be considered here, due to lac of space. #nterested readers are referred to 3lbert and 7bler 19,9, an e!cellent boo "ith a superb bibliography -though cf. 4reen and Ce"man 1980 for critical revie".. This "or suggests that there may be ma:or differences bet"een stronger and "ea er languages, and provides some evidence for the claim that second language "ords may be processed less effectively by certain parts of the brain. #n particular, a number of studies suggest that there are hemispheric asymmetries for different languages -cf. ;alters and Gatorre 19,8 for 2panish1 5amers and *ambert 19,, for Arench1 @ershner and Beng 19,+ for >hinese1 and 7rbach 19)( for 5ebre".. This type of research is becoming increasingly sophisticated and influential and loo s li e becoming one of the ma:or gro"th areas in psycholinguistics in the immediate future. ". Memory e#periments The "or to be revie"ed in this section consists of a number of e!perimental studies "hich have all attempted to test the claim that bilinguals have t"o separate, independently functioning le!icons, rather than a single fully integrated one. Aor reasons "hich are not "holly clear, this claim seems to have been most often investigated by the use of memory tas s, and in particular by the use of tas s "here interference from one language to another is observed. This is obviously a fairly crude tool, and the results found in these e!periments are correspondingly limited. The general line of argument is that if bilinguals8 t"o sets of "ords "ere stored totally independently, then very little interference "ould be e!pected in tas s that require sub:ects to use both of their languages. ;here interference is found, this is usually interpreted as supporting the claim that the t"o languages function interdependently, and are not "holly separated. The more important studies of this ind are summarised in table 1. =seful discussions of this "or "ill be found in 3lbert and 7bler 19,9 and Mc>ormac 19,,. The e!peri6 9

Meara 1980 $able %: &ist learning and recall tasks

Author Lambert Havelka Crossby 1958 Ervin 1961 &angs Arench ?nglish $ask *earn ?nglish "ord list1 *earn Arench "ord list or learn nonsense "ord list %ecall ?nglish "ord list Came pictures in ?nglish or #talian <ractice "ith #talian %ecall original lists Comments Aor compound bilinguals learning a Arench list facilitates recall of ?nglish "ords. Aor co6 ordinates, both interference tas s are equally disruptive Aor compound bilinguals, dominant in #talian ob:ects named fastest in #talian "ere easy to recall. 7b:ects named fastest in ?nglish "ere recalled equally "ell in either language %ecall of mi!ed language "ord lists #nterlingual and intralingual repetitions both "ith some repeated items increased the probability of recall %ecall of monolingual or mi!ed 4reater recall in the 2s8 stronger language. language lists, semantically Co effect for mi!ed language lists, but large categorised or not numbers of translation errors are found "hen categories and languages conflict. %ecall of mi!ed language lists >ategories crossing languages produced containing semantically related items "orse recall. or not %ecall of mi!ed language lists Co difference in primary memory1 large differences in secondary memory "ith the most proficient language being most impaired on multilingual lists. ;ords presented in lists containing More accurate performance in the dominant repetitions. 2s are as ed to :udge language. 2s found it hard to treat "hether each "ord "as ne" or translations as ne" "ords. repeated. 2s learn a series of short lists follo"ed 2"itching languages improves performance by a final list "here one of the list for balanced bilinguals, but greater characteristics is changed dominance produces a a smaller effect *earn a short list then a longer list *earning the part6list in *1 and the "hole list that contains items from the first list in *+ produces negative transfer. <ositive in a different order. transfer is found in the opposite condition. %ecall of mi!ed language lists categorised semantically *earn list 3 *earn list / %ecall *ist / *earn list of ?nglish "ord pairs, then learn a ne" list "here items or language are changed /etter recall in Arench, "orse recall in mi!ed language lists, plus the usual category effects. ;hen list / contained items translated from list 3 recall "as better, though more so if list / "as in ?nglish. Translation errors are frequent "here a language change "as made.

#talian ?nglish

Kolers Arench 1965 ?nglish Lambert Arench Ignatow ?nglish Kraut amer %ussian 1968 !ott Arench Lambert ?nglish 1968 "ulving Arench Colotla ?nglish 19#$ Kints% 19#$ 4erman ?nglish

&oggin 'i%kens 19#1 (aegert Ka)arian *oung 19#+ 19#+ &ope' (oung %)*+ &ope' ,icks (oung %)*+ &iepmann -aegert %)*+

2panish ?nglish 2panish ?nglish 3rabic

C am,agnol Arench

?nglish 2panish ?nglish 2panish ?nglish

3rabic ?nglish

%epeated learning of lists dra"n from <erformance deteriorates more in the either a monolingual or a bilingual bilingual condition. pool.

10

Meara 1980 mental methods may seem rather obscure, but in general they are techniques "hich have been "idely used in e!periments "ith monolingual sub:ects, and "hich produce robust results "hich are reasonably "ell understood. The bul of the "or reported in table 1 is generally ta en as supporting the interdependence position, rather than the independence positionF i.e. it seems to support the claim that "ords in a second language are indeed integrated in some "ay "ith "ords in the first language to form a comple! "hole le!icon. The logic of this argument is not al"ays as clear as it might be, ho"ever and some of the data argues strongly against this position. Tulving and >olotla 19,0 for e!ample sho"ed that in mi!ed language lists of "ords, recall "as much "orse than in single language lists, and that the greater part of this deficit seems to be due to the fact that *1 "ords are handled less satisfactorily in secondary memory than "ords from "ea er languages. This finding is at odds "ith some of the other findings reported, and is not "hat "ould have been e!pected, but there are no obvious faults "ith this e!periment, and it therefore needs to be ta en seriously. 2ome of the other e!periments, particularly the ones that use 2panish as one of the languages tested, are rather less satisfactory and need to be treated "ith some caution. The sub:ects in these studies are usually schoolchildren brought up spea ing 2panish as their mother tongue, but being taught ?nglish as the medium of instruction in 3merican schools. Most of the sub:ects rated themselves as more fluent in ?nglish than in 2panish, and "ere thus classified as ?nglish dominant, but this seems rather implausible. The use of self6ratings "ith sub:ects such as these seems to be an unreliable method of assessment in vie" of the obvious pressure that sub:ects must be under to overrate their competence in ?nglish and to underplay their abilities in 2panish. 4enerally spea ing, the results of these studies sho" that sub:ects are a"are of the language in "hich "ords are presented, and that they use language as a classifying label more successfully than they use other more arbitrary coding features such as colour, but this last finding is hardly surprising in vie" of the artificiality and unfamiliarity of the colour coding tas -cf. Mc>ormac 19,'.. More interesting is the finding that it is much harder to remember the language of presentation "hen languages and semantic categories are confused, and the finding that sub:ects have some difficulty in recognising "ords in a list as ne" ones "hen they have previously been presented in translated form. These results sho" clearly than "hen some ind of cognitive operation other than simple recall of the phonetic form is called for, it does become e!tremely difficult to eep t"o languages apart. #n this sense, forms in one language clearly evo e the corresponding related forms in the other language, a finding "hich "ould be very difficult to e!plain if the independent le!icons claim "ere true. 11

Meara 1980 .. -emantic tests The "or reported in the previous section is rather unsatisfactory in that it all treats the bilingual8s le!icon as though it consisted of one or t"o undifferentiated "holes about "hich it "as possible to ma e s"eeping generalisations. There is, of course, no reason to assume that all the "ords in the le!icon should behave in the same "ay as each other, and :ust as "ords are differentiated in the le!icons of monolingual spea ers in terms of frequency, length, and other similar ob:ective characteristics, it is quite li ely that similar features may produce subsets of "ords in the bilingual8s mental le!icon "hich also have quite different behavioural properties. <erhaps, then, it is inappropriate to as "hether the bilingual8s t"o "ords stores are integrated or independent as "holes, and it might ma e much more sense to assume that some "ords "ill be integrated "hile others "ill not, and thus to shift the focus of attention to individual "ords and relatively small semantic fields. 2ome "or in this ind has been carried out, and a good e!ample of "hat can be done is to be found in a number of studies using the 2troop test "ith bilingual sub:ects -2troop 19().. #n this technique, sub:ects are given lists of "ords to read "hich have been printed in different colours. Typically three sets of "ords are usedF -a. a set of neutral "ords or colour patches1 -b. a set of colour "ords congruent "ith the printed colours e.g. red printed in red, green printed in green, etc.1 -c. a set of colour "ords that are incongruent "ith the printed colours, e.g. red printed in blue, green printed in red, and so forth. The sub:ects8 tas is to ignore the actual printed "ords and state the colour that the "ord is printed in. Thus, given red printed in green in , the correct response is 8green8 and not 8red8. Tas -c. proves to be e!tremely difficult in practice, since the colour "ords interfere "ith the naming of the printed colours. #t is relatively easy to introduce a bilingual variation on the scheme, by producing further sets of "ords that contain the names of colours in the sub:ect8s second language. 3gain the stimuli are either congruent or incongruent "ith respect to the colours of the print. Thus -d. rouge "ritten in red, or bleu "ritten in blue are congruent in Arench, "hile -e. vert "ritten in blue, or rouge "ritten in green "ould be incongruent. 2ub:ects can then be as ed to call out the names of colours either in their first language or in a second language, and this introduces an additional layer of interference. 3 number of languages have been studied using this techniqueF $alrymple63lford and /udayr 19', -?nglish and 3rabic.1 $alrymple63lford 19'8 -?nglish and 3rabic.1 <reston and *ambert 19'9 -?nglish, Arench, 5ungarian and 4erman.1 $yer 19,1 -?nglish, 4ree , #talian, Arench, 4erman and 2panish.1 3lbert and 7bler 19,9 -?nglish and 5ebre".1 ?vans and To"nsendson 19,9 -?nglish and ;elsh.. 5amers and *ambert 19,+ "ho use an auditory version of the 2troop test in ?nglish and Arench, are also "orth mentioning 1+

Meara 1980 here. ;hat this "or sho"s, "ithout e!ception, is that interlingual conditions do sho" strong evidence of interference, though less than "ould be e!pected in the case of monolingual sub:ects. $yer sho"ed that the level of interference "as in part related to the phonetic shape of the "ords. Thus, for ?nglish spea er, for e!ample "hen as ed to name the "ord printed in red in , the 2panish "ord azul "ould be much less disruptive than the Arench bleu because of the similarity bet"een bleu and the ?nglish "ord blue. 7ther things being equal, ho"ever, the amount of interference caused by the foreign language "ords appears to depend on the level of proficiency of the sub:ects, but this correspondence has been measured only in very gross terms. 3gain, the logic of these data is that they support the idea that bilinguals8 t"o le!icons are integrated into a single "hole. 5o"ever, if bilinguals8 colour "ords in a second language "ere totally integrated "ith their *1 colour "ords, then one "ould e!pect to find 2troop interference equally great in either language. #n as much as the "ea er language produces less interference, this suggests that "ords in second language are not fully integrated at the semantic level, or at least than they are not treated "ith the fluency that is usually accorded to first language "ords. 3 similar argument based on data using semantic differentials in t"o languages is to be found in Ba obovits and *ambert 19'1 and *ambert and Ba obovits 19'0. 7ne of the most accessible and most easily understood methods of studying the structure of semantic relationships in bilingual le!icons is the use of "ord associations. #n its simplest form, this technique involves the presentation of a number of single "ords to the sub:ects participating, and they are then instructed to reply "ith the first "ord that each of these stimulus "ords ma es them thin of. The bul of the responses produced in tas s of this sort are note"orthy principally for their banality, at least as long as unemotive, common "ords are used. Aar from being original, most people8s responses are characteristically shared "ith a large proportion of the rest of the population of normal adult native spea ers -cf. <ollio 19''1 $eese 19')1 <ostman and @eppel 19,0.. #n ?nglish, for e!ample, only ,0 percent of people produce ;5#T? in response to /*3>@, ;7M3C in response to M3C, /=TT?% in response to /%?3$, and so on. This phenomenon, no"n as associational stereotypy, is found in all languages that have been investigated, though the absolute levels of stereotypy vary from one culture to another. ?nglish has particularly high levels of stereotypy compared to other languages. Arench, 4erman, #talian and <olish are all significantly less stereotyped than ?nglish is -cf. %osen&"eig 19'11 2&alay and $eese 19,81 Vi is6 Areibergs and Areibergs 19,'1 @urc& 19''.. #n addition to being very similar to the responses produced by other members of a similar population of sub:ects, responses to common "ords generally fall into one of t"o 1(

Meara 1980 ma:or classes. Paradigmatic responses are responses that belong to the same ma:or form class as the stimulus "ord. Thus, >3T, /7C?, T3#*, >7**#? "ould all be classed as paradigmatic responses to the stimulus $74. Syntagmatic responses are responses that typically combine "ith the stimulus "ords to form a phrase or syntactic "hole. Thus, /#T?2, /3%@2, A#?%>?, 2T=<#$ and 57T "ould all be syntagmatic responses if produced in response to $74. Cormal adult native spea ers tend to produce many more paradigmatic responses than syntagmatic ones, at least as long as the stimulus "ords are fairly common "ords. #nfrequent "ords, such as 3/$#>3T? or #C#T#3T#V? are more li ely to produce syntagmatic response forms such as @#C4 or T3@? -2tolt& and Tiffany 19,+.. 3 good account of these typical responses is to be found in >lar e 19,0, "ho also provides a good basic bibliography. These normal response patterns are not preserved in abnormal native spea ers -de ;olfe 19,1. nor are they found in children. This latter group tends to produce response patterns that differ mar edly from those of adults in than they contain a large number of syntagmatic associations in place of the more normal paradigmatic ones. >hildren also tend to produce lots of clang associations, i.e. responses that are phonetically related to the stimulus "ord, but fail to have any clear semantic connection "ith it. Typical e!amples of clang associations "ould be A#45T, T#45T and ;5#*? or ;#$? produced in response to ;5#T? -?rvin 19'11 ?nt"histle 19''1 McCeill 19'(1 ?nt"histle, Aorsyth and Muss 19'0.. Table + belo" summarises the main studies of "ord association behaviour in "hich foreign language learners and bilinguals "ere used as sub:ects. These studies are very disparate in nature, and it is therefore rather difficult to summarise the findings briefly, or even to compare one study directly "ith another, since often the principal questions "hich the data "ere collected in order to elucidate do not have much in common. This variation can be seen in a large number of different entries in the column headed subjects, methods and stimuli. These differences are e!plained belo".

Ex lanatory notes on table ! -a. materials used. There is almost no agreement over "hat sort of stimulus "ords to use in studies of "ord associations. Most of this "or has used unstandardised and apparently unmotivated lists of "ords, some so e!tremely small in number that one is forced to "onder "hether results based on these stimuli can be considered at all generalisable. The standard list of stimuli is the @ent6%osanoff list, first used by @ent and %osanoff 1910 in their study of "ord associations produced by mental patients. This list has the advantage that it has been vary "idely used in a large variety of studies 10

Meara 1980 $able /. 0rincipal studies of word associations in a second language.

author Lambert 1956 language ?nglish Arench sub1ects CH0+ native spea ers and students si!teen "ords in each language continuous associations 0) seconds CH(8 10 4ermans 10 2panish 10 Thais )) nouns in five different categories from the <alermo norms single responses 1(' ?nglish spea ers, +0' Arench spea ers, 88 bilinguals @ent6%osanoff list single responses ,+ bilinguals, (0 seminarians ( "ords continuous associations "ith language s"itching. Three minutes CH)9 university students, postgrads and native spea ers 8 ?nglish "ords,8 Arench "ords, 8 ambiguous "ords continuous associations 1) seconds CH08 +0 3mericans, +0 2panish () common nouns from the @ent6 %osanoff list restricted associations +0 bilingual students '0 Arench and '0 ?nglish "ords core concepts ?nglishI3rabic bilinguals 1+ "ords from the Ben ins and <alermo norms and their 3rabic equivalents single responses CH00 1( 2"edish ,1' *atvian, 11 young bilingual 0 "ords in 2"edish and *atvian continuous associations ) minutes (0 undergraduates learning Arench 18 ?nglish and 18 Arench "ords continuous associations "ith main question compared responses produced by groups at different levels of proficiency in terms of stereotypy and quantity compares interlingual responses "ith intralingual ones, esp.frequency of translations

Kolers 196+

4erman 2panish Thai ?nglish ?nglish Arench

Lambert Moore 1966 Ma%namara 196#

stereotypy and equivalence of responses

#rish ?nglish *atin ?nglish Arench

linguistic independence 6compares s"itching conditionsand ho" this effect the number of responses relationship bet"een number of responses and level of competence

-avis 'ert eimer 196#

.iegel/ .amsey .iegel 196# Lambert .awlings 1969 -alrym,le0 1l2or3 1amiry 19#$ .uke0 -ravina 19#1

?nglish 2panish

stereotypy levels and overlap of responses in t"o languages

?nglish Arench ?nglish 3rabic

and tea and different types of bilingual to recover stimulus "ord given a list associates stability of responses

2"edish *atvian

total number of different responses and quality differences bet"een the groups

"aylor 19#1

?nglish Arench

compares the effect of different s"itching rates

1)

Meara 1980
4ol Car,ay 19#5 C am,agnol 19#6 4erman language s"itching single responses

Arench ?nglish

.iegel 7ivian 19#5 Polit)er 19#8

?nglish 4erman

Arench ?nglish

'0 Arench children learning ?nglish 00 common nouns and their translations continuous associations 1 minute +0 undergraduates 00 nouns of high, mid and lo"6 frequency restricted associations +0( f irst6year high 2chool +0 Arench "ords, +0 ?nglish "ords single responses ,' fifth6year high 2chool @ent6%osanoff list single responses +' ?A* students from various *1 bac grounds half the @ent6%osanoff list continuous associations (0 seconds

compares inter6 and intra6lingual responses and relate frequency response to probability and recall in a subsequent memory tas compares inter6 and intra6lingual responses

frequency of syntagmatic and paradigmatic responses

Meara 19#9 .an3all 198$

?nglish Arench ?nglish

differences bet"een learner responses and native spea er norms changes over time and relationship to language proficiency group

and there thus e!ist "ell6documented sets of response norms for these 100 "ords, covering different dates of collection, geographical locations, and types of sub:ects providing the responses. This "ord list has also been translated into a number of languages other than ?nglish -%osen&"eig 19'1 for Arench, #talian and 4erman1 5a"orth 19,9 for 2panish. and this ma es it possible to compare the responses of native ?nglish spea ing learners of these languages "ith responses that "ould be e!pected of a normal native spea er population. The principal disadvantage of using the @ent6 %osanoff list is that a large proportion of the "ords that ma e it up consist of high frequency "ords "hich produce highly stereotyped response patterns "hich do not vary greatly from one language to another. This means that only a small subset of the list is of any real interest "here the main purpose of the study is to ma e cross language comparisons. -b. method. The standard "ord association method has already been described. 3 number of variations on this basic theme "ill be found in table +, ho"ever. The chief of these is the continuous association method in "hich a single "ord is presented as the stimulus but instead of providing only a single "ord in response, sub:ects are required to produce a continuous stream of responses for a given length of time -usually in the region of one minute.. These responses are then pooled and counted as in the standard 1'

Meara 1980 measure. This technique produces patterns of responses that closely resemble those produced "ith the standard method using single responses. The continuous association method has the practical advantage that it is viable "ith a relatively small number of sub:ects, ho"ever. $eese 19') claims that a minimum of )0 sub:ects is necessary to produce stable norms for ?nglish using the standard method, and there is some evidence that other languages may require even larger numbers of sub:ects than this. ;ith the continuous association method, ho"ever, stable response patterns can be found "ith as fe" as 1) sub:ects. -c. interlingual associations. These are associations made in a language that is not the same as the one in "hich the stimulus "ord "as presented. -d. restricted associations. This term describes a technique principally used by %iegel and his associates. #t consists of a basic elicitation technique for single responses, but "ith limitations imposed on the type of response allo"ed. Thus, for e!ample, sub:ects might be instructed to produce a response that could describe the stimulus, or one that "as a superordinate of it. -e. language s"itching. This variation is used only in con:unction "ith the continuous association method. 2ub:ects are required at specified intervals to stop producing associations in one language, and to change to their other one. $espite these important differences in method, it is possible to dra" some general conclusions from the studies of "ord association behaviour in bilinguals and foreign language learners. Airstly, on measures of fluency, such as number of responses, speed of responses and so forth, bilingualspea ers are less adept in their "ea er language than in their stronger one. 2econdly, responses in a "ea er language tend to be stri ingly less stereotyped than responses in a stronger language. This finding is odd in vie" of the fact that learners must have smaller vocabularies than native spea ers, and this "ould lead one to e!pect that the range of possible responses "ould be correspondingly more restricted and less variable. The general inference from these t"o points is that "ords in a second language are less "ell6organised and less easily accessible than those in the mental le!icon of native spea er. 5o"ever there is some evidence that these differences diminish "ith increasing proficiency in the second language, and this suggests that given the right sort of coa!ing, "ords from the second language do end up by becoming fully integrated into learners8 personal le!icons. Thirdly, clang associates -i.e. responses "hich are principally phonetically motivated, rather than semantically motivated. account for a large proportion of the responses 1,

Meara 1980 produced by less advanced students, suggesting that, at certain stages of learning at least, the formal phonetic properties of foreign language "ords may be more salient than their semantic forms -cf. also a similar claim made by 5enning 19,( on the strength of a series of recall e!periments.. Ainally, despite claims to the contrary -e.g. %andall 1980., there is no clear evidence to support the vie" that learners are li e children in that they produce a higher proportion of syntagmatic responses than "ould be e!pected in a comparable group of native spea ers. <olit&er8s 19,8 paper is the only one to offer clear evidence to support this claim, but this data is of limited value in that his sub:ects "ere absolute beginners and the stimulus list contains some unsatisfactory items. My o"n e!perience "ith the syntagmaticIparadigmatic distinction leads me to believe that it is largely un"or able in practice, as there are no clear criteria for deciding "hich category any individual response belongs to. ?ven if unambiguous decisions can be made in a large number of cases, there al"ays seems to be a significant number of responses that cannot be classified "ith any degree of certainty, and this suggests that claims about syntagmaticIparadigmatic difference in foreign language learners need to be treated "ith caution. #n general, these conclusions are suggestive and interesting as far as they go, but in the same time they are rather unsatisfying. ;hat seems to missing from this research is any overall strategy "hich "ould enable us to follo" through these differences bet"een native spea ers and learners to the point "here "e "ould be a position to ma e important and relevant claims about the storing a second language vocabulary. #n addition, it is a pity that this "or is concentrated on the study of group responses, rather than the individual sub:ects "ho ma e up these groups. This sort of approach inevitably ignores information of a personal ind and fails to comment on "hat might be important individual differences. !. !eneral conclusions Three principal points seemed to emerge from this revie". #n the first place, a very large proportion of the "or on vocabulary acquisition has been concerned "ith vocabulary teaching rather than "ith vocabulary learning, and though this "or is not "ithout interest, it does not thro" much light on ho" "ords are learned. #n the second place, the more psychologically oriented "or is also rather limited in scope, in that it has used a rather narro" range of investigative techniques, and loo ed principally at questions concerning the learner8s entire second language vocabulary, "hich it is treated as a single undifferentiated "hole. # have argued here that this vie" is probably over6 simplified, and that it is quite li ely that ma:or differences could be found for "ords of different types "ithin an individual learner. Thirdly, the most comprehensive "or in this field is the relatively large number of studies that have loo ed at "ord associations 18

Meara 1980 in foreign language learners. 5o"ever, even this "or is unsystematic, and fails to sho" any signs of a coherent and coordinated research strategy. This "or also suffers from the dra"bac that it is concerned principally "ith groups of learners in an area "here large individual differences might be e!pected. >learly, then, the study of vocabulary acquisition is an area "here the sort of research "or out that has been carried out is far from satisfactory, and "here a large number of questions still remain to be ans"ered. *evenston 19,9 concluded his discussion of some problems in vocabulary research "ith a list of questions and suggestions for further "or . 3ll these questions are "orth pondering, but they might usefully be supplemented by some additional questions "hich have a slightly different emphasis. -a. are there any systematic differences bet"een "ell6 no"n and recently acquired "ords in a second languageJ -b. do ne"ly acquired "ords in a second language pass through any identifiable stages of acquisitionJ -c. is it the case that *+ "ords ever produce behaviour that is indistinguishable from "hat "ould be e!pected "ith *1 "ordsJ -d. are there any clear thresholds "hich it is necessary for an *+ "ord to cross before it can be considered to be properly acquiredJ #f so, "hat types of activity lead to these thresholds being crossedJ -e. ho" is it that *+ "ords "hich are often learned as paired associates of their *1 translations eventually come to operate in a "ay that is relatively independent of their translationJ -f. is the acquisition of ne" "ords affected by such considerations as the morphological structure of *+ "ords, or their phonetic structureJ -g. are the le!ical errors of learners -e.g. malapropisms. systematically different from those of native spea ersJ 7ur current understanding of vocabulary acquisition has almost nothing to say on any of these points, and there is no doubt that "or along the lines suggested here could be the beginnings of a very useful research programme.

2eferences Albert3 M and & 4 5bler #he bilingual brain$ neuro sychological and neurolinguistic as ects of bilingualism. Ce" 9or F 3cademic <ress. 19,8. Arkwright3 $ and A Vian *es processus d8association che! les bilingues. %or&ing Pa ers in 'ilingualism +-19,0., ),6 ',. Atkinson3 2C Mnemotechnics in second language learning. (merican Psychologist )*+,-./0, 1!,21!13 19

Meara 1980 Atkinson3 2C and M 2augh 3n application of the mnemonic ey"ord method to the acquisition of %ussian vocabulary. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology$ 5uman Learning and 6emory 1, + -19,)., 1+'61((. Barnard3 , (dvanced English vocabulary, %o"ley, MassachusettsF Ce"bury 5ouse, 19,16,). Barter3 A2 Learning languages$ the com arative method3 Ce"ton 3bbotF $avid and >harles, 19,0. Becker3 The etymological dictionary as a teaching device. 7ie 8nterrichts raxis10,1-19,,., ,06,,. Birmingham 6ni7ersity 2ussian &anguage and &iterature epartment 9ussian social sciences "ord count3 /irminghamF /irmingham =niversity. 19,'. Blum3 - and " A &e7enston *e!ical simplification in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language (c:uisition +,+-19,8., 0(6'0. Bol3 " and 8AM Carpay $er 2emantisierungpro&ess im AremdsprachenunterrichtF *ernpsychologie, ?!perimente und methodische Aolgerungen. DThe process of semantici&ation in foreign language teachingF the psychology of learning, e!periments and methodological conclusions.E Praxis des ;eus rachlichen 8nterrichts 19,+-19,+., 11961((. Bongers3 , #he history and rinci les of vocabulary control3 5ollandF ;ocopi6;oerden. 190,. Brown3 . 3dvanced vocabulary teachingF the problems of collocation. 9ELC 4ournal ),+-19,0., 16 11. Burnard3 & - ,ockey and I Marriott Oxford Concordance Project3 7!fordF 7!ford =niversity >omputing 2ervices. 19,9 Butler3 3 C 5tt and 2 Blake >ognitive scaffolding in the learning of foreign language vocabulary. <aper given at the 3ssociation of ?ducational >ommunications Technology. *as Vegas. 19,(. Champagnol3 2 3ssociation verbale, structuration et rappel libre bilingues. Psychologie fran<aise 19-19,0., 8(6100. Clarke3 ,, ;ord associations and linguistic theory. #nF 8 &yons -ed.. ;e" 5orizons in Linguistics. 5armonds"orthF <elican. 19,0. Crothers3 " and 0 -uppes Ex eriments in second language learning3 Ce" 9or F 3cademic <ress, 19',. Culhane3 0$ +0

Meara 1980 *e!is in applied linguisticsF "hat frequency in preparation and presentation of %ussian reading te!ts. 9ussian Language 4ournal (1,109-19,,. +)6((. agut3 MB #ncongruities in le!ical gridding 6 an application of contrastive semantic analysis to language teaching. =9(L 1),(-19,,., ++16++9. ale3 "3 8 592ourke and , Bamman #echni:ues of teaching vocabulary. Aield ?ducational <ublications. 19,1. ale3 " and $ 2a'ik 'ibliogra hy of vocabulary research3 Ohio$ Ohio State 8niversity3 ,->)3 alrymple:Alford3 " #nterlingual interference in a colour naming tas . Psychonomic Science 10-19'8., +1)6+1'. alrymple:Alford3 " and B Budayr ?!amination of some aspects of the 2troop colour6"ord test. Perce tual and 6otor S&ills +(-19''., 1+1161+10. a7is3 B8 and M ;ertheimer 2ome determinants of associations to Arench and ?nglish "ords. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehaviour '-19',., ),06)81. eese3 8 #he structure of association in language and thought. Bohns 5op ins =niversity <ress.19'). e ;olfe3 A>ognitive structure and pathology in the associations of process and reactive schi&ophrenics. 4ournal of (bnormal Psychology ,8-19,1., 10861)(. esrochers3 A Effects of an imagery mnemonic on ac:uisition and retention of @rench articleAnoun airs3 Ph7 thesis, 8niversity of %estern Ontario, yer3 .< >olour naming interference in monolinguals and bilinguals. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior 10-19,1., +9,6(0+. "ntwhistle3 %ord associations of young children3 /altimoreF Bohns 5op ins =niversity <ress.19''. "r7in3 *earning and recall in bilinguals. (merican 4ournal of Psychology ,0-19'1.00'60)1. "r7in3 >hanges "ith age in the verbal determinants of "ord association. (merican 4ournal ofl Psychology ,0-19'1., ('16(,+. "r7in3 - and C 5sgood 2econd language learning and bilingualism, #nF C" 5sgood and $A -ebeok -eds.. Psycholinguistics. /loomington, #ndianaF #ndiana =niversity <ress. "7ans3 I and 8 $ownsendson +1

Meara 1980 3nother vie" on the bilingual 2troop test. Polyglot 1,+-19,9. ?1(64). !alisson3 2 ?ers un a rentissage systematisB du vocabulaire3 <arisF 5achette. 19,0. !alisson3 2. Lexicologie et enseignement des langues3 <arisF 5achette. 19,9. !enesee3 .3 8 ,amers3 ;" &ambert3 & Mononen3 M -eit' and 2 -tarck *anguage processing in bilinguals. /rain and *anguage )-19,8., 161+. !oggin3 8! and ;ickens <roactive interference and language change in short6term memory. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehaviour 10-19,1., 0)(60)8. !ouin3 . LCart dCenseigner et dCBtudier les langues. <aris. 1880. !reen3 and - <ewman revie" articleF #he 'ilingual 'rain by M 3lbert and *@ 7bler -19,9.. Polyglot +,1-1980., $06A). !roberg3 Mnemonic Bapanese. 2alt *a e >ityF #nterac. 19,+. ,amers3 8 and ;" &ambert /ilingual interdependencies in auditory perception. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior 11-19,+., (0(6(10. ,amers3 8 and ;" &ambert 7isual field and cerebral hemisphere preferences in bilinguals. #nF - -egalowit' and . !ruber -eds.. Language 7evelo ment and ;eurological #heory. Ce" 9or F 3cademic <ress ,ammerly3 , Teaching of second language vocabulary. <acific Corth"est >ouncil on foreign languages. Proceedings +', +-19,)., 1(161(8. ,aworth3 2panish "ord association norms for the 100 "ords of the @ent %osanoff list. M3 thesis /ir bec >ollege *ondon. 19,9. ,enning3 ! %emembering foreign language vocabularyF acoustic and semantic parameters. Language Learning +(,+-19,(., 18)619'. ,ockey3 - and I Marriott The 7!ford >oncordance <ro:ect. (ssociation for Literary and Linguistic Com uting 'ulletin ,,1, ()60(1 ,,+, 1))61'01 ,,(,+'86+,)1 8,1,+86(). ,olec3 , Structures lexicales et enseignement du vocabulaire3 The 5agueF Mouton. 19,0. ,olley3 .M The mental le!iconF vocabulary acquisition as a problem of linguistics and human ++

Meara 1980 memory. Pacific ;orth"est Conference on @oreign Languages3 Proceedings3 ++-19,1., +''6 +,'. 8akobo7its3 & and ;" &ambert 2emantic satiation among bilinguals. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology '+-19'1., ),'6)8+. 8ohnson3 B >omputer frequency control of vocabulary in language learning reading materials. =nstructional Science 1,1-19,+., 1+161(1. 8udd3 "& Vocabulary teaching and T?27*F the need for re6evaluation of e!isting assumptions. #ESOL Duarterly 1+,1-19,8., ,16,'. 8uilland3 A and " Chang:2odr=gue' @re:uency dictionary of S anish "ords3 The 5agueF Mouton. 19'0. 8uilland3 A3 Brodin and C a7idiwitch @re:uency dictionary of @rench "ords3 The 5agueF Mouton. 19,0. 4ent3 !, and 8A 2osanoff 3 study of association in insanity. (merican 4ournal of =nsanity ',-1910., (,69' and (1,6 (90. 4ershner3 8 and A 8eng $ual functional hemispheric asymmetry individual perceptionF effects of ocular dominance and post6e!posural processes. ;euro sychologia 10-19,+., 0(,600). 4lein3 !2emantic po"er measured through interference of "ords "ith colour naming. (merican 4ournal of Psychology ,,-19'0., ),'6)88. 4intsch3 ; %ecognition memory in bilingual sub:ects. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior 9-19,0., 00)6009. 4nop3 C Mnemonic devices in teaching Arench. @rench 9evie" 0)-19,1., ((,6(0+. 4olers3 0A #nterlingual "ord associations. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehaviour +-19'(., +91. 4olers3 0A /ilingualism and bicodalism. Language and S eech 8-19')., 1++61+'. 4olers3 0A /ilingualism and information processing. Scientific (merican +18-19'8., ,8690. 4ucera3 , and ;< .rancis Com utational analysis of resent2day (merican English. %hode #slandF /ro"n =niversity <ress. 19',. 4urc'3 I +(

Meara 1980 #nterlanguage comparison of "ord association responses. =nternational 4ournal of Psycholinguistics 1-19''., 1)161'1. &ado3 23 B Baldwin and . &obo Massive vocabulary e!pansion in a foreign language beyond the basic course. The effects of stimuli timing and order of presentation. =27? /ureau of %esearch. <ro:ect ), 109). 19',. &ambert3 ;" 3 social psychology of bilingualism. 4ournal of Social =ssues +(-19',., 8(6100. &ambert3 ;" $evelopmental aspects of second language acquisition. 4ournal of Social Psychology 0(-19))., 8(6100. &ambert3 ;"3 8 ,a7elka and C Crossby The influence of language acquisition conte!ts on bilingualism. 4ournal of (bnormal and Social Psychology )'-19)8., +(96+00. &ambert3 ;"3 M Ignatow and M 4rauthamer /ilingual organisation in free recall. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior ,-19'8., +0,6+10. &ambert3 ;" and & 8akobo7its Verbal satiation and changes in the intensity of meaning. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology '0-19'0., (,'6(8(. &ambert3 ;" and < Moore ;ord association responsesF comparisons of 3merican and Arench monolinguals "ith >anadian monolinguals and bilinguals. 4ournal of Personality and Social Psychology (-19''., (1(6(+0. &ambert3 ;" and C2 <ott Aree recall of bilinguals. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior ,-19'8., 10')610,1. &ambert3 ;" and C 2awlings /ilingual processing of mi!ed language associative net"or s. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior 8-19'9., '006'09. &eopold3 ; 2emantic learning in infant language. ;ord, 0-1908., 1,(6180. &e7enston3 "A 2econd language vocabulary acquisitionF issues and problems. =nterlanguage Studies 'ulletin 0,+-19,9., 10,61'0. &e7enston3 "A3 and - Blum 3spects of le!icon simplification in a speech and "riting of advanced adult learners. #nF - Corder and " 2oulet -eds.. (ctes du /eme Collo:ue de Linguisti:ue ( li:uBe de ;euchEtel. 4enevaF $ro&. &iepmann3 and 8 -aegert +0

Meara 1980 *anguage tagging in bilingual free recall. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology 10(-19,0., 11(,61101. &innarud3 M 3 performance analysis of 2"edish students8 ?nglish. 2ymposium reports, 5anasaari -cited in *evenston 19,9.. &ope'3 M3 2 ,icks and 2 (oung %etroactive inhibition in a bilingual 36/,36/8 paradigm. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology 10(-19,0., 8)690. &ope'3 M and 2 (oung The linguistic interdependence of bilinguals. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology 10+-19,0., 981698(. &ord3 2 *"ouldearning vocabulary. =9(L 1+,(-19,0., +(96+0,. &yne3 A 3 "ord of frequency count of Arench business correspondence. =9(L 1(-19,)., 9)6110. Mackey3 ; Language #eaching (nalysis. *ondonF *ongman. 19'). Macnamara3 8 The linguistic independence of bilinguals. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior '-19',., ,+96,('. Martin3 A Teaching academic vocabulary to foreign graduate students. #ESOL Duarterly 10,1 -19,'., 91698. Marton3 ; Aoreign language vocabulary learning as problem number one of language teaching at the advanced level. #he =nterlanguage Studies 'ulletin +,1-19,,., ((6),. McCormack3 0 /ilingual linguistic memoryF independence or interdependenceF t"o stores or oneJ #nF -$ Carey -ed.. 'ilingualism, biculturalism and education ?dmontonF =niversity of 3lberta, 19,0. McCormack3 0 /ilingual linguistic memoryF the independenceIinterdependence issue revisited. #nF 0A ,ornby -?d.. 'ilingualism$ sychological, social and educational im lications. 3cademic <ress, 19,,, ),6''. Mc<eill3 The origin association "ithin the same grammatical class. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehaviour + -19'(., +0+6+'+. Meara3 0M 2chi&ophrenic symptoms in foreign language learners. 8E( Pa ers in Linguistics ,-19,8., +)

Meara 1980 ++609. Meara3 0M *earners8 "ord associations in Arench. =nterlanguage Studies 'ulletin (,+-19,8. 19+6+11. Meara3 0M -in prep. ?ocabulary in a Second Language$ an annotated bibliogra hy. *ondonF >#*T. 198+. Miron3 M and CC 0ratt 6anual for the develo ment of language fre:uency counts3 2yracuse =niversity %esearch >orporation. 19,(. Morton, 3K Literary 7etection3 *ondonF /o" er. 19,9 <eufeld3 ! The bilingual8s le!ical store. %or&ing Pa ers in 'ilingualism 1-19,(., ()6'). 592ourke3 80 #o"ards a science of vocabulary develo ment3 The 5agueF Mouton. 19,0. 5rbach3 8 Visual fields as a function of cerebral dominance and reading habits. ;euro sychologia, )-19',., 1+,61(0. 5tt3 C"3 2- Blake and C Butler Aoreign language vocabulary. =9(L 10,1-19,'., (,608. 5tt3 C"3 C Butler3 2- Blake and 80 Ball The effect of interactive6image elaboration on the acquisition of foreign language vocabulary. Language Learning +(,+-19,(., 19,6+0'. 0ai7io3 A 7n e!ploring visual no"ledge. #nF B- 2andhawa and ;" Coffman -eds.. ?isual learning, thin&ing and communication3 Ce" 9or F 3cademic <ress. 19,8 0ai7io3 A and A esrochers 3 dual coding approach to bilingual memory. Canadian 4ournal of Psychology (0,0 -1980., (886(99. 0ai7io3 A and A esrochers ?ffects of an imagery mnemonic on *+ recall and comprehension. Canadian 4ournal of Psychology ((-19,9., 1,6+8. 0alermo3 and 88 8enkins %ord (ssociation ;orms3 =niversity of Minnesota <ress. 19'0. 0hilpot3 M ( study of the redictability of learner and native s eech. M3 Thesis, /ir bec >ollege *ondon. 0ollio3 , #he structural basis of "ord association behaviour3 The 5agueF Mouton. 19''. +'

Meara 1980 0olit'er3 2B <aradigmatic and syntagmatic associations of first6year Arench students. #nF V ,onsa and M8 ,ardman:de Bautista -eds.. Pa ers in linguistics and child language. The 5agueF Mouton. 19,8. 0ostman3 & and ! 4eppel ;orms of "ord association. Ce" 9or F 3cademc <ress. 19,0. 0ressley3 M >hildren8s use of the ey"ord method to learn simple 2panish vocabulary "ords. 4ournal of Educational Psychology'9,)-19,,., 0')60,+. 0ressley3 M3 82 &e7in3 8; ,all3 !" Miller3 and 8V Berry The ey"ord method and foreign language acquisition. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology$ 5uman Learning and 6emory ',+-1980., 1'(61,(. 0ressley3 M and 82 &e7in $evelopmental constraints associated "ith children8s use of the ey"ord method of foreign language learning. 4ournal of Ex erimental Child Psychology ,8,+'-19,8., ()96(,+. 0reston3 M and ;" &ambert #nterlingual interference in a bilingual version of the 2troop colour6"ord tas . 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior 8-19'9., +9)6(01. 2andall3 M ;ord association behaviour in learners of ?nglish as a second language. Polyglot +,+-1980., /06$1. 2augh3 M2 Teaching a large %ussian vocabulary by the mnemonic ey"ord method. <sychology and ?ducation 2eries, Technical %eports, +)', 19,). 2augh3 M2 and 2C Atkinson 3 mnemonic method for the acquisition of a second language vocabulary. <sychology and ?ducation 2eries, Technical %eport ++0, 19,0. 2augh3 M2 and 2C Atkinson 3 mnemonic method for learning second language vocabulary. 4ournal of Educational Psychology ',-19,)., 161'. 2ichards3 8C The role of vocabulary teaching. #ESOL Duarterly 10-19,'., ,,689. 2idout3 2 The use of "ord pu&&les in teaching ?nglish. 9evue des langues vivantes 0+,(-19,'., (1(6 (1,. 2iegel3 4. 2ome theoretical considerations of bilingual development. Psychological 'ulletin ,0,' -19'8., '0,6',0. 2iegel3 4.3 2 2amsey and 2 2iegel +,

Meara 1980 3 comparison of the first and second languages of 3merican and 2panish students. 4ournal of verbal learning and verbal behaviour '-19',., )('6)00. 2iegel3 4. and I;M >i7ian 3 study of inter6 and intra6lingual associations in ?nglish and 4erman. Language Learning ++-19,+., 1)161'(. 2osen'weig3 M2 >omparisons among "ord associations in ?nglish, Arench, 4erman and #talian. (merican 4ournal of Psychology ,0-19'1., (0,6('0. 2uke: ra7ina3 V ;ord associations in monolingual and multilingual individuals. Linguistics ,0-19,1., ''6 8). -aegert3 83 - 4a'arian and 2 4 (oung <artI"hole transfer "ith bilinguals. (merican 4ournal of Psychology 8'-19,(., )(,6)0'. -alt3 M8 Vocabulary acquisition "ith the help of photographic transparencies. EL# 4ournal (0,0 -19,'., (+06(+'. -egalowit'3 < and ;" &ambert 2emantic generali&ation in bilinguals. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior 8-19'9., ))96)''. -et'ler3 ,, and 2" Clark %esearch briefingF recent research on mnemotechnics for learning foreign language vocabulary. Educational #echnology 1',8-19,'., 0(600. -inger3 8! ?n:oying vocabulary learning in :unior highF the ey"ord method. Canadian 6odern Language 9evie" (0-19,,., 8068,. -tolt'3 ; and 8 $iffany The production of childli e "ord associations by adults to unfamiliar ad:ectives. 4ournal of ?erbal Learning and ?erbal 'ehavior 11. -troop3 82 2tudies in serial verbal reactions. 4ournal of Ex erimental Psychology 18-19()., '0(6''1. -yracuse 6ni7ersity 2esearch Corporation The counting of "ordsF a previe" of the history, techniques and theory of "ord counts. 2pringfield, Va. 19,(. -'alay3 &B and 8 eese Subjective meaning and culture3 *a"rence ?rlbaum 3sociates.19,8. $aylor3 M 2peculations on bilingualism and cognitive net"or s. %or&ing Pa ers on 'ilingualism +-19,0., '861+0. $horndike3 "& and I &orge +8

Meara 1980 #he teachers "ordboo& of )*,*** "ords3 >olumbia =niversityF Teachers8 >ollege. 1900. $ul7ing3 " and VA Colotla Aree recall of trilingual lists. Cognitive Psychology 1-19,0., 8'698. $wadell3 . Vocabulary e!pansion in the ?27* classroom. #ESOL Duarterly ,-19,(., '16,8. $womey3 " 3 bibliography of research carried out in the field of vocabulary learning in second languages. =npublished M3 Thesis. /ir bec >ollege, =niversity of *ondon, 19,9. 7an "k3 8A #he #hreshold Level for modern language learning in schools3 *ondonF *ongman. 19,,. Vi is6Areibergs, V and # Areibergs Aree association norms in Arench and ?nglishF interlinguistic and intralinguistic comparisons. Canadian 4ournal of Psychology (0-19,'., 1+(61((. ;alters3 8 and 2 >atorre *aterality differences for "ord identification in bilinguals. 'rain and Language '-19,8., 1)961',. ;ebber3 8 3n investigation into the effect of degree of competence in a language on the type to en ratio. =npublished M3 Thesis. /ir bec >ollege =niversity of *ondon. 19,,. ;est3 M ( general service list of English "ords3 *ondonF *ongman. 19('. -revised to 19)(.. ;ilkins3 Linguistics in language teaching. *ondonF ?d"ard 3rnold. 19,+. ;icklow3 C2 %evie" of /arnard -19,1.. Language Learning +0-19,+., 1',61,0. (oshida3 M The acquisition of ?nglish vocabulary by a Bapanese spea ing child. #nF " ,atch -?d.. runny to"ards meeting. %o"ley, Mass.F Ce"bury 5ouse. 19,8. 916100.

This paper first appeared in Language #eaching and Linguistics$ (bstracts 1(,0-1980., ++16 +0'.

+9