Vocabulary Teaching and Learning: Introduction and Overview

RUBÉN CHACóN-BELTRÁN, CHRISTIÁN ABELLo-CoNTESSE and M. MAR TORREBLANCA-LóPEz

Introduction

Traditionally, research in language teaching and learning methods devoted less attention to vocabulary than to other aspects of language as a communication system. Other language elements took precedence, and vocabulary tended to be presented in a way that favored the introduction of grammatical elements (O'Dell, 1997). There was a general consent that grammar should be taught and that in due time learners would 'acquire' the vocabulary necessary to deal with specific communicative situations through their exposure to the target language. In addition, under the influence of structuralism, L2 teaching approaches and methods often preferred to conceive language as a 'closed' and manageable system with a limited number of communication options to be taught, that is, a series of grammar rules rather than an 'open' and unlimited subsystem, such as vocabulary. Grammar teaching tended to receive more attention than processes related to vocabulary teaching (O'Dell, 1997; Pérez Basanta, 1996; Wotjak, 1999; Zimmerman, 1997). Vocabulary is sometimes not so easily controlled by the language teacher who may have more difficulty dealing with it than with grammar rules. During the 1980s, however, interest in vocabulary teaching and learning grew, and during the 1990s, a great deal of attention was given to vocabulary as a key component in L2 learning for successful communication. Laufer (1986) pointed out:

Until very recently vocabulary has suffered from step-child status in language acquisition research. The reasons for this plight might have been the linguists' preference for closed systems describable by rules, the reaction of psycholinguists against the associative and the stimulus-response theories of learning and the interest of the methodologists in the beginning stages of language learning. (Laufer, 1986: 73)

In fact, the treatment of vocabulary as a 'second class' issue that learners will deal with in due course is not justifiable. Vermeer (1992) and Laufer (1998) emphasized the importance of the lexical component in order to acquire full competence in various registers and contexts. Vermeer (1992) pointed out that the main concern, if a high level of proficiency in the L2 is to be acquired, should be vocabulary, and Laufer (1998) affirmed that the main difference between language learners and native speakers of the target language was precisely their lexical competence.

Some studies comparing native and non-native speaker interaction (Braidi, 2002; Burt, 1975; Khalil, 1985; Sheorey, 1986; Tomiyana, 1980) show that vocabulary knowledge and use play an important role in successful communication and that it is one of the domains where non-native speakers can equal native speakers and, on some occasions, surpass them.

Toward a Model of Lexical Acquisition in an L2

The lack of a general theory explaining the processes involved in lexical acquisition – and later vocabulary retrieval in both its receptive and productive dimensions – seems to be one of the common concerns in language teaching and learning. In Paul Nation's words:

There isn't an overall theory of how vocabulary is acquired. Our knowledge has mainly been built up from fragmentary studies, and at the moment we have only the broadest idea of how acquisition might occur. We certainly have no knowledge of the acquisition stages that particular words might move through. (Schmitt, 1995: 5) (emphasis added).

Several attempts have been made – without much success – to provide a theory or model that can explain vocabulary learning. However, the acquisition of the lexicon involves highly complex neurobiological processes that are still to be described and require the coordinated work of linguists, SLA researchers, psychologists and neurobiologists. This whole process becomes even more complex if we think of distinctions between young or adult learners and monolingual or bilingual subjects. The fragmentary nature of the studies that were carried out up to the mid-1990s (Schmitt, 1995) as well as the complexity of the systems SLA researchers are trying to decode – human language ability and the functioning of the human brain make it extremely difficult to provide conclusive evidence of underlying lexical processing in our brains. Unfortunately this situation has not changed much over the last decade. In this respect, Meara argued that:

The L2 research literature contains lots of examples of what might be broadly described as descriptive research on vocabulary acquisition, but very few examples of explanatory, model-based research, which attempts to account for this learning. (Meara, 1997: 109)

Meara (1990, 1997) proposed a multidimensional model in which vocabulary acquisition is to be understood as a cumulative activity, that is 'unknown words' would be those that lack any connection to the language learner's lexicon, whereas 'known words' would have different connections both in number and nature. Thus, degrees of depth of knowledge would be determined by the quantity and type of...