Vocabulary has occupied a special place within applied linguistics during the past twenty years. Following decades of neglect by scholars of linguistics and education, recent years have seen an enormous expansion in second language vocabulary research, as well as the arrival of a number of influential books on vocabulary aimed at language teachers (e.g. Carter 1987; McCarthy 1990; Schmitt & McCarthy 1997; Nation 2001). A welcome outcome of this renewed interest is that vocabulary teaching has begun to occupy a ‘centre-stage’ position within language education. However, the wealth of new research related to vocabulary is so rich and diverse that it is not always apparent how classroom teaching might benefit. In a review of some of the recent books on second language vocabulary, Meara (2002) welcomes the revival of interest in vocabulary, but points out that many important questions about vocabulary acquisition remain unanswered and, apparently, unaddressed. This chapter attempts to explain how this resource package relates to insights from second language vocabulary research.

For many years, it was believed that vocabulary would be ‘picked up’ by learners without their teachers having to devote much classroom time to it. It is no coincidence that language curricula have traditionally been determined by a progression of grammatical structures or, more recently, functions. The place of lexis has tended to be peripheral rather than central. A factor which has encouraged teachers to accept the importance of vocabulary in language teaching is the recognition by linguists that vocabulary occupies a central place in our notion of language. Older, simplistic distinctions between what counts as grammar and what counts as vocabulary have been replaced by a more sophisticated view of lexis in language. As Singleton (2000) argues, we may soon ‘reach the point where the notions of lexicon and of language will become interchangeable’. In keeping with the recognition that lexis occupies a central position within language, the teaching of vocabulary has become a high priority concern of language education.

The way English has been taught in schools during the past fifty years has been influenced by the ideologies of approaches such as grammar translation, audio-lingual and communicative language teaching. It is tempting to ask whether any one of these approaches has been more effective than any other in teaching vocabulary. In his evaluation of the three approaches, Singleton (2000) concludes that each has led to vocabulary acquisition: ‘whatever the teaching approach used, lexical learning in the classroom has both an incidental and an atomistic dimension, and (that) both dimensions can be shown to have a valuable contribution to the process’. Nobody would accuse any of the mainstream approaches to language teaching of ignoring vocabulary. However, as Singleton points out, most approaches make a distinction between direct (‘atomistic’) and indirect (‘incidental’) vocabulary learning. Students learn some of their vocabulary when their teacher ‘teaches’ new words directly in the classroom, for example, using explanation, demonstration and even translation. It is also known that students learn some of their vocabulary indirectly through incidental encounters with words, for example, by inferring the meaning of a new word from the context. Unfortunately, little empirical evidence exists about the relative contributions of direct and indirect vocabulary learning. Earlier claims that as much as 80% of a learner’s vocabulary is learned indirectly (e.g. Saragi, Nation & Meister 1978) probably need to be revised.

Studies of the vocabulary size of Hong Kong students (e.g. Fan 2000; Chui 2005) suggest that most first-year university students know fewer than 3,000 English words, which is a disappointing outcome following twelve years of English teaching at primary and secondary school. According to Laufer (1989, 1992), students need a vocabulary of at least 5,000 words to cope with the demands of an English medium university degree. In order to make a stronger impact upon students’ vocabulary learning, a more ‘interventionist’ approach is required on the part of language teachers. This means, quite simply, that greater emphasis should be put on vocabulary learning and teaching. Teachers need to focus students’ attention on different aspects of words and how they are used. They also need to make sure that students are exposed to a wide range of vocabulary, including creating lexically-rich classroom environments.

Helping students to understand the relationship between language form and meaning is one of the driving principles of task-based language teaching (TBLT). Experts in TBLT research such as Skehan (2001, 2003) and Skehan & Foster (1999) recommend that learners need to have their attention focused, at different times, on form and meaning. Vocabulary experts have long recognised the importance of acquiring both formal and semantic knowledge about words if they are to be retained in a learner’s mental lexicon (e.g. Meara 1996).

Traditionally, L2 vocabulary knowledge has been regarded as consisting of two types: (a) receptive (or ‘passive’) knowledge, where learners recognise and understand words when they come across them, and (b) productive (or ‘active’) knowledge, where learners are able to use words in speaking and writing, with correct control of collocation, register and word-grammar. It is assumed that, for most learners, receptive vocabulary is considerably larger than productive vocabulary. Some scholars (e.g. Palmberg 1987) believe that learners’ knowledge of an L2 word operates on a kind of continuum, with receptive knowledge at one extreme and full productive knowledge at the other. As learners get to know the vocabulary items in greater depth, the closer they move towards productive knowledge. Other scholars (e.g. Nation 1990; McNeill 1994) prefer to regard vocabulary knowledge as consisting of a set of dimensions, such as meaning (i.e. semantic knowledge), orthographic form (i.e. spelling), phonological form (i.e. pronunciation), part of speech/grammar, morphology (i.e. the different forms a word may have) and collocation (i.e. the typical patterns in which a word occurs). It is assumed that for most L2 words, learners know some but not necessarily all of the words’ lexical dimensions. Therefore, teachers need to be aware of the importance of filling the gaps in learners’ knowledge of individual words.

For a word to become fixed in a learner’s mental lexicon, it needs to have associations with other words already acquired. The stronger and more stable the associations, the more firmly the word will be anchored. There are two main types of association:    (a) paradigmatic and (b) syntagmatic. Examples of paradigmatic associations are:   (1) musical instrument – piano/guitar/violin/drum, and (2) vehicle – car/bus/train/plane. ‘Musical instrument’ and ‘vehicle’ are hyper-ordinates, i.e. they are names of categories which help to group together the members of the category. The arrangement is hierarchical, with a hyper-ordinate term at the top (such as ‘musical instrument’ or ‘vehicle’) and, at the next level down, a group of co-hyponyms such as ‘guitar’ and ‘violin’ or ‘bus’ and ‘train’. This type of hierarchical arrangement can have many levels and it is always possible adding new words. For learners of a second language, storing words in a paradigmatic arrangement is a logical and efficient exercise. All of the words in a paradigm are related semantically, so the guiding principle of association is meaning. Since the system is open-ended, it is relatively easy to add newly-acquired words to the paradigmatic networks in a learner’s mental lexicon. This type of association promotes efficient expansion and retrieval of words and is particularly valuable in developing a large receptive vocabulary. Some of the materials in this resource package are intended to strengthen students’ development of paradigmatic associations.

Syntagmatic associations, on the other hand, refer to word combinations, such as ‘play football’, ‘go shopping’, ‘film star’, ‘high performance’, etc. These associations are based on the ways words are used and on the patterns in which they typically occur. This type of association is related to productive vocabulary use, since learners need to know possible word combinations when putting words together to form sentences. Research into word associations in a second language has been stimulated by Meara’s (1983) seminal work in this area. The results of the various word association studies suggest that paradigmatic and syntagmatic associations are important in both first and second language vocabulary acquisition. If teachers can help to promote students’ word associations, they are likely to support the long-term retention of vocabulary.

Making students aware of a word’s collocations is an obvious way to promote syntagmatic association. The teaching of typical word combinations has been given strong support from research into the way vocabulary is used in texts, in particular, the recognition that English is a highly formulaic language. Wray (2000) estimates that as much as 80% of English text is formulaic in nature. She also argues that multi-word units (or ‘chunks’) are processed by the human brain with the same amount of effort and attention as free-standing words. Wray, therefore, recommends that vocabulary teaching should include multi-word units, which are not necessarily analysed by learners in detail.

How often do students need to meet a new word before they remember it? It is quite common for teachers to express surprise when students fail to recognise words that have already been ‘taught’. Hong Kong students process a vast number of English words during their years at school. Yet only a fraction of the words are retained in the students’ long-term memories. Research into the effectiveness of extensive reading for vocabulary uptake has concluded that a learner needs to meet a new word between six and twenty times for the word to be remembered (Rott 1999; Zahar, Cobb & Spada 2001). Providing sufficient encounters with target vocabulary represents one of the biggest challenges for language teachers. All too often, new words are introduced and practised within the context of a particular theme or topic. Then the teacher moves on to a new topic and focuses on a completely new set of vocabulary items. Finding ways of recycling previously introduced vocabulary is crucial to effective vocabulary instruction.

One of the obvious implications of the recent research in L2 vocabulary acquisition is that language teachers need to devote more time and effort to vocabulary work in the classroom. The attention of learners needs to be deliberately focused on the various aspects of words, including their forms, meanings and collocations. Helping learners make meaningful associations with words will also promote retention of vocabulary. Providing sufficient encounters with words remains one of the biggest challenges, especially for teachers who feel under pressure to get their students through an already crowded curriculum. Another on-going challenge is the need for teachers to establish an appropriate balance between promoting the quality of students’ vocabulary knowledge and helping them to acquire more and more words.

Dr Arthur McNeill
Director
Language Centre
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology