http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary This demarcation problem may in some measure there is nevertheless a wide consensus that this is a be resolvable by reference to a distinction between work that should be on the shelf of every language lexico-grammatical phenomena which are specific teacher with an interest in developing the lexical to given languages and syntactic phenomena that dimension of his/her intructional practice. transcend the particularities of individual systems. Where precisely in given instances the border between these two categories lies may be unclear, M. & COADY, J. (eds.) H U C K I N , T . , HAYNES, but it is always possible to 'play safe' and to treat as (1993). Second Language Reading and Vocabulary lexical those areas which are most transparently lan- Learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. guage-particular: forms and meanings of individual The question underlying the book as a whole is items, collocational patterns, 'local' syntax (e.g. com- whether context is useful to L2 readers in terms of plementation of verbs), etc. On the other hand, even promoting lexical acquisition, a question to which if one takes the line (as the present article does) that the editors' answer is not a resounding yes. Individual in our present state of knowledge it still makes sense contributions to the collection cover such particular thus to carve out (provisionally) an area of language aspects as lexical frequency and saliency as factors in which can be labelled lexical, it would be unwise to acquisition, procedural and declarative lexical knowl- assume that the lexical construct will in the end edge, LI evidence on contextual guessing, strategies prove to be theoretically or empirically dissociable for inferring word-meaning from context, learning from other linguistic or psycholinguistic domains. academic lexis, and dealing with false friends. A criti- With these cautionary thoughts in mind, let us cism of the book has been that the studies it presents now turn our attention to some of the resources that define context and guessing in divergent ways and are available to teachers, course-designers and that these studies do not deal with extensive reading. researchers with lexical preoccupations. There fol- Nevertheless, this is a landmark compilation, which, lows a series of brief accounts of the content of ten though no easy read, repays close attention. books which deal in part or in toto with L2 lexical acquisition/processing1. LEWIS,M. (1993). Tlte Lexical Approach: the State o/ELTand a Way Tonvard. Hove: Language CARTER, R. (1987). Vocabulary:Applied Linguistic Teaching Publications. Perspectives. London: Allen & Unwin. This publication assesses the role of the lexicon in Although this book is now ten years old, use contin- language and considers current L2 teaching materials ues to be made of it on inservice and postgraduate and practice in the light of this assessment. It con- courses.This is a fitting tribute to its comprehensive- cludes that most L2 syllabuses and pedagogy fail to ness and accessibility. With regard to range of con- reflect the essentially lexical nature of language, and tent, the volume includes copiously referenced that the situation needs to be rectified forthwith.The chapters not only on vocabulary learning/teaching book makes rather scant mention of L2 lexical and learners' dictionaries but also on lexical relations, acquisition research, but its broad thrust is in tune core vocabulary, lexical patterns, lexis and discourse, with what researchers are now saying about the all- and lexis and literary stylistics.With regard to accessi- pervasiveness of the lexicon in language and lan- bility, while the writing is rarely exciting, it is consis- guage learning, and, on the practical front, it offers tently clear — well within the grasp of any 'intelligent many interesting suggestions for lexis-driven class- layperson' willing to engage with it in a serious fash- room activities. ion.
NATION, P. (1990). Teaching and Learning SCHREUDER, R. &WELTENS, B. (eds.) (1993).
Vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. T\\e Bilingual Lexicon. Amsterdam: John This book combines a fairly thoroughgoing review Benjamins. of research into the learning and use of L2 vocabu- A compilation of original state-of-the-art review lary with a treatment of the pedagogy required to articles commissioned from internationally deal with different types of lexis for different types of renowned researchers, this book has deservedly been purpose in the classroom. In its appendices it also much referred to. The areas covered include: visual contains, inter alia, two useful word-lists, some for- word recognition, word-type effects in lexical pro- mulas to facilitate the lexical analysis of texts, and an cessing, accessing conceptual representations, trans- illustrated discussion of vocabulary test design. Some lating versus picture-naming procedures in lexical critiques of the book have been less than enthusiastic research, vocabulary size, lexical attrition, communi- about the account it gives of lexical research, but cation strategies, modelling lexical comprehension and production, and vocabulary teaching. The texts 1 The reader is also directed to Meara's website, which of the articles, it should be noted, make few conces- constitutes a valuable up-to-date bibliographical source: sions to the reader without some prior experience of http://www.swan.ac.uk/cals/calsres.html the relevant literature. 214
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary HARLEY, B. (ed.) (1995). Lexical Issues in The book begins with some contextualising review Language Learning. Ann Arbor/Amsterdam/ articles, includes a number of reports of case studies Philadelphia: Language Learning/John and quantitative research, offers no fewer than four Benjamins Publishing Company. contributions on pedagogical issues, and ends with an This volume is another compilation of articles, in attempt at a research synthesis. this case of studies previously published in the jour- nal Language Learning. After an editorial introduction LEWIS, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical the book is arranged under three sectional headings: Approach:PuttingTlieory into Practice. Hove: 'Developmental Perspectives on the Bilingual Language Teaching Publications. Lexicon', 'Psycholinguistic Factors in Vocabulary A follow-up to Lewis's 1993 book (see above), this Learning', and 'Lexical Acquisition and Use in volume offers further arguments in favour of a lexi- Communication Tasks'.The quality of the material is cal view of language and further suggestions as to consistently high, but it would present some prob- how the 'lexical approach' might be applied in the lems of accessibility for readers without a research classroom. Particular attention is paid to ways of background in the areas in question. organising lexis, to lexis-oriented exercises, and to the adaptation of familiar classroom activities to a HATCH, E. & BROWN, C. (1995). Vocabulary, lexical perspective. Also included are reports on'lexi- Semantics and Language Education. Cambridge: cal approach' classes, some reflections on neglected Cambridge University Press. areas of content, and a discussion of teacher training. In many respects this book overlaps with and updates As in Lewis's earlier book, references to L2 lexical Carter's 1987 volume (see above). Like Carter's pub- acquisition research are somewhat sparse, but, again lication, it covers much more than vocabulary learn- as in the earlier case, food for thought and useful ing and teaching; indeed, this topic accounts for just practical suggestions are present in abundance. one of the five parts into which the book falls, the other four being devoted to semantics, the lexicon in general, lexical cases and morphology, and vocabu- lary choice and discourse use. It constitutes an excel- Form and meaning in the L2 mental lent introduction to the field of lexicology in lexicon general, being not only scholarly but also extremely A widely held view about the L2 mental lexicon is lucid and readable. that it is an essentially form-driven entity, that 'while in the native speakers mental lexicon there are strong ANDERMAN, G. & ROGERS, M. (eds.) (1996). semantic links between the words, the connections Words, Words, Words: the Translator and the between words in additional languages are primarily Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual phonological' (Laufer, 1989: 17). The evidence typi- Matters Ltd. cally cited in support of this 'phonological' concep- Language learning/teaching is once again just one of tion of the L2 lexicon is that yielded by the Birkbeck a number of issues dealt with in this book, a collec- Vocabulary Project word association tests (see, e.g., tion of seven invited papers. The topics dealt with Carter, 1987: 158ff.; Gass & Selinker, 1994: 276; are: the translator and the language learner, the men- Harley, 1995b: 7), from which the inference often tal lexicon, classic studies in L2 vocabulary acquisi- drawn is that the L2 mental lexicon is 'quite different tion, prototype theory in relation to lexical from that of the native speaker' (Meara, 1984:233f.). acquisition and translation, English words in transla- The notion that an important part of L2 knowledge tion, neologisms and dictionaries, and computational is qualitatively distinct from its LI counterpart is perspectives on translating and language learning. All obviously of interest to theoreticians, while the of the articles are accessibly written, and their con- notion that form predominates in L2 lexical func- tent is mosdy such as to be of interest to researchers tioning has self-evident implications for how we are and teachers alike. to approach the teaching of lexis. On both counts, therefore, the Birkbeck data warrant close examina- COADY,J. & HUCKIN, T. (1997). Second Language tion. This section begins with just such an examina- Vocabulary Acquisition: a Rationalefor Pedagogy. tion and then explores some other research Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. perspectives which bear on the question of form and This new collection of articles in which Coady and meaning in the mental lexicon. Huckin have had a hand is much broader in scope and arguably more balanced in its approach and of wider appeal than the Huckin, Haynes & Coady 1993 vol- ume (see above). On this last point, although the book The Birkbeck results: a reassessment appears in the Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series, As examples of phonologically based responses in the much of its content would be both readily compre- Birkbeck data, Meara cites the following items elicited hensible and of immediate value to language teachers. by the French stimulus btton ('concrete' [the building 215
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary material]) from English-speaking learners of French: more semantic responses. Her work with Swedish- animal ('animal'), stupide ('stupid'), orchestre ('orches-speaking learners of English shows that the same shift tra'). For Meara such responses indicate the predomi- is discernible between less proficient and more profi- nance of phonological links in the L2 lexicon, the cient stages of L2 development (cf. also Cunningham, source of the response being in each case a word 1990). Interestingly, Soderman does not interpret her which is phonologically connected to the stimulus - findings as indicating that increased overall linguistic bete (noun: 'beast', 'animal'), bite (adjective: 'stupid') proficiency causes a general change in the organisation and bdton ('stick'), respectively. There are, however, of the L2 mental lexicon. For her, the changing dis- some objections to this line of argumentation. tribution of response types is to be seen in relation to For one thing, although Meara (1984: 231) knowledge of 'particular words': a specific lexical describes the L2 stimuli used in the Birkbeck Project item will tend to trigger different kinds of response at as 'very common' items, the cited examples of such different stages of its incorporation into an individ- stimuli tell a different tale — including alongside be"ton ual's lexical knowledge — formal at the outset, seman- (hardly an everyday word) items like caque ('herring- tic later — irrespective of the status of the language it barrel'), dm Cthick' [used of grass, beard]) and imail belongs to and of the global proficiency level in that ('enamel'). Given the relative infrequency of such language of the individual concerned. words and 'the small size of [the subjects' French] In sum, the Birkbeck data do not license the vocabularies' (ibid.: 232), the probability is that the proposition that the L2 mental lexicon is qualitative- responses to them reflect less a peculiarly L2 mental ly different from the LI mental lexicon in being structure than simple ignorance. After all, LI situa- intrinsically phonological in its basis of operations; tions in which unfamiliar lexical items are encoun- these data more readily bear a contrary interpretation tered also give rise to responses based on any clues to — i.e., that L2 lexical processing is semantically links with known words which the sound or look of focused wherever the meaning of a given word is the unfamiliar items may offer. accessible, and that in many instances meaning plays a It is important to note too that the connections role (in attempts to associate unknown words with arrived at in the above process, while based on for- known words) even where the meaning of a word is mal similarities, nevertheless have a clear semantic not available. Other word association test data sup- dimension. For instance, the responses animal and stu- port this latter interpretation. pide, elicited by the stimulus beton, undoubtedly result, as Meara claims, from linking beton with the formally similar item bete. However, the linkage is far Research Into L2-intemal vocabulary learning from purely formal. Meara himself suggests that the difficulties response animal is motivated by the meaning of bete Research into L2-internal vocabulary learning diffi- in its substantival usage, namely, 'beast', 'animal', culties broadly supports the line taken above. For a while the response stupide is based on the meaning of general account of this research, an excellent source bite in its adjectival usage — 'stupid'. is Laufer (e.g. 1990a, 1991a, 1993-94).We shall here Few of the responses reported by Meara are in fact take as our framework Laufers inventory of'intralex- related to stimuli in phonological terms solely. ical' difficulty factors - both formal (pronounceabili- Marechal's (1995) re-analysis of Meara's (1978) data ty, length, grammatical category, morphological finds that of the 100 French stimuli used by Meara, complexity) and semantic (specificity of meaning, only the 18 most difficult items elicit exclusively multiple meaning, metaphorical meaning, connota- phonologically related answers. Similar findings tional and stylistic nuances, synonymy). emerge from other L2 word association studies. Concerning pronounceability, L2 learners often Thus, O'Gorman's (1996) report on the English L2 appear to avoid words that they find difficult to pro- word association data of Cantonese-speaking inter- nounce (see Levenston, 1979), and those words which mediate-level learners of English reveals that among they find easier to pronounce they also perceive more these subjects' most frequent responses to the 20 accurately (see Gibson & Levin, 1975). As far as stimuli the only stricdy phonological associate^ was acquisition is concerned, more easily pronounced L2 wealth (in response to health). Likewise, consistendy words also appear to be more readily retained (see fewer than 4% of the associates produced by Rodgers, 1969). One notes that pronounceability is a Anglophone students of French within the frame- factor in LI lexical acquisition also: Celce-Murcia work of the Trinity College Dublin Modern (1978) found that her two-year-old daughter, who Languages Research Project (see, e.g., Marechal, was simultaneously acquiring two Lls, English and 1995; Singleton, 1994) were responses based on mere French, avoided producing words in either which she phonological similarity to stimuli. found difficult to say — e.g. preferring French citron Soderman (1989,1993) points out that phonologi- /sito/ to English lemon, but preferring English spoon cal associates are frequent in children's LI responses /pun/ to French miller. to word association tests and draws attention to the On word-length, the evidence is contradictory. LI 'shift in response type' with increasing age towards Some studies have failed to find a word-length effect 216
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary for processing L2 words (e.g. Rodgers, 1969); others realise that the most familiar meanings of words like have found such an effect (e.g. Coles, 1982); and still since and while did not fit the context in which the others have yielded mixed results (e.g. Phillips, 1981; items occurred, where they had the force of, respec- Stock, 1976). A more recent study by Hulme, tively,'because'and'in spite of the fact that'. Maughan & Brown (1991) shows a clear word- Problems arising from semantic opacity have been length effect in verbal memorization tasks in respect investigated by, among others, Dagut & Laufer (1985) not only of L2 words but also of Ll-like pseudo- and Kellerman (1978). Dagut & Laufer report that words and of real LI words. the most frequendy avoided English phrasal verbs in With regard to grammatical category, Rodgers's their L2 data were characterized by metaphorical (1969) subjects apparently learned nouns and adjec- extension and semantic fusion — show off, put up until, tives more easily than verbs and adverbs, and etc. Kellerman, for his part, found that Dutch learners Phillips's (1981) subjects had fewer problems in the of English, while willing to use English translations of early stages learning nouns than learning verbs or Dutch expressions involving the perceived core adjectives. Laufer suggests that such findings may meanings of the constituent words, assumed (often relate to the morphological complexity of verbs and wrongly) that literal translation was impossible where to the confusability of certain adverbials. A further more peripheral meanings were operative. possibility — in this case meaning-related — discussed In relation to connotational and stylistic nuances, by Ellis & Beaton (1993,1995) is that nouns are gen- Dagut's (1977) work suggests that the L2 learner is erally more imageable than other categories and that unlikely to feel the connotational differences between this may be why they are more easily learned. They pairs of words such as skinny and slim or womanish and note that the creation and exploitation of images womanly. L2 learners also experience problems with around new words has been found to be a very effec- register nuances in series of synonymous expressions tive technique in vocabulary learning (see also, e.g. like about, around, more or less, approximately (cf. Brown & Perry, 1991). It is worth recalling in this Halliday.McIntosh & Strevens, 1964:88). connection that in LI acquisition, the phase of very Finally on the topic of semantic difficulty factors, rapid vocabulary expansion, the so-called 'vocabulary we come to the question of synonymy. Linnarud explosion' phase, 'is characterized by a rapid acquisi- (1983) and Laufer (1991b) find a marked difference tion of one particular type of word: names for between native and non-native writers of the same objects' (McShane, 1991:146). age, the non-native writers producing many more As for morphological complexity, one can cite the repetitions than the natives. Laufer infers (e.g. 1993- problems that L2 learners frequently have with 94: 109) that once an L2 learner has acquired one inflectional paradigms (see, e.g., Stock, 1976) and the form to express a given concept, acquiring more indications (see, e.g., Benoussan & Laufer, 1984; labels for the same meaning seems like a waste of Laufer & Benoussan, 1982) that L2 learners often effort. If this is true, then the case of synonymy is misinterpret combinations of morphemes by virtue comparable to that of specificity of meaning, involv- of assimilating them to similar combinations — e.g. ing not so much a learning problem as a labour- equating outline with out of line. Morphological diffi- saving strategy. culty is also a factor in LI acquisition. For example, What emerges from this discussion is that intralex- in a study of the acquisition of LI (Dutch) word ical difficulty factors patently have to do with mean- derivation rules by subjects aged 7-17, Smedts (1988) ing as well as form. Moreover, the formal difficulty found that the 7-year-olds were able to demonstrate factors that affect L2 lexical acquisition affect LI lex- knowledge of, on average, just 14% of the deriva- ical acquisition too. Accordingly, there is no evidence tional relationships tested and that even the 17-year- from this quarter that the operations of L2 mental olds knew, on average, no more than 66%. lexicon differ in kind from LI lexical operations in Turning now to semantic difficulty factors, on the terms of the role of form. question of specificity of meaning, Blum & Levenston (1978) found that L2 learners of Hebrew tended to use superordinate, i.e., more general, terms Phonological memory research where natives tended to use hyponyms, i.e., more The role of meaning in dealing with L2 lexis is, para- specific terms — preferring, for example, the Hebrew doxically, underlined by recent work showing the equivalent of put to the equivalent of impose. One importance of being able to form accurate short- wonders, however, whether what is at issue here is term memory representations of phonological form. not the deployment of a strategy aimed at maximiz- Some of the relevant studies include: ing the surrender value of lexical learning effort rather than intralexical problematicity as such (cf. • Baddeley et d/.'s (1988) investigation of an Italian- Laufer, 1993-94:106f.). speaker with a deficient short-term phonological Difficulties associated with multiple meaning were memory, who succeeded in learning pairs of studied by Benoussan & Laufer (1984). Their sub- meaningful words in her LI but largely failed to jects, Hebrew-speaking learners of English, failed to acquire new vocabulary in an L2 (Russian); 217
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary • Papagno et alls (1991) study, which found that some focusing on context-effects in the guessing of impeding the construction of short-term phono- word meaning, others looking at reference to con- logical representations (by preventing subjects from text in lexical problem solving, and still others exam- silently repeating to themselves the lexical items ining how inferring word meaning in context they were asked to memorize) failed to disrupt the impacts on lexical acquisition. A typical example of learning of LI paired associates but did disrupt the the first is that conducted by Ittzes (1991), who learning of L2 vocabulary — except in cases where showed L2 learners of English to be more successful subjects were able to make semantic associations at guessing the sense of words in context than of between the L2 items and words in their LI; words in isolation. • Service's research (see Service, 1992; Service & With regard to the role of context in lexical prob- Kohonen, 1995) into the learning of English as lem solving, this has been explored by the C-test- an L2 by Finnish children, which showed that based studies conducted within the framework of the capacity to imitate English-like pseudowords in Trinity College Dublin Modern Languages Research tests administered before the course was a better Project (see, e.g., Singleton, 1993-94a, 1994, 1996; predictor of the level of English subsequently Singleton & Little, 1991, 1992). The C-test sets the attained than performance on a task involving task of restoring to wholeness a text every second the matching of LI syntactic-semantic pairs; word of which (after a contextualizing lead-in pas- • Service's further examination (see Service, 1993- sage) has had its second half deleted. Since testees 94; Service & Craik, 1993) of the relationship cannot alter the order of elements of the mutilated between working-memory phonological repre- text, the knowledge probed by the test is for the most sentations and L2 vocabulary learning in a group part clearly lexical in nature — knowledge of'content of English-speaking adults, which again found a words', 'grammatical words', word-structure, colloca- significant correlation between repetition ac- bility, etc. (for a contrary view see Chapelle 1994 - curacy and the memorization of novel items. answered in Singleton, forthcoming [a]; Singleton & Singleton, 1997).The consistent pattern of Dublin C- At first glance, the above research findings might test results has been for a substantial proportion (usu- seem to support the notion that the L2 mental lexi- ally a majority) of the responses offered by subjects to con differs from the LI lexicon in being phonologi- be well-formed and appropriate — which has been cally driven. On closer inspection, however, the interpreted as indicative that the L2 lexical processing evidence points to a different conclusion. One notes, involved was based on a reading of the context. for example, that experiments carried out in an LI Moreover, even among the unacceptable responses, context also indicate a critical role for short-term the overwhelming majority, though formally deviant, phonological store. Thus, for example, Gathercole & also have had a clear semantic relationship to the con- Baddeley (1989) found that a phonological memory text. Introspective data gathered from the subjects in score based on a pseudoword repetition test correlat- question confirm the prevalence of reference to con- ed significantly with an LI vocabulary score at age 4 textual meaning in the C-test-taking process. and with subsequent LI lexical proficiency levels (see Concerning the role of context in L2 lexical also Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990). acquisition, important reference points include the Furthermore, the above L2 studies show the work of Haastrup (e.g. 1991), Huckin (e.g. Huckin & semantic factor to be also present even in the very Bloch, 1993), Krashen (e.g. Dupuy & Krashen, 1993; early stages of dealing with a new item. For example, Krashen, 1989), Nation (e.g. 1982, 1993) Paribakht Service (1993-94; Service & Craik, 1993) found that & Wesche (e.g. 1997), and Schouten-van Parreren her subjects' capacity to learn novel words signifi- (e.g. 1989; 1992). Experimental research carried out cantly correlated not only with repetition accuracy by Hulstijn (e.g. 1992; 1993-94) suggests (i) that the for foreign words but also with success in learning relevance of an unknown L2 word to the informa- pairs of familiar LI words, an exercise taken to be tional needs of the learner is a determinant of the largely meaning-based. From this she infers that L2 amount of attention given to that word, (ii) that the vocabulary learning depends on the creation of both phenomenon of acquiring L2 words 'incidentally' phonological and semantic representations. Papagno from context is real but limited, and (iii) that in a sit- et at. (1991) come to similar conclusions on the basis uation of reading for comprehension, making an of their observation of their subjects' exploitation, effort to derive the meaning of unknown L2 words where possible, of semantic associations between L2 from contextual and formal clues improves such and LI forms. words' chances of being retained. These findings imply a continual interaction between lexical item, objectives and contextual meaning and thus suggest Research into use of context in lexical that incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition, like other processing and learning varieties of lexical acquisition, is characterized Use of context in has been a longstanding preoccu- by both formal and semantic processing. Similar pation (see, e.g., Meara, 1996) of L2 lexical studies, conclusions can be drawn from Ellis, Tanaka & 2i8
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary Yamazaki's (1995) study of L2 vocabulary acquisition support Cook's (1992,1993) notion of'holistic multi- in contexts of oral interaction. competence', i.e., the integration of language compe- tence, including lexical competence, across languages. Evidence cited by Cook includes the following: Integration/separation between the L1 and the L2 mental lexicon • reaction time to a word in one language is related to the frequency of its cognate in another known We come now to the question of whether the L2 language (Caramazza & Brones, 1979); mental lexicon is integrated with or separate from • morphemic similarities between two known the LI mental lexicon. Once again, this question has languages influence translation performance both a theoretical and a practical dimension. On the (CristofFanini, Kirsner & Milech, 1986); theoretical front, it is obviously of interest to psy- • when processing an interlingual homograph, cholinguists to know whether or not their models of bilinguals access its meanings in both their lan- lexical operations have to envisage a distinct lexicon guages rather than just the meaning specific to for each language known by an individual and the language being used (Beauvillain & Grainger, whether or not they need to incorporate connec- 1987); tions between the LI and the L2 lexicon if these are indeed separate. On the practical front, language On the other hand, evidence in the opposite teachers are also concerned by answers to questions direction comes from instances of language loss about L1/L2 integration/separation in the lexical caused by brain damage in bilinguals/multilinguals domain as in other domains, since one of their major where the lost languages are recovered separately. For preoccupations since time immemorial has been the example, Grosjean (1982: 260) reports the case of a question of how to assess the extent of LI influence native speaker of Swiss German who first recovered on L2 acquisition and performance, how to regard French, a language he had learned as an adult, and such influence, and how to react to it. subsequently recovered High German, but never One argument against integration derives from the recovered his LI, Swiss German.Whitaker (1978:27) idea that language is acquired and processed by a ded- reports a similar instance, that of an English classics icated language module. At least some advocates of scholar who recovered Greek, Latin, French and the language module idea (e.g. Emmorey & Fromkin, English (his LI) in that order. 1988) consider a substantial part of the functioning of De Groot (1993,1995) treads a path between the the LI mental lexicon to be intramodular, and at least separatist and the integrationist positions. Reviewing some (e.g. Bley-Vroman, 1989) hold that L2 knowl- a wide range of experimental findings, she reads the edge acquired beyond the childhood years is evidence as pointing to a mixed representational sys- extramodular. Taken together, these two positions tem, where concrete words and words perceived as imply that, in the case of post-pubertal L2 learner, LI cognates across the two languages are stored in a and L2 lexical operations proceed separately. 'compound' manner, whereas abstract words and The processing implications of cross-language dif- noncognates in the respective languages are stored in ferences also favour 'separatism'. The indications are a 'co-ordinate' manner. The reference here is to that an individual faced with the task of working out Weinreich's (1953) different categories of bilingual- the morphological structure of unfamiliar words will ism — subordinative, compound and co-ordinate. In refer to the phonological composition of more subordinative bilingualism, according to Weinreich, familiar items and then analogize (see Bybee, 1988; L2 word forms are connected to LI meanings via Stemberger & MacWhinney, 1988). Since the lan- primary connections to LI forms; in compound guages known to such an individual may have highly bilingualism the LI and L2 forms are connected at divergent phonological systems, the implication is the meaning level; and in co-ordinate bilingualism that the search on which such analogizing tactics separate systems of form-meaning connections exist depend runs through the lexicon of each language for each language. For Weinreich, these different separately. types of bilingualism are associated with different With regard to arguments in favour of integration, kinds of learning experience. However, Weinreich these tend to come from the (overlapping) areas of also recognizes (1953:10) that a person's or a group's bilingualism research, research into crosslinguistic bilingualism need not be of a single type. influence, and research into communication strate- Kirsner, Lalor & Hird (1993) also propose a mixed gies. These arguments, and some balancing counter- system of representations. They suggest (1993: 228) arguments from the areas in question are considered that cognates may be 'represented and stored as vari- below. ants of the first language vocabulary'.Their proposal is that such a subordinative structure, which some research seems to indicate as characterizing lower lev- Bilingualism research els of bilingual proficiency (see below), is a continu- Many of the findings of bilingualism research (for ing feature of bilingual lexical organisation in respect a representative sample see Harris, 1992) seem to of cognate items at other levels of proficiency too. 219
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary Other researchers have referred to the phenome- constantly seek to make connections between new non of code-switching in arguing for a model of the words they encounter in their target language and bilingual lexicon which steers clear of separatist or words in languages they already know, even when integrationist extremes. For example, De Bot and the languages concerned are unrelated. Such con- Schreuder (1993) see code-switching as providing nections have both a formal and a semantic dimen- evidence against the idea that one of a bilingual's lan- sion. Indeed, it appears that conflicts often arise guages is 'switched on' and the other'switched off' in between crosslinguistic semantic-associative process- a given situation, and evidence in favour of the es and form-oriented processes. For example, notion that both languages are continuously activat- Giacobbe's (1993-94) Spanish-speaking female sub- ed, though each to a different level (c£. Green, 1986, ject acquiring French naturalistically, faced with the 1993; Paradis, 1981). Examples they give of code- French word cuisine ('kitchen'), on the one hand switching from their data include: seemed to associate it with the Spanish word for 'kitchen' — cotina -, producing forms like [kosin] and (Dutch/English) [kosi], and on the other hand attempted to replicate dat water dat liep direct from het dek in die grote the French form faithfully, producing forms like regenbakken [kusin] and [kwisin] (see also Giacobbe & 'that water ran directly from the roof into those big Cammarota, 1986). Such evidence of crosslinguistic water vessel [s]' (p. 208) influence at the lexical level obviously calls into (Dutch/French) doubt any notion of a complete separation between Tu es un tofcopain the L2 and LI lexicons. There follow some further 'You are a nice guy' (p. 209) examples of research findings bearing on crosslin- guistic aspects of lexical operations, as well as a caveat They note (1993:212) that in activation models sep- regarding the interpretation of crosslinguistic data. aration between languages is not absolute, allowing One research approach which has yielded plentiful for the possibility that 'words from the non-intended crosslinguistic evidence is error analysis. For exam- language may always slip in'. ple, Grauberg's (1971) analysis of the written errors A final relevant issue in this context is the lexical in German made by first-year university students of development of bilinguals over time. One much-cited German reveals that, of the 102 lexical errors isolat- model of bilingual lexical development, that ofvblterra ed, 50% had a crosslinguistic dimension, 35 being & Taeschner (Taeschner, 1983; Volterra & Taeschner, based on faulty perceptions of equivalence between 1978), claims that bilingual children start out with a English and German, and 16 consisting in the com- single lexical system which has just one entry (from plete transfer of English expressions. Similar findings one language or the other) for each meaning acquired. emerge from my own study of crosslinguistic influ- A corollary of this claim is that an ability to differenti- ence on the semantico-grammatical aspects of the ate between languages — and thus a separation of the French interlanguage of an English-speaking learner respective lexicons — appears only around age two. of French (Singleton, 1987). The kinds of errors Quay (1995) disputes Volterra & Taeschner's noted by Grauberg are discernible in these latter data hypothesis. She re-analyses Taeschner's (1983) data and too, the difference being that - probably because of finds that they actually contain considerable numbers the subject's perception that one of his L2s, Spanish, of cross-language equivalents. In her own study of an was closer to French than was English (cf., e.g. English/Spanish bilingual subject, Manuela, she finds Kellerman, 1977,1979,1983; Ringbom, 1987) - this persuasive counter-evidence to Volterra & Taeschner's L2 was actually more prominent as a source of trans- proposals: at age 1;5.15, 36% of Manuela's English fer than the LI. In addition, the data contain numer- vocabulary was matched by equivalents in her Spanish, ous examples of coinages based on English and/or and 40% of her Spanish vocabulary had equivalents in Spanish lexical forms (e.g. [tipi'kal] for typique (cf. her English (cf. also Zurer Pearson, Fernandez & English typicat); [sa'sil] for simple (cf. Spanish senciUo — Oiler, 1995). The notion of a developmental dimen- 'simple'). sion in bilingual lexical organisation should not, how- At least some kinds of productive transfer error ever, be entirely ruled out.De Groot (1995) points to a can be explained in terms of the encoding of newly number of studies which indicate a proficiency effect encountered elements using the model of known on bilingual lexical organisation, subordinative struc- items in another language (cf. Singleton, 1987). ture being associated with low proficiency and com- Clearly, such an explanation rests on the assumption pound structure with high proficiency. that the lexicons of languages other than that being used for communicative purposes are continuously available for consultation. Alternatively, one can Research into the role of crosslinguistic invoke the notion of'borrowing' (cf., e.g. Corder, influence 1978, 1983; Kellerman, 1977, 1979, 1983; Krashen, Research has shown (see, e.g., Laufer, 1990a; 1990b; 1981:67) — a strategy involving not only the 'online' 1993-94; Benoussan & Laufer, 1984) that learners consultation of a lexicon or lexicons other than that 220
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary of the language in which communication is taking application of LI as well as L2 morphological and place (cf. Singleton, forthcoming [b]), but also the phonological encoding procedures in her use of knowledge from another lexicon in order to 'Substitution Plus' strategy (see also Ridley 1997; 'camouflage' the alienness of the borrowed items. Ridley & Singleton, 1995a, 1995b; Singleton, 1997). Crosslinguistic issues also arise in relation to the Obviously, in order for such strategies to be applied, deliberate learning of vocabulary. A recent study by there must be the possibility of interaction between Stoffer (1996) illustrates this point. Stoffer used a the mental lexicons associated with the languages self-report instrument to assess the use of vocabulary involved. learning strategies by a large sample of American With regard to resemblances between strategies university students of various foreign languages. exhibited by L2 users and those applied by LI users, Nine factors emerged from a factor analysis of the Kellerman (e.g. 1991) and Bialystok (e.g. 1990) have data, of which, in terms of frequency, the over- insisted that '[strategic] behaviour is surprisingly whelmingly dominant category overall was commonplace amongst native speakers' (Kellerman, 'Strategies Used to Create Mental Linkages', the 1991:153). Kellerman (ibid.: be. tit.) cites in this con- highest scoring of the strategies included under this nection LI situations 'where one member of a pair of heading being that of linking L2 words to LI words. speakers is an expert and the other a novice and the Clearly, the creation of such linkages would not be novice needs to have some term explained or to find possible if lexicon of the LI were not available for out what something is called'. He also summarizes consultation and comparison during the processing (ibid.: 157f.) a wide range of research which indicates of L2 items. that referential strategies and the ways in which On the other hand, evidence of crosslinguistic speakers structure definitions are substantially the influence is not so plentiful as to support the idea of same whether an LI or an L2 is being used. In the full integration between the LI and the L2 lexicon present context, the relevance of such evidence lies either. One recalls Duskova's (1969: 19) comment in what it says about processing overlap between the that many L2 errors 'seem to have little, if any, con- LI and the L2 lexicon. If it is the case that strategic nection with the mother tongue'. Indeed, a number language use is essentially common ground between of studies of that vintage suggested that no more LI and L2 processing, this constitutes yet another than about a third of the L2 productive errors of the argument in favour of the view that the LI mental subjects in question were crosslinguistically induced lexicon and the L2 mental lexicon are connected. (see, e.g., Singleton, 1981:4f.). Concluding summary and some Research into communication strategies pedagogical implications Communication strategies have been much What seems to emerge from the foregoing discussion researched over the past twenty years (see, e.g., is that: Bialystok, 1990; Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Kellerman, a) the L2 mental lexicon is not qualitatively different 1991; Palmberg, 1979; Poulisse, 1990, 1993;Tarone, 1977,1980;Varadi, 1980).Two aspects of this research from the LI mental lexicon in terms of the bear on the lexical integration/separation question. respective roles played by form and meaning; in The first relates to the content of the previous sub- * both L2 and LI formal processing has a very sig- section: communication strategies often make use of nificant part to play in dealing with an unfamiliar lexical knowledge derived from languages other than expression, but it is accompanied by semantic that in which communication is taking place. The processing wherever conditions allow, and the second is the similarity which emerges between role of semantic processing grows in importance communication strategies used in L2 and those used as the integration of the new item progresses; in LI. b) the LI and the L2 lexicon are neither completely disconnected from each other nor totally inte- Concerning the former aspect, every treatment of grated with each other, the precise relationship L2 communication strategies recognizes the deploy- between a given L2 entry and a given LI entry in ment in diverse ways of knowledge of languages the mental lexicon probably depending on such other than that in which communication is taking factors as how the words have been acquired, place. Thus, for example,'conscious transfer'- cover- how well they are known, and to what extent ing 'literal translation' and 'language switch' - is one formal arid/or semantic similarity is perceived of the categories of strategy identified by Tarone between them. (1977); Kellerman (1991: 150) sees resorting to another language as one of the 'two fundamental With regard to pedagogical implications, one can ways' in which his 'code strategy' operates (the other point to a number of elements in the research find- being the exploitation of L2 productive processes); ings reviewed which would appear to bear on the and Poulisse (1993) refers to recourse to LI as well as teaching of vocabulary. To begin with, it is now L2 items in her 'Substitution Strategy' and to the evident that there is a question-mark over the extent 221
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary to which it is in fact possible to conceive of lexis as can greatly enhance accessibility in receptive mode separate from other aspects of language. The infer- (thus rendering the L2 input more comprehensible ence must be that the teaching of given lexical items and acquirable than would otherwise have been the needs to address not only individual forms and con- case), and even in productive mode carefully managed cepts but also - at the very least - 'local' syntax and borrowing can be an extremely effective way of collocational environments. expanding limited L2 resources. One response to the Another obvious inference from this survey is that crosslinguistic dimension, therefore, would be to both formal and semantic aspects of words need to be 'make friends with' it by adopting a 'language aware- given attention in the teaching/learning process. As it ness' approach and exploring areas where strategic stands, this is an unhelpful truism. However, some of transfer between given languages will and will not the details suggested by the research may be rather work. Another would be simply to take comfort in more useful. For example, concerning form, one mes- the indications that as proficiency increases L2 lexical sage seems to be that establishing an accurate internal dependency on LI seems to diminish. In any case, the representation of a word's formal attributes is especial- temptation to react to crosslinguistic influence by ly important in the early stages of dealing with a new attempting systematically to extirpate it almost cer- item. One possible pedagogical reading of this finding tainly needs to be resisted. is that the natural tendency to rehearse new words should be reinforced in classroom activities, and that — at a metacognitive level — teachers should attempt to References inculcate in learners the strategy of repetition of new lexical forms, wherever they are encountered. ANDERMAN, G. & ROGERS, M. (eds.) (1996). Words, words, uvrds: the translator and the language learner. Clevedon: Multilingual As far as meaning is concerned, the availability of a Matters Ltd. mental image emerges as a possible aid in thefixingof ARNAUD, P. (1989).Vocabulary and grammar: a multitrait-multi- words in memory. Again, teachers can put knowledge method investigation. AILA Revieiv/Revue de VAILA 6, of this finding to good effect both directly in class in 56-65. activities around particular words and less directly by ARNAUD, P. (1992). Objective lexical and grammatical character- istics of L2 written compositions and the validity of separate encouraging the practice of visualization in all cir- component tests. In P. Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 133-45. cumstances. In addition, the evidence on intralexical ARNAUD, P. & BEJOINT, H. (eds.) (1992). Vocabulary and applied difficulty suggests that lexically focused instruction linguistics. Houndmills: Macmillan. and classroom tasks might usefully concentrate on BADDELEY, A., PAPAGNO, C. & VALLAR, G. (1988). When long- explorations of polysemy, stylistic connotation and term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of Memory and Language, 2 7 , 5 8 6 - 9 5 . semantic relations (synonymy, hyponymy, etc.). BEAUVILLAIN, C. & GRAINGER, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical It will come as no surprise to teachers that homographs: some limitations of a language-selective access. research confirms the reality of incidental vocabulary Journal of Memory and Language, 26,658-72. acquisition. In teaching circles it has always been BENOUSSAN, M. & LAUFER, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in con- assumed that learners 'pick up' words from their gen- text in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading,!, 15-32. eral experience of interacting in the target language BlALYSTOK, E. (1990). Communication strategies: a psychological in the absence of any specific instruction. It may, analysis of second-language use. Oxford: Blackwell. however, be less common knowledge that the effica- BLEY-VROMAN, R. (1989). What is the logical nature of foreign cy of such acquisition is enhanced when an active language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge: approach is taken towards the use of context and Cambridge University Press, 41-68. other clues in dealing with unfamiliar items. Once BLUM, S. & LEVENSTON, E. (1978). Universals in lexical simplifi- more, there would seem to be good grounds for cation. Language Learning, 28,399-416. intervening at a metacognitive level. Training learn- BROWN,T. & PERRY, E (1991). A comparison of three learning ers in the art of exploiting contextual information, strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, knowledge of related forms, etc. in encounters with 25,655-70. BYDEE, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organisation. In M. new words coupled with a simple piece of advice Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.), 119-41. like 'Try to work out what the word means before CARAMAZZA, A. & BRONES, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilin- going to the dictionary' could yield substantial bene- guals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13,212-14. fits in terms of numbers of words acquired and the CARTER, R . (1987). Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives. durability of lexical gains. London:Allen & Unwin. CELCE-MURCIA, M. (1978). The simultaneous acquisition of Finally, a thought or two about crosslinguistic English and French in a two-year-old child. In E. Hatch (ed.), influence. It is apparent from much of the research Second language acquisition: a book of readings. Rowley MA: discussed above that the crosslinguistic factor will Newbury House, 38-53. inevitably be present in the learning and use of L2 CHAPELLE, C. (1994). Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabu- lexis.This is something that teachers and learners sim- lary research? Second Language Research, 10,157-87. CHOMSKY, N. (1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and ply have to come to terms with. Nor is it necessarily representation. MITWorking Papers in Linguistics, 10,43—74. unqualifiedly bad news. On the contrary, where relat- QESLICKA-RATAJCZAK.A. (1994).The mental lexicon in second ed languages are concerned, the crosslinguistic factor language learning. StudiaAnglica Posnaniensia,29,105—17.
222
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary COADY, J. & HUCKIN, T. (1997). Second language vocabulary deficits in language-disordered children: is there a causal con- acquisition: a rationale for pedagogy- Cambridge: Cambridge nection? Journal ofMemory and Language, 29,336-60. University Press. GlACODBE, J. (1993-94). Construction des formes lexicales et COLES, M. (1982). Word perception,frst language script and learners ofactivite cognitive dans l'acquisition du francais langue sec- English as a second language. M.A. dissertation. University of onde.In D. Singleton (ed.) (1993-94b), 29-54. London, Birkbeck College. GlACOBDEj. & CAMMAROTA M.-A. (1986). Learners' hypotheses COOK, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language for the acquisition of lexis. Studies in Second Language Learning, 42,551-91. Acquisition, 8,327-42. COOK.V. (1993). Wholistic multicompetence — jeu d'esprit or GIDSON, E. & LEVIN, H. (1975). On the perception of words: an paradigm shift. In B. Kettemann & W Wieden (eds.) Current application of some basic concepts. In E. Gibson & H. Levin issues in European second language acquisition.Tubingen: Narr,3-8. (eds.), Tlie psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CORDER, S. P. (1978). Language-learner language. In J. Richards GRANGER, S. & MONTFORT, G. (1993-94). La description de la (ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: issues competence and lexicale en langue etrangere: perspectives approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. methodologiques. In D. Singleton (ed.) (1993-94b), 55-75. CORDER, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In S. Gass & GRAUBERG.W. (1971). An error analysis in German of first-year L.Selinker (eds.). 85-97. university students. In G. Perren &J.Trim (eds), Applications of CRJSTOFFANINI, P., KIRSNER, K. & MILECH, D. (1986). Bilingual linguistics: selected papers of the Second International Congress of lexical representation: the status of Spanish-English cognates. Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 38 A, 367-93. 257-63. CUNNINGHAM, L. (1990). L2 wcabulary: a study of the uvrd associa-GREEN, D. (1986). Control, activation and resource: a framework tion respotises of beginning learners of Irish. M.Phil, dissertation.and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and University of Dublin. Language, 27,210-23. DAGUT, M. (1977). Incongruencies in lexical 'gridding' - and GREEN, D. (1993). Towards a model of L2 comprehension and application of contrastive semantic analysis to language teach- production. In R. Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 249-77. ing. IRAL, 15,221-29. GROSJEAN, F. (1982). Life with two languages: an introduction to DAGUT, M. & LAUFER, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs by bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. English learners, speakers of Hebrew - case for contrastive GROSS, M. (1991). Lexique et syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique, 23, analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7,73-9. 107-32. DE BOT, K. & SCHREUDER, R. (1993). Word production and the HAASTRUP, K. (1991). Lexical inferendng procedures or talking about bilingual lexicon. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (eds.), uvrds. Tubingen: Narr. 191-214. HALLIDAY, M., MCINTOSH, A. & STREVENS, P. (1964). Vie linguis- DE GROOT.A. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman. tasks: support for a mixed-representational system. In R. HAMMOND, M. & NOONAN, M. (eds.) (1988). TJieoretical mor- Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 27-51. phology. London: Academic Press DE GROOT.A. (1995). Determinants of bilingual lexicosemantic HARLEY, B. (ed.) (1995a). Lexical issues in language learning. Ann organisation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8,151-80. Arbor/Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Language Learning/John DUPUY.B. & KRASHEN, S. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisi- Benjamins Publishing Company. tion in French as a second language. Applied Language Learning, HARLEY, B. (1995b). Introduction: lexical issues in language 4,55-63. learning. In B. Harley (ed.) (1995a), 1-28. DUSKOVA, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language HARRIS, R. J. (ed.) (1992). Cognith-e processing in bilinguals. learning. IRAL, 7,11-36. Amsterdam: North Holland. ELLIS, N. & BEATON, A. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of HATCH, E. & BROWN, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics and language foreign language vocabulary: imagery keyword mediators and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. phonological short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of HUCKIN.T. & BLOCH.J. (1993). Strategies for inferring word Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 4 6A, meanings in context: a cognitive model. In T. Huckin, M. 533-58. Haynes &J.Coady (eds.), 153-78. ELLIS, N. & BEATON, A. (1995). Psycholinguistic determinants of HUCKIN, T., HAYNES, M. & COADY, J. (eds.) (1993). Second lan- foreign language vocabulary learning. In B. Harley (ed.) guage reading and vocabulary learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex (1995a), 107-65. HULME, C , MAUGHAN, S. & BROWN, G. (1991). Memory for ELLIS, R.,TANAKA,Y. &YAMAZAKI, A. (1995). Classroom interac- familiar and unfamiliar words: evidence for a long-term mem- tion, comprehension! and the acquisition of L2 word mean- ory contribution to short-term memory span. Journal of ings. In B. Harley (ed.) (1995a), 187-228. Memory and Language, 30,685—701. EMMOREY, K. & FROMKIN.V. (1988). The mental lexicon. In HULSTIJN,J.(1992). Retention of inferred and given word mean- F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Volume III.ings: experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Language: psychological and biological aspects. Cambridge:Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 113-25. Cambridge University Press, 124-49. HULSTIJN, J. (1993-94). L'acquisition incidente du lexique en FAERCH, C. & KASPER, G. (eds.) (1983). Strategies in interlanguage langue etrangere: ses avantages et ses limites. In D. Singleton communication. London: Longman. (ed.) (1993-94b), 77-96. GALISSON, R. (1991). De la langue a la culture par les mots. Paris:ITTZES, K. (1991). Lexical guessing in isolation and context. CLE international. Journal of Reading, 34,360-66. GASS, S. & SELINKER, L. (eds.) (1983). Language transfer in languageKELLERMAN.E. (1977).Towards a characterization of the strategy learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies GASS, S. & SELINKER, L. (1994). The lexicon. Chapter 10 of S. Bullctin,2,5S-U5. Gass & L. Selinker, Second language acquisition: an introductory KELLERMAN, E. (1V78). Giving learners a break: native language course. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 270-94. intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. GATHERCOLE, S. & BADDELEY, A. (1989). Evaluation of the role Working Papers in Bilingualism, 15,309-15. of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in KELLERMAN, E. (1979).Transfer and non-transfer: where are we children: a longitudinal study.Journal of Memory and Language, now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,!, 37-57. 28,200-13. KELLERMAN, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don't. In S. GATHERCOLE, S. & BADDELEY, A. (1990). Phonological memory Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), 112-34.
223
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary KELLERMAN, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second lan- MEARA, P. (1978). Learners' word associations in French. guage research: a critique, a revision, and some (non-) implica- Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3,192-211. tions for the classroom. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. MEARA, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: a neglected aspect of Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign second language learning. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts, language pedagogy research: a commemorative volume for Clans 13,221-46. Faerch. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 142-61. MEARA, P. (1984). The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A. KELLY, P. (1991). Lexical ignorance: the main obstacle to listening Davies, C. Criper & A. P. R. Howatt (eds.), Interlanguage. comprehension with advanced foreign language learners. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 225-35. IRAL, 29,135-49. MEARA, P. (1992). Vocabulary in a second language: Vol. 3. KiRSNER, K., LALOR, E. & HiRD, K. (1993). The bilingual lexi- Reading in a Foreign Language,9,76\—S37. con: exercise, meaning and morphology. In R. Schreuder & B. MEARA, P. (1996).The classical research in L2 vocabulary acquisi- Weltens (eds.), 215-48. tion. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (eds.), 27-40. KODA, K. (1989). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowl- NATION, P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: a edge on the development of L2 reading proficiency. Foreign review of the research. RELCJournal, 13,14-36. Language Annals, 22,529-40. NATION, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: KRASHEN, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language Heinle & Heinle. learning. Oxford: Pergamon. NATION, P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth and use. In R. KRASHEN, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 115-34. reading: additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern O'GORMAN.E. (1996). An investigation of the mental lexicon of LanguageJournal, 73,440-64. second language learners. Teanga: Tlie Irish Yearbook ofApplied LAUFER, B. (1989). A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: Linguistics, 16,15-31. deceptive transparency. AILA Review/Revue de I'AILA 6, PALMBERG, R. (1979). Investigating communication strategies. 10-20. In R. Palmberg (ed.), Perception and production of English: papers LAUFER, B. (1990a). Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: on interlanguage. Abo: Abo Akademi, Department of English, some teaching implications, Foreign Language Annals, 23, 45-75. 147-55. PAPAGNO, C , VALENTINE, T. & BADDELEY, A. (1991). LAUFER, B. (1990b).Words you know: how they affect the words Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language you learn. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Further insights into contrastive lin- vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, guistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 573—93. 331-47. LAUFER, B. (1991a). Why are some words more difficult than PARADIS, M. (1981). Neurolinguistic organisation of a bilingual's others? Some intralexical factors which affect the learning of two languages. In J. Copeland & P. Davis (eds.), Tlie Seventh words. IRAL, 28,293-307. LACUS Forum. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press, 486-94. LAUFER, B. (1991b).The development of lexis in the production PARIDAKHT.T. S., & WESCHE, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhance- of advanced L2 learners. Tlte Modern Language Journal, 75, ment activities and reading for meaning in second language 440-48. vocabulary. In J. Coady &T. Huckin (eds.), 174-200. LAUFER, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading PHILLIPS.T. (1981). Difficulties in foreign language vocabulary learning comprehension? In P.Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 126-32. and a study ofsome of thefactors thought to be influential. M.A. dis- LAUFER, B. (1993-94). Appropriation du vocabulaire: mots sertation. University of London, Birkbeck College. faciles, mots difficiles, mots impossibles. In D. Singleton (ed.) POULISSE, N. (1990). Tlie use of compensatory strategies by Dutch (1993-94b),97-113. learners ofEnglish. Enschede: Sneldruck. LAUFER, B. & BENOUSSAN, M. (1982). Meaning is in the eye of POULISSE, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical compensa- the beholder. English Teaching Forum, 20,10-14. tion strategies. In R. Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 157-89. LAUFER, B. & NATION, P. (1995).Vocabulary size and use: lexical QUAY, S. (1995). The bilingual lexicon: implications for studies richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, of language choice.Journal of Child Language, 22,369-87. 307-22. RIDLEY, J. (1997). Reflection and strategies in foreign language- LEVENSTON, E. (1979). Second language acquisition: issues and learning. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. problems. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4,147-60. RIDLEY,J. & SINGLETON, D. (1995a). Strategic L2 lexical innova- LEWIS, M. (1993). Tlie lexical approach: the state qfELT and a way tion: case study of a university-level ab initio learner of forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. German. Second Language Research, 11,137-48. LEWIS, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: putting theory RIDLEY, J. & SINGLETON, D. (1995b). Contrastivity and individ- into practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. ual learner contrasts. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 24, LlNNARUD, M. (1983). On lexis: the Swedish learner and the 123-37. native learner compared. In K. Sajavaara & J. Lehtonen (eds.), RINGBOM, H. (1987). Tlie role of thefirst language in foreign language Cross-language analysis and second language acquisition 2. learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla, 249-62. ROBINSON, P. (1989). Procedural vocabulary and language learn- LlNNARUD, M. (1986). Lexis in composition. Lund: Lund Studies in ing.Journal of Pragmatics, 13,523-46. English. RODGERS, T. (1969). On measuring vocabulary difficulty: an LITTLE, D. (1994). Words and their properties: arguments for a analysis of item variables in learning Russian-English vocabu- lexical approach to pedagogical grammar. In T. Odlin (ed.), lary pairs. IRAL, 7,327-43. Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge SCHOUTEN-VAN PARREREN, C. (1989). Vocabulary learning University Press, 99-122. through reading: which conditions should be met when pre- MARECHAL, C. (1995). Vie bilingual lexicon: study of French and senting words in texts? AILA Review/Revue de I'AILA, 6, English word association responses ofadvaticed learners of French. 75-85. M. Phil, dissertation. University of Dublin. SCHOUTEN-VAN PARREREN, C. (1992). Individual differences in MARTOHARDJONO, G. & FLYNN, S. (1995). Is there an age factor vocabulary acquisition: a qualitative experiment in the first for Universal Grammar? In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (eds.), phase of secondary education. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint Tlie age factor in second language acquisition: a critical look at (eds.), the 94-101. Critical Period. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 135—53. SCHREUDER R. & WELTENS B. (eds.) (1993). Tlie bilingual lexicon. MCSHANE.J. (1991). Cognitive development: an information processing Amsterdam:John Benjamins. approach. Oxford: Blackwell. SERVICE, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory and foreign-
224
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35
State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary language learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (eds.), Acquisition et ettseignement/apprentissage des langues. 45 A, 21-50. Grenoble: LIDILEM, 395-402. SERVICE, E. (1993-94). Contribution des codes memoriels a l'ap- SINGLETON, D. & SINGLETON, E. (1997). The C-test and L2 prentissage lexical. In D. Singleton (ed.) (1993-94b), 147-60. acquisition/processing research. In J. Coleman (ed.), University SERVICE, E. & CRAIK, E (1993). Differences between young and language testing and the C-test. Portsmouth: University of older adults in learning a foreign language. Journal of Memory Portsmouth (Occasional Papers in Linguistics), 150-78. and Language, 32,608-23. SMEDTS, W. (1988). De beheersing van de nederlandse woor- SERVICE, E. & KOHONEN, V. (1995). Is the relation between vorming tussen 7 en 17. In F.Van Besien (ed.), First language phonological memory and foreign language learning account- acquisition. Antwerp: Association Beige de Linguistique ed for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, Appliquee/Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen (ABLA Papers 155-72. No. 12), 103-27. SINCLAIR.J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: OxfordSODERMAN, T. (1989). Word associations of foreign language University Press. learners and native speakers - a shift in response type and its SINGLETON, D. (1981). Language transfer: a review of some recentrelevance for a theory of lexical development. Scandinavian research. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Working Papers on Bilingualism, 8, 114—21. Communication Studies (CLCS Occasional Paper 1). S6DERMAN, T. (1993). Word associations of foreign language SINGLETON, D. (1987). Mother and other tongue influence on learners and native speakers: the phenomenon of a shift in learner French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9,327-46. response type and its relevance for lexical development. In H. SINGLETON, D. (1993-94a). Introduction: le role de la forme et Ringbom (ed.), Near-native proficiency in English. Abo: Abo du sens dans le lexique mental en L2. In D. Singleton (ed.) Akademi, English Department Publications, 91-182. (1993-94b),3-27. STEMDERGERJ. & MACWHINNEY.B. (1988). Are inflected forms SINGLETON, D. (ed.) (1993-94b). L'acquisition du lexique d'une stored in the lexicon? In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.), langue itranghe. Paris: ENCRAGES (Issue 3 of Acquisition et 101-16. Interaction en Langue Etranghe). STOCK, R. (1976). Somefactors affecting the acquisition of foreign lan- SINGLETON, D. (1994). Learning L2 lexis: a matter of form? In G. guage lexicon in the classroom. Ph.D thesis. University of Illinois. STOFFER, Bartelt (ed.), Tlie dynamics of language processes: essays in honor of I. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies as related to Hans W Dechert.Tiibingen: Narr, 45-57. individual difference variables. Paper presented at the Thirtieth SINGLETON, D. (1996). Formal aspects of the L2 mental lexicon: TESOL Convention, Chicago. some evidence from university-level learners of French. In K. TAESCHNER, T. (1983). Tlie sun is feminine: a study on language Sajavaara & C. Fairfeather (eds.), Approaches to second language acquisition in bilingual children. Berlin: Springer. acquisition. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla (Jyvaskyla' Cross-TARONE, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in Language Studies, 17), 79-85. interlanguage. In H. Brown, C.Yorio & R. Crymes (eds.), On SINGLETON, D. (1997). Crosslinguistic aspects of the mental lexi- TESOL 77. Washington, D.C. :TESOL, 194-203.. con. In R. Hickey & S. Puppel (eds.), Language history and lan- TARONE, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, guage modelling. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Company, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30,417-31. 1641-52. VARADI.T. (1980). Strategies of target language learner commu- SINGLETON, D. (forthcoming [a]). Exploring the second language nication message adjustment. IRAL, 18,59-71. mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VOLTERRA, V. & TAESCHNER, T. (1978). The acquisition and SINGLETON, D. (forthcoming [b]). Cross-lexical consultation: out development of language by bilingual children.Joi/r/Kj/ of Child of the horse's mouth. To appear in Revista Canaria de Estudios Language, 5,311-26. Ingleses,32-33. WEINREICH, U. (1953). Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic SINGLETON, D. & LITTLE, D. (1991). The second language lexi- Circle of NewYork. con: some evidence from university-level learners of French WHITAKER, H. (1978). Bilingualism: a neurolinguistics perspec- and German. Second Language Research,!',61—82. tive. In W. Ritchie (ed.), Second language acquisition research: SINGLETON, D. & LITTLE, D. (1992). Le lexique mental de l'ap- issues and implications. New York: Academic Press, 21-32. prenant d'une langue etrangere: quelques apercus apportes par ZURER PEARSON, B., FERNANDEZ, S. & OLLER, D. (1995). le TCD Modern Languages Research Project. In R. Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants: Bouchard, J. Billiez, J.-M. Colletta.V. de Nucheze & A. Millet "tone language or two? Journal of Child Language, 22,345-68.
225
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35