Lexis Teaching

LEXIS TEACHING

Lexis Teaching: A Review of the Literature

Ravina Cadima Alfredo Garrido Natalia Herrera

Thesis Project Professor Obilinovic April 23, 2012

Lexis Teaching

Lexis Teaching 1. Research Problem

What is the most effective way to teach L2 lexis to intermediate students of English in the Chilean context? YOU MUST REFINE THE RESEARCH QUESTION (i.e. THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY AMONG ALL POSSIBLE WAYS? THIS IS TOO BROAD, IM AFRAID) 2. 2.1. The Review of the Literature Lexis: Basic Definitions It is certainly contradictory to give just one definition of a lexical item >>>WHY CONTRADICTORY? and several aspects need to be taken into account. First of all it is important to regard the concept of defining a word. On the word of Pavicic (2008), vocabulary could be defined as a dictionary or a set of words. This general view is reflected in the lexicographical approach to the traditional way of listing words in a dictionary (p. 4). Nevertheless, that view is way too basic and simpleminded. Consistent with that aspect, there seems to be more than one view regarding the aspect of defining lexical items. When defining lexical items it is not possible to give only one definition. Moreover, there is the need of defining lexis under the light of different insights. Firstly, the orthographic perspective shall be taken into consideration. As stated by Carter (2002), a word is any sequence of letters (and a limited number of other characteristics such as hyphen and apostrophe) bounded on either side by a space or punctuation mark (p. 4). The given definition is suitable up to a certain extent, it is appropriate only in terms of formality, but it does not give account for meaning. Regarding the aspect of meaning, Carter (2002) defines a word as the minimum meaningful unit of a language. The just given definition allows us to distinguish the separate meanings contained in the word fair in so far as they can be said to be different semantic units (p. 5). That definition does not account

Lexis Teaching

for compound lexical items which are meaningful, for instance, taxi driver. Also, considering that single lexical units should carry meaning by themselves, what meaning can the following words transmit, if, by, but, my, could, because, indeed, them; bearing in mind that those words are thought of as structuring or organizing words. Regarding that aspect, Carter (2002) provides the definition that a word is a minimal free form which considers that a word is such if it can stand on its own as the answer to a question, as an exclamation or as a statement (p. 5). Such definition helps us to understand that certain lexical items are free forms which need to be understood on their own, such as idioms. For instance, the idiom like a house on fire can only have a meaning when involving the five orthographic words. OTHER DEFINITION SHOULD BE PROVIDED (FROM OTHER AUTHORS) 2.1.1. Lexemes When trying to define lexis it is mandatory to stop and think about the notion of lexemes. Consistent with Carter (2002), a lexeme is the abstract unit which underlies some variants observed in connection with words. So as to clarify the former definition, an example will be provided: consider the lexeme GO, some of the grammatical variants of the lexeme are: go, goes, went, and, going which are word-forms. Lexemes also account for lexical items such as multi-word verbs, phrasal verbs and idioms. For instance, KICK THE BUCKET shall be found as one lexical entry in a dictionary (p. 7). In addition, regarding our metalanguage, shall we talk about words, lexemes, lexical items, or word forms? Consistent with Carter (2002), words or vocabulary can be used when there is no need to be precise and can be used for general reference. When theoretical distinctions are necessary, lexeme and the word-forms of a lexeme should be used. Furthermore, if we would like to capture and overcome instabilities in the term word, Lexical Item should be used which is a neutral hold-all term (p. 8).

Lexis Teaching

2.1.2. The Teaching of Lexis The role of vocabulary teaching and learning has been changing in the last years. In the past a small amount of priority was given to vocabulary in Language Teaching Programs. Moreover, vocabulary was let to look after itself because the course curricula were only specific about grammar, reading or speaking and slight specification was given to the role of lexis (Renandya & Richards, 2002, p. 255). Fortunately, the status of vocabulary has been changing and its notions have broadened and the inclusion of lexical phrases and routines which play a primary role in communication is now present (Renandya & Richards, 2002, p. 255). There is no doubt about the role of vocabulary and its existence as a vital component of language proficiency and provider of the basis of language use. When deprived of extensive vocabulary and strategies for acquiring new lexical items, learners cannot achieve their potential (Renandya and Richards, 2002, p. 255). In addition, the need of providing the students with proper instances for them to learn vocabulary and also to develop strategies for independent learning is imperative and essential. A NEW SECTION (ON VOCABULARY TEACHING)? When talking about vocabulary teaching, three approaches need to be taken into consideration. Those are: incidental learning, explicit instruction, and independent strategy development. According to Beglar and Hunt (2002): The incidental learning of vocabulary requires that teachers provide opportunities for extensive reading and listening. Explicit instruction involves diagnosing the words learners need to know, presenting words for the first time, elaborating word knowledge, and developing fluency with known words. Finally, independent strategy development involves practicing guessing from context and training learners to use dictionaries (p. 258). 2.1.3. The Teaching of Lexis throughout History

Lexis Teaching

Doubtless it is the fact that lexical items are vital for language learners. But, as it has been indicated previously, vocabulary has not been a valued aspect of Second Language Acquisition, Learning, and Teaching. In this section an account telling the historical development of Vocabulary Teaching (Do they go in capital letters?) will be given, as it has been said. The past has to be studied to understand the present, and improve the future. 2.1.3.1.The Grammar Translation Method The Grammar Translation Method was first introduced at the end of the eighteenth century in Prussia with the purpose of teaching modern languages in public schools (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 5). The primary goal of the grammar translation method, as described by Howart 1984; Rivers, 1981 (as cited by Zimmerman, 1997, p. 5) was to prepare students to read and write classical materials and to pass standardized exams. As it can be understood, the method used classical literature; it was assumed that students would never use the language being taught, but they would profit from the mental exercise (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 5). As the readers may have assumed, the practicality of the present method seems to be absent. Regarding its practicality, Rivers 1981 (as cited by Zimmerman, 1997, pp. 5-6) stated lessons usually consisted of a reading selection, two or three columns of new vocabulary items with native-language equivalence, and a test. Verb conjugation and the ability to analyse syntactic structures were the way language skill was judged (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 6). One of the main setbacks of the method was that students used rather archaic structures and obsolete vocabulary, and also, when students faced vocabulary difficulties, the teachers used etymological explanations (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 6). That aspect has been clarified by Kelly 1969 (as cited by Zimmerman, 1997, p. 6), Latin and Greek roots or primitives were considered the most accurate court of appeal on word meanings; the ability to use etymology was respected as one way of discovering the truth ( p. 30).

Lexis Teaching

The teaching of vocabulary was based on definition and etymology throughout the nineteenth century, at least in part because of the prevalent belief that the connection between etymon and derivative should be protectively preserved to avoid degeneration of the language (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 6). In the Grammar Translation Method the use of Word Lists was essential. On the aspect of word lists it can be said that their use was instructional and not only referential; they were organized according to semantic fields and were a regular part of grammars and readers since the mid-seventeenth century (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 6). As it can be predicted, numerous criticisms were made to the method, during the mid-1800s the main objection was based on the denial of realistic, oral language (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 6). Another challenge came in the manual, The Mastery of Languages, or, The Art of Speaking Foreign Tongues Idiomatically, written by Thomas Prendergast. In that manual Prendergast (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, pp. 6-7), listed the furthermost common English words, based wholly on his instinctive judgment which was seen as one of many momentary and rebellious methods that failed to perform what it promised. Despite being futile, Prendergasts list innovated, mainly because it came at a time when simplicity and everyday language were scorned and despised. 2.1.3.2.The Reform Movement As it was seen, the Grammar Translation method was challenged and criticized. Those criticisms made that linguists like Henry Sweet had the need of establishing the Reform movement. The Reformers emphasized the use of spoken language and phonetic training. Moreover, fluency, being an important element of the former two concepts, was defined as the ability to accurately pronounce a connected passage, and the maintenance of associations between a stream of speech and the outside world referents (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 7). The curriculum proposed by Sweet (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 8) was as follows:

Lexis Teaching

His system began with the Mechanical stage, where students studied phonetics and transcription, continued to the Grammatical Stage, where they studied grammar and very basic vocabulary, and then to the Idiomatic Stage, where they pursued vocabulary in greater depth. Stages four and five (Literary and Archaic) consisted of the study of philology and were reserved for university-level work. Regarding the vocabulary selected, Howatt 1984 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 8). indicated that Sweet believed that practical words such as household items and articles of clothing were not only important to know, but also appropriately dull and commonplace; he warned that students might be distracted from learning by interesting materials (p. 187) 2.1.3.3. The Direct Method The need of relating meaning with the target language gave birth to the Direct Method. This Method stated that interaction was at the heart of natural language acquisition (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 8). The use of everyday language was preponderant, the classes consisted of carefully graded progressions of questions and answers exchanges (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 8). Regarding reading, according to Larsen-Freeman 1986 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 8), it was developed through practice with speaking. The main criticism towards this method was, on the word of Richard and Rodgers 1986 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 8), the over-simplification of the similarities between L1 and L2 and its lack of consideration of the practical logistics of the public classroom. According to Sauveurs 1874 teachers manual >>>>HAVE YOU READ THIS OR ARE YOU REPEATING SOMETHING THAT ZIMMERMAN HAS SAID? An Introduction to the teaching of Living Languages without Grammar or Dictionary, vocabulary was simple and familiar.

Lexis Teaching

Concrete vocabulary was explained through labelled pictures and demonstration, while abstract vocabulary was taught through the association of ideas (Rivers, 1983; Richards & Rodgers, 1986) (Zimmerman, 1997, pp. 8-9). Charts, pictures and objects were used in this method to demonstrate meaning, and the term realia or realien appears to have been adopted at this time (Kelly, 1969) (Zimmerman, 1997, pp. 9). 2.1.3.4. The Reading Method/Situational Language Teaching These methods were born in the 1920s and 1930s in two different places: the Reading Method in the United States and the Situational Approach in Great Britain. The objective of the former was, according to Rivers 1981 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 9), to develop properly the reading skills because of the deficiencies that American students had regarding this specific. On the other hand, Michael Wests Situational Approach stressed the need to facilitate the reading skill by means of teaching vocabulary skills to the students. West criticized the importance given to speech by old methods without providing guidelines for selecting the contents and he was worried about the fact that learners did not manage even a basic vocabulary after three years of study (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 9). West 1930 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 9) proposed three reasons for this phenomenon: 1) the time that students spent on activities which did not help them to speak the language; 2) the students were learning useless words to them; 3) they were not fully mastering the words they were learning. As a proposal to improve these aspects, he published A General Service List of English Words with high-frequency words lists. At the same time the linguists H. E. Palmer and A.S. Hornby wanted to develop a more scientific foundation for the oral methods. On the word of Richards & Rodgers 1986 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 10) They thought language had to be taught through the selection, gradation and presentation of language basic structures that made speech possible (p. 33).

Lexis Teaching

During this period, it was the first time that vocabulary was seen as an important aspect of second language learning and as a priority for the scientific and rational bases for selecting the content in language courses. 2.1.3.5. The Audio-lingual Method This method was developed by American structural linguists during World War II, when the governments began to support the teaching of foreign languages. Its founder, Fries 1945 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 10), described this new method as an approach for the practical interpretation of the principles of modern linguistic science(p. v). This approach took as a starting point grammar or structure and taking into account the belief that learning is a process of habit formation, the audio-lingual method paid more attention to pronunciation and intensive oral drilling of basic sentence patterns than to memorization of rules. Fries proposed a three-monthcourse to do this properly, of intensive study of the essentials of English structure (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 10). Regarding vocabulary, Larsen-Freeman 1986 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 11) claimed that items were selected according to their simplicity and familiarity, new words were introduced through the drills, but only enough words to make drills possible. Fries 1945 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 11) thought that students oversimplified the role of isolated words. He attributed this problem to three false beliefs about languages: the first one was that words always have an equivalent in different languages, the second one was that a word is a single meaning unit, and the third one was the idea that every word has a basic or real meaning and that all other meanings are figurative or illegitimate. On the contrary, he argued that the only words that had an exact equivalent in all languages are mostly technical words. Furthermore, he stated that words had from fifteen to twenty meanings each and that words are linguistic forms: symbols that derive their whole content and their limitations of meaning from the situations in which they are used (p.

Lexis Teaching

10

43). He also firmly believed that learning too much vocabulary only gave a false sense of security to students. This was later taken into account by Wilga Rivers 1968 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 11) in her work Teaching Foreign Language Skills. She agreed with Fries and proposed to practice with morphological variations and syntactic structures using well-known vocabulary to avoid distraction from the target structures. Additionally, Freeman Twaddell 1980 stated (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. X) that this notion of the exaggeration of the role of vocabulary provoked the overemphasized role of grammar which was very noticeable in curriculum and teaching materials. As an echo of Fries, Twaddell 1980 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 12) added that the result of this was children having more words than they can express in sentences and adult learners having an infantile vocabulary and an adult mentality (p. 442). His proposal to address this problem was not to abandon grammatical structures in the process of teaching a language but to teach skill of compensation guessing word meanings and tolerating vagueness (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 12). 2.1.3.6. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Noam Chomsky and his Syntactic Structures 1957 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 12) introduced the idea that language is represented in the speakers mental grammar by an abstract set of rules that is most clearly reflected in a speakers unconscious intuitions about language , and least reflected in his or her conscious beliefs and statements about the use of language. He accepted that language existed in the individual quite apart from communicating needs, and labelled the internalized (unconscious) mental grammar of a language competence, and the actual use of it, performance. His view totally challenged the behaviourist view of language, as a set of habits, and remarked the creativity involved in the process. On the other hand, Dell Hymes 1972 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 13) proposed the concept of communicative competence (internalized knowledge of the situational appropriateness

Lexis Teaching

11

of language), which gave a greater emphasis on the sociolinguistic and pragmatic aspects which make the language use effective. Communicative competence includes the notions of linguistic competence and the creativity in the language use. The focus on language teaching completely changed to communicative proficiency rather than grammatical structures. In general, communicative language teaching focuses its attention on making communicative competence the goal of language teaching, and to develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills (reading, speaking, writing and listening) that make language and communication possible. It promotes fluency over accuracy in speech and the closeness to the target language (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 13). Rivers (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 13) claims that language educators need to pay more attention to words, because native speakers are more likely to understand ungrammatical utterances with accurate vocabulary than utterances with accurate grammar and inaccurate vocabulary, even though this ability is not the main focus of CLT. THE REACTION AGAINST THE AUDIOLINGUAL METHOD (WHICH WAS BASED ON BEHAVIORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND STRUCTURALISM) CAME FROM THE SO-CALLED COGNITIVE-CODE APPROACH (WHICH DERIVED FROM COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY AND FROM TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE LINGUISTICS). ALL THIS MUST BE INCLUDED. Later, David Wilkins 1972 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 14) began with the use of communicative categories. He demonstrated that there are two systems or categories of meaning involved in communication: notional categories (concepts such as time, quantity, space,) and functional categories (acts such as requests, denials). None of the categories take into account vocabulary as something primordial. Wilkins claimed that the only way to master the lexical system was by means of exposure to the language.

Lexis Teaching

12

Moreover, Edward Anthony 1973 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 14) proposed to address vocabulary by working with words within the students own cultural context to avoid oversimplification and translation. According to Nation 1990 (as cited in Zimmerman, 1997, p. 14), other suggestions such as working with frequency lists are not very reliable because of three reasons: 1) the most important words for language learners do not always appear in the first or second thousand words; 2) the order of words in frequency list does not always indicate the best order in which to teach words; 3) word-frequency lists disagree according to the types of texts being analysed. 2.1.3.7. The Natural Approach Despite being similar to other approaches, the Natural Approach is based on a theoretical model with has its own set of hypotheses (Zimmerman, 1997, p. 15). The hypotheses mentioned before are five which were unmistakably described by Zimmerman (1997): (1) The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis (the distinction between natural acquisition as seen in L1 and the formal learning that emphasizes conscious rules and error correction); (2) the Natural Order Hypothesis (that grammatical structures tend to be naturally acquired in a somewhat predictable order without artificial sequencing of input), (3) the Monitor Hypothesis (that conscious learning has the limited function of monitoring or editing language performance); (4) the Input Hypothesis (that language is acquired when input is in an interesting and relevant context that is slightly above ones current level of competence); and (5) the Affective Filter Hypothesis (that attitudinal factors are related to language acquisition acquirers with a low affective filter will be more receptive and more likely to interact with confidence (p. 15).

Lexis Teaching

13

Regarding the learning of vocabulary, this approach considers relevant the learners interests, a relevant input and the understanding of messages. Also, for non-beginners, the best way of acquiring vocabulary is by means of reading. IF YOU ARE PLANNING TO TALK ABOUT THE MONITOR MODEL (A MODEL OF ACQUISITION) YOU MUST INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF CRUCIAL CONCEPTS SUCH AS: ACQUISITION, INDUCTIVE LEARNING, DEDUCTIVE LEARNING, INCIDENTAL VERSUS INTENTIONAL LEARNING, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH 2.2. Teaching Lexis Explicitly EXPLICIT LEARNING CAN BE EQUATED WITH

DEDUCTIVE, EXPOSITORY LEARNING/TEACHING The explicit teaching of vocabulary has been essential mainly for beginner students. Regarding that aspect, Beglar and Hunt (2002) can be quoted: Explicit instruction is essential for beginning students whose lack of vocabulary limits their reading ability. Coady (1997b) calls this the beginners paradox. He wonders how beginners can learn enough words to read well (p. 229). His solution is to have students supplement their extensive reading with the study of the 3,000 most frequent words until the words form and meaning become automatically recognized (p. 260). It is important for teachers to consider several aspects before teaching vocabulary. Beglar and Hunt (2002), claim that the following are important aspects when dealing with lexical items. First of all, they (students) need to hear the pronunciation and practice saying the word aloud as well (p. 260). Secondly, the following is advised: on the word of Nation 1990 (as cited in Beglar and Hunt, 2002, p. 260) start by learning semantically unrelated words. Furthermore, avoid learning words with similar forms and closely related meanings; moreover, on the word of Higa 1963: Tinkham 1993 (as cited in Beglar and Hunt, 2002, p. 260) at the same time. Another aspect is that encountering lexical items repeatedly is vital for its proper acquisition. Consequently, studying words regularly

Lexis Teaching

14

over short sessions is more effective that to study them for one or two longer sessions (Beglar and Hunt, 2002, pp. 260-261). The amount of lexical items is also considered; it is advised to study just five to seven words at a time which shall allow students to more quickly and repeated exposure to the words (Beglar and Hunt, 2002, p. 261). And the final aspect to be considered is the association of words with visual aids, which shall help students to remember words in an easier way (Beglar and Hunt, 2002, p. 261). It is general knowledge that it is not enough only to know the translation or the definition of a word. The concept of Elaboration is also important when dealing with vocabulary acquisition. Elaboration involves expanding the connection between existent knowledge and new information (Beglar and Hunt, 2002, p. 261). In order to do so, the teacher should present new information and also provide opportunities to meet new words in different contexts so as to create connections. Considering how to teach lexis explicitly, three ways will be expounded. Those are: visual techniques, verbal techniques, and translation. 2.2.1. Teaching Lexis through Visual Techniques Visual techniques are one of the most used strategies in the teaching of lexis. On the word of Gairns and Redman (1986), visual techniques include flashcards, photographs, blackboard drawings, wall charts, and realia. They claimed that visual aids are particularly useful for teaching concrete items of vocabulary. These assumptions eventually led to practice activities involving student interaction (Gairns and Redman, p. 73). Teachers might build a situation to illustrate a word to reinforce the concept, to convey this they are likely to use his/her body language (Gairns and Redman, 1986, pp. 73-74). 2.2.2. Teaching Lexis through Verbal Techniques The use of visual aids becomes problematic when the concepts are abstract. In order to ensure understanding the teacher can use illustrative situations so as to check the grasping of the

Lexis Teaching

15

concept (Gairns and Redman, 1986, p. 74). For instance, when dealing with the idiom TO BURN THE MIDNIGHT OIL, the teacher can encourage his/her students to use it by means of creating an illustrative situation. For example, the question, What do you do when you have a really important exam? the students could answer with expressions such as, I study a lot or I burn the midnight oil. (Esto es invencin de ustedes o lo dijo un autor?) When dealing with low level students, teachers tend to use synonyms, because inevitably they have to restrict the complexity of their explanations (Gairns and Redman, 1986, p. 74). For instance, when the teacher deals with the word EXHAUSTED s/he may tell his/her students that the word means very tired. Synonyms can also be used with higher level students, but, the existence of qualification is needed (Gairns and Redman, 1986, p. 74). A short example shall be given in order to improve clearance: When dealing with advanced colloquial vocabulary, the teacher may present the word knackered as a synonym for exhausted but the teacher is to make the qualification telling his/her students that the word knackered regularly and mostly used in informal and colloquial contexts. Contrasts and opposites are also used by teachers and highly used by learners. But contrasts and opposites should be properly used. Gairns and Redman (1986) give us an example of the proper use: the word sour can be easily contrasted with sweet. However, it is vital to illustrate the contexts where the contrast is true. Sugar is sweet and lemons are sour, but the opposite of sweet wine is not sour wine (Gairns and Redman, pp. 74-75). The use of scales can be also considered. On the word of Gairns and Redman, once students have learnt two contrasting items, it is useful to feed in new items. If students know hot and cold the teacher can introduce warm and cool and later freezing and boiling ( p. 75).

Lexis Teaching

16

Furthermore, when the teacher wants to illustrate the meaning of a lexical item like furniture, s/he can exemplify them with words like chair, table, or bed. This can be complemented by means of visual aids (Gairns and Redman, 1986, p. 75). 2.2.3. Teaching Lexis through Translations Some teachers may feel they are doing something wrong if they use translations. But, translations are an effective way of conveying meaning (Gairns and Redman, 1986, p. 75). The use of translations could be very useful in the classroom as this quote clearly states: The use of an L1 is helpful as long as sufficient exposure to the target language is provided and the importance of its use is confirmed. It is especially helpful when students face language difficulties caused by the differences between their L1 and L2, when accuracy is a primary focus, and when the time for learning the target language is limited. The use of an L1 can clarify problems, avoid ambiguity, save time, and consequently reduce students frustration (Osaki, 2011, p. 38). However, the real danger that comes with translation is that students might use their mother tongue as a framework on which to attach L2 items. Consequently, the necessary framework to take account of sense relations between lexical items in the L2 shall not be present in students. (Gairns and Redman, 1986, pp. 75-76). 2.2.4. Teaching Lexis Implicitly Babies are born and they somehow manage to grasp words from the environment. Something similar happens to learners of a second or foreign language, who develop an important part of their vocabulary knowledge implicitly, somehow unconsciously. In the words of Sonbul and Schmitt (2009) ?????????? implicit or incidental learning can be defined as learning vocabulary as a by-product of any language learning activity, such as reading.(PAGE NUMBER? I ASSUME YOU READ SONBUL AND SCHMITT 2009?)

Lexis Teaching

17

(CHICOS ESTO LO ARREGLO YO DESPUS, TENGO UN ENREDO DE AOS CON LOS PAPERS DE SONBUL AND SCHMITT, PERO ESTN) It has been said that it is a suitable way to learn vocabulary for advanced students, since they already have a notion of some words, they can infer, by context, the meaning of the rest unknown words >>>OF THE REST OF??? UNKNOWN WORDS? . At the same time, the more advanced a learner is, the more inferential or implicit and learner-centred vocabulary learning strategies will have to become (Carter, 2002, p. 209). 2.2.5. Teaching Lexis through Reading Despite the debate about what processes occur when readers encounter new lexis in texts, there is a common notion that assumes that incidental vocabulary learning primarily occurs through the process of inferring word meaning (Fraser, 1999, p. 226). It is context the element that may provide the reader with the ability to infer the meaning of the words contained in a piece of text. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the real benefits of this strategy. On one hand, it is acknowledged in terms of developing cognitive skills and as a communicative event in which learners engage in considerable hypothesis formation and testing about word meaning (Ellis, 1994; Haastrup, 1989, 1991) (Fraser, 1999, p. 226). But on the other hand, some research suggests that L2 learners who 2are left on their own generally ignore unfamiliar words, infer only when there is a specific need, and consult sparingly and on a very selective basis (Bensoussan & Laufer, 1984; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997) (Fraser, 1999, p. 226). 2.2.6. Teaching Lexis through Listening Pieces of research as the ones conducted by Chamot in 1987, reported listening comprehension and oral presentations as a vocabulary learning technique used by high school ESL learners (Schmitt, 2010, p. 90).THIS IS TOO BRIEF. EXPLAN PLEASE 2.3. The Semantic Fields Theory

Lexis Teaching

18

The Semantic Field Theory suggests that the study of words and their meanings is more effective when words are not treated as isolated items but as a collection of interrelations between words. On the word of Lehrer (as cited in Yang & Xu, 2001, p. 49-50) the vocabulary of a language is structured, just as the grammar and phonology of a language are structured. The words of a language can be classified into sets which are related to conceptual fields and divide up the semantic space or the semantic domain in certain way (p. 15). According to Buren 1975 (as cited in Yang & Xu, 2001, p. 49-50) since no lexicon occurs in isolation, and the meaning of one word exists only in relation to other words, there is always an internal sense relation between words. This theory was first proposed by the German scholar Jost Trier in the 1930s, and marked a new phase in the history of semantics. Trier saw the vocabulary of a language as a system where words are part of it, integrated into that system by means of lexical relations among them. An example to clarify the concept of semantic field: Suppose we are asked to classify the following list of words: sofa, table, rabbit, chicken, cupboard, cow, chair, sheep, we are likely to produce two sets of words: Set 1 -- table, cupboard, sofa, chair Set 2 -- rabbit, chicken, cow, sheep We group these words into two separate sets because each word within the set shares with other words some aspects of meaning which words in other set do not. For instance, words in Set 2 are all names of animals; therefore, they share the meaning of animateness, which apply to none of the words in Set 1, where all words denote a piece of furniture (Yan, 2001, p. 50). To determine the connotation of a word, it is necessary to analyse it and to compare it to other words in its own semantic field. These relations between words and their meanings can be

Lexis Teaching

19

explained through different lexical relations. Even though it is usually confused with synonyms, the term semantic field does not mean a group of words which have similar meanings. On a very general and intuitive level, we can say that the words in a semantic field, though not synonymous, are all used to talk about the same general phenomenon, and there is a meaning inclusion relation between the items in the field and the field category itself (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, Harnish, 2001, p. 240). YOU DID READ THIS PUBLICATION THEN? There are different lexical relations between words such as synonyms (words that have similar meanings) and antonyms (words that have opposite meanings). However, the lexical relations that are more representative of the semantic field theory are hyponyms. This relation among words has nothing to do with similarities or differences among them. A hyponymy relationship is a relationship in which the meaning of a word can be included into the meaning of another word. Within this relation there is always a superordinate word which classifies or labels the other hyponyms. It would not be accurate to say that fruit equals orange, but we can say that the meaning of fruit is included in the meaning of orange, as it is in the meaning of apple, pear and plum. We express this sense relation by saying that fruit is a superordinate and that orange, apple, pear and plum are hyponyms of fruit. In the same way, cow, horse, pig and dog are all hyponyms of the superordinate animals (Gairns, Redman, 1986, p. 24). To distinguish what group of words can represent a semantic field is very difficult but there is common agreement on the fact that semantic fields are labels for a group of words, for example, colour terms, kinship terms and cooking terms (Akmajian et al., 2001, p. 240). THIS IS ONE OF THE SOURCES YOU READ, RIGHT? However, it is very important to bear in mind that the classification of semantic fields can be defined using very different criteria. For example the superordinate term animals can be grouped

Lexis Teaching

20

in terms of physical features such as different names of animals, or in terms of nonphysical features such as, pet, wild, food, etc. (Amer, 1998). 2.2.2.2. Teaching Lexis through the Semantic Fields Theory The Semantic Fields Theory>>>>>THE TITLE IN 2.2.2.2 SAYS THE SEMANTIC FIELDS WHICH ONE IS THE CORRECT ONE? takes into account the importance of teaching lexis and semantics not using isolated words. It claims that the best way to learn vocabulary is to explore in the relationships those words and their meanings have within each other, making our languages possible. An individual word in a language frequently acquires a meaning because of the relationship between it and other words (Lewis, Hill, 2002, p. 101). Learning the vocabulary of another language is very important to learn how to develop the rest of the language skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. Without words or without knowing the meaning of those words, communication cannot be possible. As it has often been remarked, we can communicate by using words that are not placed in the proper order, pronounced perfectly, or marked with the proper grammatical morpheme, but communication often breaks down if we do not use the correct word (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 96). The task for the teacher is to show the students the L2 vocabulary explicitly through the use of the semantic field theory>>>>>ACCCORDING TO???? IS THIS YOUR OWN OPINION OR SOMEONE ELSES VIEW BASED ON RESEARCH?? . As it is a theory which makes connections between different words inside a semantic field, it allows the learners to use different cognitive processes. The learner not only absorbs the form of a word but also, the meaning and the use of different sets of words. According to Zhao (2001, p. 55) things in the objective world are in disorder, so in order to fully understand them, our human mind must deposit and memorize them through analysing, judging and classifying (Changhong, 2010, p. 52).

Lexis Teaching

21

Working with semantic fields is much more productive than working with a dictionary. These objects stop the creativity of students and provide them only with definitions, which are not always very clear. This will help learners to understand only a word needed in the moment not in a longterm period. Such access to word-meanings may also be much more productive than looking up words in a dictionary since words are best defined in relation to each other, so that fine gradations and differences of meaning can begin to be measured in as efficient and economic manner as possible (Carter, 1998, p. 219). Another benefit of the teaching of lexis through semantic fields is the use of the learners previous knowledge. By teaching a set of words and their relationships, the teacher is able to use what the students already know. The essential step of the application of the semantic field theory in vocabulary instruction is the construction of semantic fields. In order for learning to occur, new information must be integrated with and be built upon what learners already know. In other words, instruction should guide learners to use words and ideas they already know to help them associate meaning with words they do not know (Changhong, 2010, p. 53). >>>IS THIS A QUOTE? By creating a semantic field, learners can use words they know to start but afterwards, they will find other words they never heard before or they did not know how to use. This paves the way for them to discover the meaning of those words and their existing relationships, which can be similar or very different among them. Working with semantic fields opens a door to many possibilities of activities to practice such items. A teacher can suggest the creation of semantic fields only with synonyms, antonyms, words related to a certain topic, formality and also with the different intensity of words.

Lexis Teaching

22

Occasionally, but not systematically, further dimensions to the semantic space occupied by the particular words are described by means of scales which indicate the formality or intensity of the items. Some words are taught as synonymous pairs and there is also an accompanying range of well-tried vocabulary teaching exercises such as gap filling, providing derivatives, etc. (Carter, 1998, p. 214). Another benefit of teaching lexis through semantic fields is the possibility of movement from words into sentences and then, into paragraphs, which is called by Changhong, passage (2010, p.54). As words are the bases to form a sentence, and sentences are the foundations to form a paragraph, with the semantic field theory you can explore the three structures. Students are able to work with semantic fields first, classifying words into a specific group and then, s/he can develop his/her own sentences using each word. When they have written and practiced different sentences, they are ready to put those sentences in order and create their own paragraph (Changhong, 2010, p. 54). It is always necessary after each semantic field activity, the teachers feedback for the students. Moreover, the study of semantic fields allows teachers to revise them and the students can expand them throughout time, learning more and more vocabulary. Lexical sets, for example, form useful building blocks and can be revised and expanded as students progress; they often provide a clear context for practice as well (Gairns, Redman, 1986, p. 69). As a conclusion>>>>AVOID SAYING AS A CONCLUSION OR FINALLY BECAUSE THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE WRITING OF THE PROJECT, the study of words and its relationships through the semantic field theory, helps students to understand vocabulary items, to classify words in semantic groups, to make connections among words and to store those words in their minds for long period of time. It is also likely that the

Lexis Teaching

23

associations generated by and across words in this kind of semantic network aid both the retention and recall of words by learners (Carter, 1998, p. 219). 2.3. English in Chile The era of immediate communication and interconnection brought with itself a rapid growth of numerous social networks, business transactions between long distance countries, and it has also impacted the academic world, being todays imperative request the knowledge of a foreign language. This is how English became a lingua franca, the language of business, long distance social interactions, worldwide scientific publications, and the academic world. This term, ELF (English as a Lingua Franca) emerged as a way of referring to communication in English between speakers with different first languages (Seidlhofer, 2005, p. 339). The use of English language around the world has also coined another term: EIL or English as an International Language, this is not because it is the most widely spoken native language in the world, but rather because of the growing number of speakers who are acquiring some familiarity with English as their second or third language (McKay, 2003, p. 139). Just as in many other countries, English became part of Chilean peoples lives in terms of job opportunities, business, social networking, and it is also part of the educational curriculum of the country. Today, English as a foreign language is taught in schools, in universities as a course and/or as a subject of some courses, and also in private institutes. 2.3.1. English in the Educational Curriculum of Chile The Educational Curriculum of Chile recognizes English language as a valuable tool and a key to a wider range of information and new technologies (Bases Curriculares Ingls, Mineduc, 2012, p. 1). In addition, the Ministry of Education claims besides working as means of communication with other realities, learning English contributes to the understanding and

Lexis Teaching

24

appreciation of the own language and culture, and to the development of cognitive skills (Bases Curriculares Ingls, Mineduc, 2012, p. 1) (our translation). The English language is taught as EFL (English as a Foreign Language), since it is not used for social interactions or has immediate use outside the classroom. This is why, the main objective of the Chilean Curriculum is to provide students with the knowledge of English, so that they learn it and use it in basic communicative interactions of everyday life. The design of this curriculum aims at developing the four skills of English language, listening, speaking, writing, and reading, by means of authentic communicative tasks (Bases Curriculares Ingls, Mineduc, 2012, p. 1). The methodology encouraged by the Mineduc proposes a blend of different teaching approaches: Communicative Language Teaching, The Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Instruction, and Task-Based Language Teaching. All these approaches are intended to contribute to develop communication, complement and enrich the curriculum (personal translation) (Bases Curriculares Ingls, Mineduc, 2012, p. 2). 2.3.2. Lexical Aspects of English Teaching in the Educational Curriculum of Chile Vocabulary is seen as an essential element in the learning process of English as a foreign language, where isolated words and also common high frequency phrases or expressions are included. This curriculum acknowledges the learning of vocabulary as especially important to support the comprehension of texts in the English language (Bases Curriculares Ingls, Mineduc, 2012, p. 5) (our translation). English as a foreign language is a subject taught in Chilean schools from fifth grade (quinto bsico) to twelfth grade (cuarto ao medio). In terms of lexis, the curriculum states the amount of words that students should understand and make use of according to their grade. Vocabulary increases in number as the student passes

Lexis Teaching

25

grades, that is to say, in fifth grade students are intended to understand, in written texts as in oral communication, 300 high frequency words related to topics designed for that specific grade. Up to the moment when they are supposed to reach the level of comprehension of 3000 words, plus the ability of being able to use them in appropriate contexts. The numeric gap between one grades vocabulary burden and another increases exponentially, in other words, from fifth to sixth grade the difference lies on 200 words, but in the final stages of school, an 11 grade student has to improve his/her vocabulary knowledge in 500 words by the time s/he finishes high school (Objetivos Fundamentales, Mineduc, 2012, pp. 88-118). The Chilean curriculum does not only account for a numeric demand of students vocabulary knowledge, but it also provides some information on the strategies used to accomplish this goal. Overall, the strategies/techniques used to allow students identify words or high frequency phrases in written texts are the following: to encourage students to use their prior knowledge, use of graphic elements and known words to deduce the meaning of unknown ones, and skimming and scanning as techniques to deduce unknown lexical items.

References

Akmajian A., Demers R. A., Farmer A. K. &Harnish R. M. (2001). Lingusitics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. (5th Ed.). Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.

Lexis Teaching

26

Amer, A.A. (1998). Advanced Vocabulary Instruction in EFL.The Internet TESL Journal, 4.10. Retrieved March 27, 2012, from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Martin-Dictionaries.html Beglar, D & Hunt, A. (2002). Current Research and Practice in Teaching Vocabulary. In Renandya, W. A., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.).Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (258-266). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Carter, R. (2002) Vocabulary: Applied Linguistics Perspectives (2nded.). New York, USA: Routledge. Changhong G. (2010). The Application of the Semantic Field Theory in College English Vocabulary Instruction. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33 (3), 50-62. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/91/10091704.pdf ELT Journal Volume, 64.3. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/64/3/253.pdf Fraser, Carol A. (1999). Lexical Processing Strategy Use And Vocabulary Learning Through Reading. SSLA, 21, 225241. Retrieved April 9, 2012, from http://pi.library.yorku.ca/dspace/bitstream/handle/10315/1309/CRLC00146.pdf?sequence=4 Gairns R. & Redman S. (1986).Working with Words: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Vocabulary.Cambridge University Press. Gairns, R & Redman, S. (1986). Working with Words: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Vocabulary.Cambridge, United Kingdon: Cambridge University Press. Lewis M. & Hill J. (2002). Practical Techniques for Language Teaching. Croatia: Heinle. Lightbown P. M. &Spada N. (2006).How Languages Are Learned. (3rd Ed.).NewYork: Oxford University Press. McKay, S. (2003). Teaching English as an International Language: the Chilean context.ELT Journal, 57.2. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://203.72.145.166/ELT/files/57-2-5.pdf

Lexis Teaching

27

Mineduc.(2012). Bases Curriculares Ingls. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from http://www.mineduc.cl/index5_int.php? id_portal=47&id_contenido=17116&id_seccion=3264&c=1 Pavivic, V. (2008) Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Renandya, W. A., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key Concepts in ELT: English as a Lingua Franca. ELT Journal, 59.4, 339340. Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://people.ufpr.br/~clarissa/pdfs/ELF_Seidlhofer2005.pdf Sonbul, S., Schmitt, N. (2010). Direct Teaching of Vocabulary After Reading: Is It Worth the Effort? Sonbul, S., Schmitt, N. (2010).Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan. Yan X. ,Xu, H. (2001). Errors of Creativity: An Analysis of Lexical Errors Committed by ESL Chinese Students. University Press of America. Zimmerman, Cheryl B. (1997). Historical Trends in Second Language Vocabulary Instruction.In Coady J. and Huckin T (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy (5-19). New York. USA: Cambridge University Press.