UNIVERSITÀ CA' FOSCARI VENEZIA
Corso di Laurea Magistrale in Scienze del Linguaggio
Tesi di laurea
Teaching L2 Italian lexicon
to elementary-school Chinese students.
An action research
Relatore
Ch. Prof. Graziano Serragiotto
Correlatore
Prof. Balboni Paolo
Laureanda
Elisa Manzolillo
Matricola 987160
Anno Accademico
List of contents
Abstract...5
Introduction...7
Part 1: Literature review...9
Chapter 1: The lexicon of a language...9
1. The importance of being...Lexicon!...9
1.1 Crucial researches in the field...10
1.2 Some definitions of lexicon...13
1.2.1 Lexicon, vocabulary, dictionary...13
1.2.2 Lexeme, lemma, token, type...14
1.3 What a wonderful word...15
1.3.1 Lexical and functional words...15
1.3.2 Different perspectives: the term 'word'...16
1.3.3 Word versus lexical unit...18
1.4. Conclusion...20
Chapter 2: The acquisition and teaching of lexicon...21
2.1 What is involved in knowing a word?...21
2.2 Lexical competence: a theoretical framework...23
2.2.1 To communicate in a communicative manner:...24
2.2.2: The strong side of a language competence: the lexicon...26
2.3 The acquisition of the lexicon...27
2.3.1 The journey of comprehension...28
2.3.2. Work in progress: the memory...30
2.3.3 Into the mind...32
2.4 Which words first?...37
2.4.1 The first stage: the common path...38
2.4.2 Contents of words...40
2.4.3 Crossroads...41
2.5 Teaching lexicon at school to L2 learners...42
2.5.2 The qualitative perspective...44
2.5.3 A selection of words...45
2.5.4 The ground of a lexical syllabus...46
2.5.5 More than a feeling: the sociolinguistic perspective...48
2.6 Teachers get their hands dirty...50
2.6.1 Some pedagogical implications...52
2.6.2 Teachers' job...55
2.6.3 Lexical approach: some strategies and techniques...56
2.7 Conclusion...58
Part 2 The research...59
Chapter 3 The study...59
3.1 The context of research...59
3.1.1 Protocol for inclusion...60
3.1.2 The L2 language laboratory...62
3.1.3 School success...62
3.2 Participants...64
3.2.1 Chinese students at school...65
3.2.2 Chinese vs. Italian...67
3.2.3 Participants...70
3.3 Research question...71
3.4 The methodology of the research...72
3.5. Data collection and methodology of data analysis...74
3.6 Conclusion...76
Capitolo 4 L'analisi...77
4.1 Il sillabo lessicale...77
4.2. Le lezioni...79
4.3 Dentro all'analisi...84
4.3.1 Prima delle lezioni: fase di ricognizione...85
4.3.3 Dopo le lezioni: osservazione e test...98
4.4 Conclusione...102
Capitolo 5 Discussione...103
5.1 Valutazione: tematiche emerse...103
5.2 Valutazione: riflessione sui cambiamenti prodotti...109
5.3 Limiti della ricerca...111
5.4 Possibilità di ulteriori ricerche e modello: ipotesi di nuove azioni...113
5.5 Conclusione...115
Capitolo 6 Conclusione...116
References...117
Abstract
The aim of this dissertation is to investigate which is the most effective teaching
approach to teach lexicon to Chinese students. In particular we conducted an action
research during a second language laboratory at an elementary school, within which
we tried to investigate whether the activities on lexicon proposed were really
effective with such particular type of students: young, second language learners at
first stages of acquisition and Chinese. The action research was conducted over a
period of three months, two lessons a week held together with the second language
teacher, a cultural mediator. The data were collected through unstructured
observations, questionnaires, diary account and structured activities on lexicon.
Rather than answer the initial question, we found several criticality: starting from
them, recommendations are given in order to foster an effective lexical approach
with Chinese students.
[…] le parole sono di tutti e invano si celano nei dizionari perché c’è sempre il marrano che dissotterra i tartufi più puzzolenti e più rari (Eugenio Montale)
The limits of my language are the limits of my world Wittgenstein.
Introduction
Today researchers recognize the important role of lexicon within the language competence of a person and in teaching actions. Thus, it should have acquired huge significance in schools. However, reality is quite different. Having a limited vocabulary undermine not only school success but also one's personal growth within a community. Such critical situation intensifies when teaching a second language.
This research is born from the will to change the perception of teachers and to help them, as they often feel annoyed by the lack of improvements, especially with a typology of pupils: the Chinese students. The motivation behind this dissertation is to provide teachers with an effective approach useful to help such type of students. On the other hand, the author of this dissertation thesis is interested and is graduated in oriental studies, thus, we think that we can have the right perspective from which to investigate into the context of the lexical teaching of a second language. We want to provide the “lexical tools of emergency” to act on many fronts: both on teachers' and students' front, providing a language life jacket. The long silent period of Chinese students and their difficulties create a gap between the school and the students. Moreover, we want to help teachers who have to deal with Chinese students without any useful tool or having no idea of what to do.
Our research tries to answer the question about the effectiveness of a lexical approach which we have created for elementary-school Chinese students who are learning Italian through a second language laboratory. We would like to investigate upon a different approach which can promote a receptive comprehension and help such pupils to overcome their difficulties.
In order to do so we adopted the form of the action research, using different research tools: observations and field notes, remarks, satisfaction questionnaires and a final test.
In chapter 1, definitions of lexicon and its surroundings will be given. Chapter 2 is divided into two parts: the acquisition and the teaching of lexicon. From 2.1 to 2.4, we will first specify what we mean by “lexical competence” and “knowing a word”, then we will display all the findings regarding the way about we acquire lexicon, and how second language lexicon is organised within the mental lexicon. From 2.5 to 2.7 the most effective practices in teaching lexicon will be
outlined.
Chapter 3 regards the research and it illustrate the context, the methodology, the participants and the research tools. In chapter 4 we will analyse the gathered data and in chapter 5 we will discuss the outcomes in order to highlight critical points and successes. Then, we will provide a model and some suggestions for further researches, and finally some remarks will be made.
Part 1: Literature review
Chapter 1: The lexicon of a language
The aim of the current chapter is introducing the object of our research: the lexicon. Although its central role is nowadays recognized by researchers in the linguistic field and by teachers, lexical acquisition was the neglected aspect of the language studies, especially until 1980s (Meara:1980). An overview of the latest developments in the linguistic research field will show the increase in importance of lexicon. In paragraph 1.1 we will see that thanks to computer analysis, we can now collect and then study several useful data in order to know how a language works. Such outcomes are crucial because they throw new insights on foreign language teaching, as we will claim in chapter 2.
In paragraph 1.2 we will highlight the terms concerning lexicon: the aim is to clarify the terminology which is too often used vaguely. To achieve this purpose we will also refer to lexicography.
Finally we will go through the different notions of the concept of word in order to find the best one which could fit our purpose.
1. The importance of being...Lexicon!
This lack of attention is remarkable since, according to Ellis (in Appel, 1996:386), “vocabulary is the area that learners seem most conscious of”. However, since late 1980s vocabulary acquisition has attracted the attention of some researchers: the first studies to be published regarded first language vocabulary learning and development as well as bilingual child vocabulary learning. Indeed, we are talking of independent research work out of a theoretical framework (Meara, 1980). The same silence around the lexicon occurred in the Italian foreign language teaching field and the responsibility of such situation is of scholars, authors of textbooks and teachers. (Balboni, in Cardona: 2004). According to Meara the lack of research is due to the absence of theories in this field. To resume we need theories on lexical learning in a second language (hereafter L2) field and then research on such themes. Without a theoretical framework, teachers try to do their best when teaching, but it is theory that can really support their work. Thus, as Lewis (1996:189) suggests in his book The lexical approach:
language teachers need to have a theoretical over-view so that they may select from a range of strategies and techniques but in a principled way.
1.1 Crucial researches in the field
Nevertheless in the last three decades something has changed. An important effort has been made within the field of computational linguistics and corpora analysis1. Despite the roads taken by
applied linguistics, researchers involved in computational linguistics focused on words.
Thanks to corpora analysis, databases of words were built allowing the creation of corpora of words and lexical items: a change of emphasis occurred, then. Using a database as a starting point it is possible to notice what it is not visible at first glance. Indeed, computerized corpora are efficient instruments for authors of textbooks and teachers, since they provide lists on the base of the research question (for example, a list of frequent words) around which it is possible to create useful lexical syllabuses. As Lewis (1996: vi) says “evidence from computational linguistics and
discourse analysis influence syllabus content and sequence”. In the following chapters it will
emerge why, for instance, it is important to include frequent words in the language syllabus.
Furthermore, thanks to the development of technology, linguists can orient their research on performance (what we do with the language) rather than on competence only (what we know, knowledge related to the language itself). To some people knowing a language means knowing the rules, whilst to others it means using a language. Both the aspects are correct: when we use a language we have to consider that, on one hand, there is competence, on the other hand, there is language production, the performance. Before the use of corpora and computer analysis, only competence was studied closely, whereas the spotlight is now fittingly on the performance. We say “fittingly” because in the past language programs were focused more on competence and on the assumption that knowing the rules of a language allows students to use it effectively. However, the situation is quite different.
The technological development occurred in recent years has made the establishment of corpus linguistics possible. The importance of corpora and language databases not only does involve the theoretic field but also didactics. One reason is that they underline which words are the most frequent, the most used and which grammatical categories are the most present in a text.
1 A corpora is a “systematic collection of naturally occurring texts” (Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Introduction, Nadja Nesselhauf, October 2005, as.uni.heidelberg.de).
Furthermore they highlight:
fenomeni sintagmatici come le collocazioni, le forme idiomatiche e altri fenomeni di fraseologia a lungo trascurati dalla didattica delle lingue2.
(Loredana Corrà in Barni et all, 2008:78)
Thus, it is clear that there are important consequences related to teaching practice (see chapter 2). Here we focus on the fact that corpora should guide teachers during the language lesson, but they also represent telltale signs of effectiveness of the chosen language materials (ibid:17).
The centrality of lexicon also stands out in the well-known quotation referred to Krashen: “when students travel, they don't carry grammar books, they carry dictionaries” (in Lewis, 1993:iii). This means that when we want to talk with somebody in a natural language, to communicate with people, we especially need words instead of grammar. Consider the following examples:
a) today beautiful day b) is a
The above sentences show clearly that without grammar something occurs, but not vice versa. In the second instance we are not able to understand anything. That is because lexicon conveys something in any case whilst grammar does not (Wilkins in Menegazzo, 2006). Indeed, in reading the first sentence a clear image comes to mind. This is because today/beautiful/day are content words, i.e. they convey, anyway, lexical contents. A further example is that of a non-native Italian language speaker who tries to communicate a message to a native one. Her or His language production could show some errors3, but they would not affect the core of the message. The
distinction between function and content words will be explored in chapter 2.
Despite this increasing attention on lexicon, we do not have to forget its counterpart: grammar is still important in order to build a comprehensible enunciation. Grammar and lexicon are both required in order to learn and speak a language. Let us adopt a well known metaphor where words represent bricks and grammar cement. To build language competence, we have to master both grammar and vocabulary.
2 “Syntagmatic phenomena like collocations, the idioms, and other phraseological phenomena long neglected by language teaching”. Our translation.
3 From a linguistics point of view it is important to distinguish between 'error' and 'mistake'. Error occurs because learners have not yet encountered a particular rule of the language. On the other hand, mistake does not refer to lack of knowledge but to an error due to an oversight.
Actually this balance has been reached just recently. Before the advent of the lexical approach in the nineties, grammar and vocabulary were considered as two distinctive aspects of the language. Grammar was the prerequisite to know the language, whereas vocabulary had to come after rules. This belief is one of the reasons why lexicon was unheeded in syllabus design. Given that most of the teacher efforts were spent to allow students acquire the grammar, little or no attention was put on the acquisition of the lexicon. The latter was subordinate to the grammar syllabus, a secondary aspect in language learning.
It is now clear that both are two faces of the same coin. However, we agree with Lewis when he claims that “Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, non lexicalised grammar” (1993:vi). That is to say lexicon (not only single words, but also formulaic language, institutionalized utterances and so on: see chapter 2) plays a central role in language, as it provides communicative language material more than grammar does.
As we will see his lexical approach represents a way to resolve the grammar-vocabulary dichotomy.
Finally another reason for the lack of attention on lexicon might be related to the wrong impression that unlike grammar it is impossible to study it because of its intrinsic non-structured nature: lexicon thus appears chaotic. Lexicon is an open system and it seems that students have to learn all the words of a language without following any organisational principles. In traditional approaches words were relegated in a section of the textbook while teachers asked students to learn vocabulary of a particular topic by studying lists of words and learn them by heart. This technique, concerning the study of words as single pieces of language without context, much like a shopping list, was (or, alas, it is still today) the less efficient.
Carter and McCarthy(in Lewis, 1993:89) actually affirm that organisational principles “are available and simply wait to be more fully exploited”. Thus, the “arbitrary nature” of lexicon is only apparent. In chapter 2 we will show that some lexical approaches argue that it is possible to study and teach the lexicon since it has his intrinsic regularity.
Learning a language is a difficult task and it requires a special effort from learners. Such effort could undercut their motivation and, as we know, motivation is the “engine” in language learning. Teachers thus have to think carefully about the best way to teach lexicon, i.e. they have to take into account results of linguistics researches in order to make the teaching efficient.
1.2 Some definitions of lexicon
In the previous paragraph we have discussed the lack of attention still present around the concept of “lexicon” and, as lexicon is the main issue of this paper, we will now attempt to provide some definitions of it.
As a matter of fact, we recognise the current central role of lexicon: flipping through the pages of this thesis, one can find several terms used to talk about lexicon. In the next paragraphs we will try to define its boundaries, to give a clear framework before going on with other issues. Let us start from general terms and deal with specific ones later on.
1.2.1 Lexicon, vocabulary, dictionary
Firstly, let us take into consideration the words 'lexicon', 'vocabulary' and 'dictionary'. Let us consider students attending a language lesson: they could hear their teacher saying “do not use the
dictionary for the exercise number 3”, “study the vocabulary of the lesson on travels for next
week”, “The French lexicon is...”. These examples show a simplification of the situation which could actually occur in classrooms and reveal us the context where we can find these words. Pallotti (1998:116) suggests that 'lexicon' is “the open set of words in a language”(Our translation): all the words of a language are, therefore, to be considered as included within the lexicon. This statement raises a problem with regard to the notion of 'word'. How can we interpret the term 'word'? Since it is very important for our thesis we will deal with it soon.
Now we want to focus on the “openness” of the lexicon. Such feature entails that the lexicon is not a stable or permanent entity, quite the contrary, new words often enter in it and at the same time old words fall into disuse. Cardona (1998:28) offers us the adequate image to describe lexicon: “a language is like a lake with a tributary and an emissary”(Our translation). We can now understand well why some scholars were frightened by researches on lexicon and thus, they preferred to examine deeply how grammar works.
Troubles are also encountered by lexicographers when they have to choose the criteria to determine which words to consider in order to put them into a 'dictionary'. With the latter expression we mean a book (or nowadays a CD-ROM) which contains words of a language, listed in alphabetic order. Its role is to provide definitions and sometimes (grammatical, syntactic and socio-pragmatic) information about words. In the Oxford Online Dictionary, for instance, we find the word 'home' listed as follows:
Home
:1.Noun = it shows grammatical information;
2.The place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household = one or more definitions;
3.The floods forced many people to flee their homes = examples about how to use the word which provide the syntactic and pragmatic information;
4.Bring something home to = compound forms; 5.Informal / colloquial = sociolinguistic information.
Nevertheless a dictionary is not exhaustive inasmuch it cannot contain all the words of a language and their features. This is due to the intrinsic nature of the lexicon, his 'openness', to the difficulty of determining the overall number of words in a language, and to the fact that certain words do not enter in a dictionary even if they are used in the daily communication. As a matter of fact, the existence or less of some items within a dictionary is determined by the choices of the authors: the lexicographers. As De Mauro (2005:33) argues (about Italian dictionaries) “this lack within
dictionaries, on closer inspection, it is not without reason: we suppose that these words are not permanently in the lexicon, but they can be 'recreated' by speakers in case of need, with the help of the morphological competence besides the lexical one” (Our translation).
Thirdly, the term 'vocabulary' is synonym with both lexicon and dictionary. However, the latter has a broader meaning as it can also refer to treatises organized in alphabetic order, containing information on a particular subject. For instance consider a biographical dictionary or a dictionary of quotations. Like lexicon, a dictionary depends on diachronic variations as well.
For a further definition, we refer to the Grande Vocabolario italiano dell'uso (GRADIT), the most complete vocabulary of Italian, which distinguishes 'dictionary' from 'vocabulary', which can also represent all the words used by an author, by a community or used in a particular book.
1.2.2 Lexeme, lemma, token, type.
We have then the terms 'lexeme' and 'lemma'. A 'lexeme' is an abstract lexical item to which all the inflectional forms correspond. For example the word forms of the Italian mangio, mangi, mangia,
mangiò, and so on, all correspond to the lexeme mangiare (to eat, A/N). That is to say the lexeme
is an abstract concept and the word forms are its concrete realizations.
form mangiare into the dictionary. In a dictionary, mangiare is the 'lemma', also known as citation form, entry or headword within the vocabulary and in Italian it corresponds to the infinitive of verbs, the singular of nouns, and so on, and it is determined by convention.
However, students do not have to think that if they learn all the lemmas of a dictionary they will manage to communicate in that language. Indeed, each word contains meanings that flee from their basic explanation as well: it is the social use that defines them.
As these terms recall others, we will now digress on token and type. Consider the following sentences in the Italian song E penso a te: 'Io lavoro e penso a te/ torno a casa e penso a te /le telefono e intanto penso a te'4. If we count all the occurrences of the three sentences, the
word-tokens, we have twenty words overall. Otherwise we can count only the word-types which consist of abstract lexical units. It is clear that type is synonym with lexeme, whereas the token is each occurrence in a text.
This issue becomes relevant when we take into account:
la densità lessicale di un testo, quando cioè un insegnante vuole stabilire il grado di difficoltà del testo e quale livello di competenza acquisita dovrebbe avere un allievo nell'affrontare un certo input5. (Cardona, 1998:30)
Such assumptions do pose pedagogical implications, which will become evident in chapter 2. 1.3 What a wonderful word
We will now deal with the core of the lexicon: 'words'. How can we define the 'word'? Which are its boundaries within which its meaning is expressed?
The issue about what a word is or is not could seem superficial, out of the context of our dissertation. Actually, it poses relevant implications in foreign language teaching (as it will emerge in chapter 2). Here we claim that the answer to the question “what teachers intend with the term 'word'” influences teaching methods and approaches.
1.3.1 Lexical and functional words
4 Title: And I think of you. “I work and I think of you/ I come back home and I think of you/ I call her and meanwhile I think of you”
5 “The lexical density of a text, when a teacher wants to ascertain the level of difficulty of a text and which level of acquired competence should a student have to deal with an input”. Our translation.
Considering a foreign student, a Chinese who wants to learn Italian. The initial difficulties are considerable, also because of the distance of the different typological language systems. Each time the learner encounters prepositions, conjunctions and especially articles he will ask for an explanation. It is obvious that, for instance, focusing on such 'functional words' (also known as grammatical words) in a comprehension task is counterproductive, as they do not convey meanings by themselves. Teachers have to be aware of lexical words (or content words) in a text which bear contents, meanings, rather than functional words. Furthermore, though functional words are the most frequent words in the usage of a language (Zagrebelsky in Cardona, 1998:31), teachers should give instructions to their students to focus on content words in order to understand the core message: only later they will work on grammatical words.
To conclude, for us functional words are to be taught together with content words: for example the preposition a (simple or with article) with the verb giocare: giocare a calcio, giocare a scacchi,
giocare al chiuso (to play, to play football, to play chess, to play indoor: A/N), and so on in order
to take the whole lexical construction giocare a as a lexical unit (see 1.3.3)
The distinction between lexical and functional words, however, is not sharp: it is better to talk about a continuum rather than a distinction, because there are some functional words which also convey meanings (ibid).
1.3.2 Different perspectives: the term 'word'
There is not, alas, a unique definition for 'word'. Therefore, like in philosophy, we can just say what a word is, trying to explore the concept from different points of views. Indeed, there are several perspectives from which we will give a definition: we have already encountered some of them in the previous paragraphs.
First of all, if we consider the 'word' like a lexicographer, it would correspond to the lemma. Thus the word forms mangio, mangi, ha mangiato are all different manifestations of the same lexeme and, as we have seen in the previous paragraph, the lexeme represents a standard chosen by linguists. Indeed, lexemes could differ from country to country. For instance in Modern Greek the citation form of verbs is the first person, singular of the present indicative (Singleton:2000). However, how do teachers have to consider the word forms of an irregular verb? Let us take for example a reading comprehension: the task requires filling in a table with the word forms of the verb avere. Students have to find in the text the word forms ho, hai, ha, abbiamo, avete, hanno. It is clear that problems occur when one has to recognize such items, since in the task it is used their
citation form avere, whereas on the contrary in the text its word forms differ completely. When students encounter them, it is needed a huge effort to link the several word forms with their citation form. Teachers have to think carefully about whether to give a text with or without simplification or any suggestions in order to help students who are studying a foreign language. It is necessary to analyse the text before using it with students. Indeed, teachers and authors of textbooks, exercise books, and so on, have to consider token and type, i.e. the occurrences and the lexeme of the words. For instance, with regard to a text where there are several word forms of the Italian lexeme parlare (to talk, A/N), teachers can decide to focus students' attention on the fact that there are some morphemes (-o,-i,-a, and so on) which are juxtaposed to the root of the verb
parl-, which does not change. This lexicographic perspective can be crucial in order to make the
input comprehensible and to not let students concentrate on the translation of the different forms of the same verb. Therefore, they realise that what at a first glance seemed difficult is not so. Secondly we will now digress on the distinction between 'term' and 'word'. The discrimination refers to the semantic domain and it becomes relevant when we consider technical languages. Within them, 'term' and 'word' are discriminated on the basis of the referent, that is to say, 'term' means that a particular word conveys only one meaning, a specific definition, whereas a word can convey different meanings. For instance, in physics atom refers to a specific definition, whereas in everyday speech it communicates different meanings which are far from that of physics. Out of technical languages 'term' and 'word' are more or less synonyms.
Thirdly, let us take into account the orthographic point of view: according to this approach, a 'word' is what is between two white spaces on a written page (Jezeck, 2005), or from a phonetic point of view, what is separated by pauses in the speech. For instance, in the sentence my skirt is
blue, 'my' 'skirt' 'is' 'blue' are words. Such perspective is counterproductive since it divides each
single lexical item and, thus making the number of words to learn grow.
Indeed, the semantic perspective considers 'word' what expresses an independent meaning. Consequently, it is clear that prefixes, such as 'dis-' in the adjective 'disobedient', are not words, because they do not convey an independent meaning. According to the example, such prefix is a morpheme which gives a negative meaning to the adjective 'obedient'. On the contrary, gatto delle
nevi (Porcelli, 2004) is to be considered like a word, since such lexical item expresses an
independent meaning when taken as a single unit. Furthermore the Italian term mangialo is between two white spaces, but it consists of two elements, the verb mangiare and the masculine
pronoun lo.
For all these reasons, what are we to understand by the term 'word'? “A word is what expresses an independent meaning”? The explanation is too ambiguous. The above approaches, if considered individually, are not sufficient to confirm that a lexical item is a word.
1.3.3 Word versus lexical unit
The perspectives outlined above are not sufficient to determine the boundaries of a word. We will now explore in depth the semantics domain.
We have seen that a 'word' can be “what expresses an independent meaning”: this definition is, however, too ambiguous. As we will see later on (2.3.1), there are some words which carry a full meaning by themselves. Consider words like mettere and giacca. It is possible to find their English translations, to put and coat respectively, by looking in a dictionary. There they carry an independent meaning insofar as they are isolated, as they are taken as single items without any connection with other elements. However, in the use of language, words are not isolated, rather, they are constrained by usage: written or spoken context and social usage as well. That said,
mettere and giacca convey several meanings depending on context and the will of the author of
the message to communicate concepts. To resume, words do not stand by themselves, but they lean on nearby lexical items. Indeed, the syntactic construction provides us several information as well. This issue opens a scenario on the arrangements of words in a sentence. For instance, in il
libro è sul tavolo, the syntactic structure exactly establishes that the preposition sul goes with tavolo. Thus, il libro and sul tavolo are claimed to be lexical units according the definition given
by Cruse (1986).
The notion of 'word', therefore, changes on the base of the point of view and on the base of the aims one wants to achieve. Since the field of our dissertation research is that of lexicon teaching, we consider the notion of 'lexical unit' (or chunk, see below) as the most efficient.
Let us explore in depth such concept. In Lexical Semantics (ibid:24), Cruise argues that the basic lexical unit has to “satisfy the following two criteria:
- a lexical unit must be at least one semantic constituents. - a lexical unit must be at least one word.
As we have seen in a previous example, the prefix 'dis' is not a word because it does not convey an independent meaning (semantic approach) and neither is a lexical unit.
We will now adopt Cruse's example the cat sat on the mat. In this sentence there are three lexical units, insofar as we consider the cat, sat, on the mat three different semantic constituents, namely lexical items which bear meaning taken as a whole, i.e. the cat and not the - cat. Furthermore, a semantic constituent is “a meaningful form with a determinate grammatical function” (ibid), which can be substituted as the cat in the cat sat on the mat can be replaced by the dog.
According to Cruse's definition of lexical units, we should consider non ce la faccio (I can't cope with it: A/N) as a single lexical unit, because it consists of at least one word and bears a meaning by itself. Or let us consider again gatto delle nevi: the meaning of such lexical unit cannot be inferred by the specific meaning of the single words; rather, the expression bears meaning as a whole. In the lexical approach of Lewis (1993), such lexical units become chunks. For Lewis, learners acquire lexicon by group of words, by expressions not by single words.
The issue calls to mind what some scholars call multi word items. From the orthographic perspective they consist of several items whereas by the semantic point of view they express an independent meaning as a whole. Can we consider, then, multi word items as lexical units? Here we argue that the answer will determine the teaching approach to lexicon.
Let us see the following examples, from English and Italian respectively: a. we'll see
b. non ce la faccio
These lexical items consist of several “pieces”, although semantically speaking they express an independent meaning as a whole, or in the words of Lewis, “the meaning of the whole is relatively non-transparent from the meaning of the constituent words (1993:98)”
Our answer, therefore, is that even though they are lexical items made of several pieces, from a lexical approach point of view, teachers have to teach them as lexical units, without insisting on their constituents, avoiding analysing them (at least with beginners learners).
The difference between the traditional approaches and the lexical ones do pose pedagogical implications in language teaching. Before the change of perspective, words were taught as single items and each constituent of multi word expression was grammatically analysed. Tenets of the lexical approach determine the teaching practice, whose focus is on chunk or lexical units, not on single words.
Last but not least, lexical chunks6 are also important in the field of psycholinguistics, because this
branch of studies tells us that they are used by learners to analyse language (Menegazzo, 2006:68). Furthermore
il parlante nativo utilizza tali blocchi di significato per costruire in modo scorrevole il discorso parlato, riducendo al minimo sforzo di codifica interna e liberando in tal modo energie cognitive per altri compiti [...]7.
Focusing on chunks rather on single words, the language is analysed more quickly and this make the acquisitional effort less heavy. Thus, the comprehension will not be undermined by acquisitional load because the task of learning the lexicon will seem easier.
1.4. Conclusion
To resume in this chapter we first emphasized the importance of the lexicon in foreign language teaching and learning. Furthermore we tried to better explain the terminology concerning our research object (see paragraph 1.2.1 and 1.2.2). Then we have seen that to give a definition of 'word' is a difficult task for lexicographers, linguists and scholars as well (see paragraph 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.3). Since our field is not that of lexicography or computer analysis, but that of second language teaching, the best criterion we can adopt is that of lexical approach: the lexical unit or chunk is the main unit for our research questions.
6 As Menegazzo points out (2006), the term 'chunk' was first adopted in 1956 by G.Miller within the psycholinguistics field.
7 “The native speaker uses such blocks of meaning to build in a flowing way the spoken discourse, reducing to minimum the effort of internal coding and releasing, thus, the cognitive energies for other tasks […]”. Our translation
Chapter 2: The acquisition and teaching of lexicon
In the previous chapter we discussed what a word is, how we are to understand using the notion of word. To answer these questions we looked at a large amount of lexical terms, of which we provided some definitions. Finally we came to the following conclusion: the notion of 'word' depends on the different perspectives through which we examine a lexical issue. Wherefore, according to our research field, the teaching of lexicon in a second language acquisition (hereafter 'SLA') context, we adopted the notion of lexical chunk.
Thus, chapter number one could represents the 'what' question, while in the current chapter we will illustrate the 'how' question, from two points of view: on one hand, the acquisition of the lexicon; on the other hand, the teaching of lexicon, both going from the general to the specific domain of second language acquisition and teaching.
The architecture of the current chapter is as follows:
• WHAT: part of this issue has been already discussed in the first chapter. We will now investigate WHAT is involved in knowing a word (2.1 and 2.2 paragraphs);
• HOW: in section 2.3 we will answer the question on HOW lexicon is acquired. To do so we will look at Levelt's Psycholinguistic Model, in order to explain how we decode messages (2.3.1), working memory (2.2.2) and HOW lexicon is stored in our mind (mental lexicon: 2.2.3) and also
• HOW can teachers teach lexicon effectively? We will see which words are to be taught first (2.4) and several teaching techniques, approaches and strategies (2.5)
The first two questions concern the acquisition of the lexicon, the latter its teaching. Below I will highlight such essential points supported by literature.
2.1 What is involved in knowing a word?
In chapter 1 we have seen that there are several points of view which one can answer to the question “what is a word?”. These distinctions pose teaching implications of which teachers should be aware. Now, let us see the issue from another angle, that is, which are the criteria defining the boundaries between knowing or not knowing a word? We will try to give a solution to this Shakespearean query.
know the meaning. As a result, he will not be able to go on reading, because his lack of knowledg of the lexical item might undermine the comprehension of the text. (ii) A young student of primary school sees for his first time the Italian word gnocchi and has some troubles reading it correctly. (iii) A foreign student of Italian using the utterance ho salutato, without an object: a native speaker immediately hears that something is missing. These few examples show us that there are different sides about the knowledge of a lexical item involving not only the meaning (example (i))but also the written form (example (ii)) and the grammatical patterns of words (example (iii): the verb salutare requires two arguments).
As Nation (1990:31) points out satisfactorily there are four main criteria (below, in bold type) determining the knowledge of a word. For each of them he also distinguishes between receptive (R)or productive (P) knowledge:
Form
Spoken form R/P: about the pronounce Written form R/P: about the spelling
Position
Grammatical patterns R/P: about the grammatical arguments
Collocations R/P: about word expectations before or after a term
Function
Frequency R/P: about the common or uncommon usage of a word Appropriateness R/P: refers to the communicative context
Meaning
Concept R/P: about the meaning of a word Associations R/P: about relations of meaning between words
Table 2.1: knowing a word
Let us consider the verb mettere (see in a dictionary, since several definitions correspond to the Italian verb mettere). The spoken and written form are respectively /'mettere/ and m-e-t-t-e-r-e. The word conveys several meanings and always requires two arguments: the subject and the object. Furthermore, 'mettere' plus prepositions requires different word collocations (Balboni, 2006). For instance mettere + a requires posto, mettere + su requires casa, l'acqua or famiglia. Finally it is a very common verb in the spoken discourses. To put it differently it seems that learning the lexicon of a language is a difficult task for a non native student.
Laufer (in Bettoni, 2001) indicates the same criteria, with the addition of morphological information, namely, being able to recognize that the noun lavoratore consists of the root word
lavor- plus the morpheme -atore indicating that the term is a noun which refers to a person. Some
would argue that all these features are worthless or represent a difficult goal to reach in foreign language teaching and learning. On the other hand, we believe that the teacher should focus the students' attention on the fact that lavoratore, lavorare and lavori actually share the same basic root, i.e. the lexical morpheme lavor- which conveys one lexical core meaning, namely 'job' or 'to work'.
However, we should be also aware that from some lexical roots such as giorn-, derive words with different meanings. For example, giorno and giornale share the same root, but not the semantic field: they mean respectively 'day' and 'newspaper'.
Nevertheless, the change of emphasis helps students in the hard task of learning several words that at first glance seem all different. Conversely, on the whole they share (see the example about
lavor-), the same core meaning.
In order to assert that pupils know a word, they should demonstrate how to recognize its form, its syntactic disposition, how to use it within a context and to know its meaning and other lexical relations: in short they have to bear in mind several information. And here teachers intervene: how can they help their students achieve their goals?. We can only say briefly that a student does not have to know all this information about a lexical item at the beginning. As a matter of fact, the lexical knowledge increases gradually. We will explore this issue in more detail in paragraph 2.4 “what to teach” and in paragraph 2.5 “how to teach”.
2.2 Lexical competence: a theoretical framework
The criteria shown in paragraph 2.1 concern specific aspects of a more general lexical competence, which represents the theoretical framework of our dissertation. For this reason, we will examine in detail what is involved in the lexical competence in paragraph 2.2.2. Now we will step back, taking a look at the notion of language competence within the Common European Framework and then at the model of Communicative Competence as developed by Balboni (2.2.1).
The communicative competence (2.2.1) could be thought of as a matryoshka doll. The inner layer represents the specific language knowledges, (about lexicon, morphology, syntax and so on)
which all together form the language competence The language competence by itself is sometimes sufficient to attest one's level of language proficiency: universities and enterprises usually require that such language skills are certified. However, how is it possible to quantify them and rate the language proficiency? Within the promotion of a multilingual education, the Council of Europe has promoted the Common European Framework of References for Languages (hereafter C.E.F.R.), a guideline document describing the language competences in six levels, from basic (A1, A2), intermediate (B1, B2) to proficient user (C1, C2). For each level and each language skill (reading, listening, writing, speaking) the C.E.F.R. describes what is supposed to be acquired in terms of language proficiency. For instance it is supposed that an intermediate learner, who holds a B1 certificate, is able to write a “simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. [...] personal letters describing experiences and impressions8”. Thus, it seems
that the C.E.F.R. provides parameters to evaluate the language competence in terms of 'can does', abilities. Since our focus is on lexical competence, we suggest visiting the website of the Council of Europe for further information about the language competence and the C.E.F.R.
Actually, the C.E.F.R. provides a simple and vague definition about the lexical competence illustrated as “the knowledge of and ability to use the vocabulary of a language”(ibid). In addition there is a lack of criterion about the degree of knowledge of the vocabulary albeit several researchers (in Öztürk, 2003) have provided such lexical parameters. Within the C.E.F.R. the lexical competence is measured in terms of lexical errors, that is to say it is measured from a negative point of view. As Öztürk points out “lexical errors might be a sign of an expanding lexicon rather than lexical inadequacy” (ibid:19). This remark is especially to be considered in the field of second language learning where the acquisition of vocabulary is incremental. Reading on the C.E.F.R. we learn that the lexical competence is indicated as the “knowledge and the competence to use the lexicon of a language which is made of lexical and grammatical items”(see footnote 9). With lexical items they mean single words and fixed expressions. However, there is no indication in terms of numbers and range of the lexicon, but there are only some generic indications. For instance, A1 level presumes that you know and use a “basic lexical repertoire”(ibid). Thus, such parameters are too generic as they do not provide information about which words are to be known, like in a kind of lexical syllabus.
2.2.1 To communicate in a communicative manner:
Continuing the description of the lexicon competence, it is important to add that such competence does not only refer to 'know words' (their form and meaning) but to 'know how to use them, i.e. it also involves the social-pragmatic usage which is included in the communicative competence. Indeed, in spite of the importance of the C.E.F.R. (and the consequent language certifications: both born to answer the need of language measurement) the language competence of a person does not stop here: let us take for example a learner who holds a B1 language certificate in Italian. That piece of paper demonstrates (maybe) that the holder can read, listen, speak, write using that language, as an intermediate user. However, he might not be able to communicate effectively in that language. To better explain this concept, we will now refer to the outer layer of our matryoshka doll: the communicative competence. Let us examine the image below as in Balboni (2008:74)
Figure 2.2.1 The communicative competence
We have already seen the language competence, which represents 'to know the language' on the left side of the figure 2.2.1. There is also a further competence on that side: the extra-linguistic competence which consists of proxemics, kinesics and so on. Those abilities exist in mind and are, then, put into action depending on learner's proficiency, i.e. 'how to make language'.
On the right side of the above image is a place where the language “comes to life”: the usage of the language, i.e. 'how to make with language'. In other words, the right side represents concrete communicative situations where learners (know how to act and) act with the language: it represents the socio-pragmatic and cultural competence.
It seems clear, then, that to consider the language competence only, rather than about communicative competence, is restrictive. Holding a language certificate does not mean that a
person is able to communicate effectively. According to Balboni (ibid:75), we learn a language in order to use it, to communicate a message. Indeed, the will of interaction lies within human nature. To communicate or not, it is, then, necessary for both the interlocutors to share the same code.
To conclude language competence involves several aspects (not only linguistic ones strictly speaking), which need to be explored. For this reason teachers have to bear in mind the larger definition of competence when they think about the language syllabus.
2.2.2: The strong side of a language competence: the lexicon
Thus, the lexical competence does not only require to recognize the form or know the word. All the aspects seen in paragraph 2.2 and 2.2.1 contribute to construct the notion of lexical competence. We have also illustrated the framework of reference regarding the communicative competence in general and in paragraph 2.2 we outlined the criteria defining the knowledge of words. In this section we will put together the above-mentioned criteria (form, position, function and meaning) with the model of communicative competence.
To accomplish our goal we refer to Cardona (2009) who provided a more detailed framework (in Italian in original, Our translation) describing the sub-lexical competences:
Language competence (It) refers to the criteria: form, position and meaning;
Discourse competence (It) refers to textual competence, i.e. to say or write something in a coherent manner, accordingly to a text;
It also involves the knowledge of lexical occurrences and relations of meanings between lexical units;
Referential competence One's knowledge about the world (that is to say his/her personal encyclopedia); it allows to infer on the base of previous knowledge;
Socio-cultural competence To be able to choose words depending on the social context (register) and to be aware of the cultural, emotional and connotative informations that a word could convey;
Strategic competence Includes all the useful strategies in order to solve communicative problems because of the lack of lexical knowledge;
Table 2.2.2 the sub-lexical competences;
As we can see from the above table, form and position, the first two criteria as outlined by Nation, are included within the language competence. On the other hand, the 'function' criterion refers to a more communicative competence (see discourse and socio-cultural competence). What emerges as new is the strategic competence, which is often ignored by teachers. On the contrary, we assume that this competence should receive significant attention from the beginning of a course, depending on the language level and needs of learners. Let us take for instance non-native speakers of Italian at a basic stage of language knowledge. They feel inadequate because of the lack of knowledges. However, one's strategy may consist of providing students of several fixed expressions or generic words. For example teachers should provide their students the following expressions: I don't know, can you repeat, please? I don't understand and so on. Thus, students have at their disposal some useful expressions which give them the chance to interact even if with few lexical items.
The above model of lexical competence represents a useful and clear guideline from which it is possible to start planning the lexical syllabus in order to develop students' lexical competence. 2.3 The acquisition of the lexicon
Let us consider the previous sections as the “What” of our thesis: first we started from several questions (what are we to understand with the term 'word'?, what is involved in knowing a word?), trying to define what we consider our research's raw material, i.e. the lexicon. Then, we outlined what is involved in the lexical competence, within an exhaustive theoretical framework. Now we discuss the “How”: how is lexicon acquired? We do think that the answer pose essential teaching implications. Since to learn a language requires to know a large amount of words (among other things), the challenge is remarkable for learners: for this reason teaching approaches should be coherent with theories assumed from the results of researches in second and foreign language acquisition field in order to help students to achieve their language project.
First of all, according to some researchers9 there is an order of acquisition in language learning.
This theory is known as the “Processability Theory” which claims the existence of natural sequences in language acquisition. On the base of Pienemann' researches, Pallotti points out (1998:91)
9 Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemmann, M. (1983). Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Der Spracherwerb ausländischer
le sequenze di apprendimento naturali non possono essere alterate dall'istruzione. Gli interventi educativi veramente utili sono solo quelli che permettono a un apprendente di passare da una fase a quella seguente in modo più rapido ed efficiente, mentre interventi che non tengano conto di questa progressione graduale sono inutili, se non addirittura dannosi10.
Thus, in spite of the existence of a natural order of acquisition, the interventions of teachers can be ineffective or can undermine the language acquisition process. As we know, there are several factors which play a crucial role in language learning. Some of them are affected by how teachers intervene in such process. When teachers do not consider students' level of language knowledge and they introduce one argument before the previous is well acquired, they can confuse their pupils insomuch as their motivation to learn that language will be weakened.
In short, as we have already written (and we will repeat it) teaching interventions do have effects and, thus, as directors they have to consider and have to be aware of each existing factor which could condition the language learning process.
2.3.1 The journey of comprehension.
First and foremost, to acquire a language a verbal input is needed. In other words, albeit we can learn from images, objects, experiences, and so on, language acquisition cannot occur without verbal stimuli. The input is crucial and needs to be verbal, whether written or oral.
Secondly, to ensure that the acquisition will take place, the language input should be comprehensible. As a case in point let us imagine a person who decides to learn Russian by listening to people speaking at a street market. Fast conversations and his/her lack of knowledge of the language will make it impossible to understand the overlapping of voices.
In short, let us assume our learners encounters a verbal and comprehensible input: which mental processes occur, then, in their mind?
Chomsky11 argues that every child is equipped with a natural language 'device': the latter,
according to his theory, is responsible for language acquisition and for this reason it is called
10 “Natural sequences of acquisition cannot be altered by formal instruction. The educational interventions really useful are only those which allow a learner to go from one stage to the next in a more quickly and efficient manner, while interventions that do not take into account of this gradual progression are useless, if not harmful” Our translation
'language acquisition device' or 'LAD'. As consequence each person hold intrinsically this mechanism and, therefore, we all have the conditions to acquire languages from inputs. We will later on discuss the features which the language input should have. In the current section it is important to examine what happens when we read or listen to something.
To answer this question we will make reference to the model of listening comprehension in Bettoni (2001:44), adapted from the Psycholinguistic Model of Levelt on language production. Here we claim that such model could be suitable for reading comprehension as well. Thus, we now examine the receptive side of learning using the following stages:
1. First: after hearing an audio message, the first processor, known as the Audition, transforms the sound into a phonetic string.
2. Second: the Decoder, through a phonological or orthographic analysis gains a superficial structure. Then a grammatical analysis occurs transforming the initial phonetic string into an enunciation.
3. Third: a last processor, the Interpreter, takes the enunciation already analysed and through its internal processes the comprehension is now achieved.
Within Levelt's Psycholinguistic Model lexicon holds a role of primary importance. Indeed, at the second stage the Decoder is connected to a sort of lexical container which exists in our mind: the identification of the words of the string occurs by comparison of the latter with lexical items contained into the 'lexical container'. During the process of identification, the language input is recognized because the phonetic analysis has found correspondences between the string and the words stored in the mental lexicon warehouse.
After this first appraisal, a semantic and grammatical decoding also occurs. Without the retrieval of lexical correspondences in mind, the input would not recognized and the comprehension would be compromised.
Thus, lexical representations in mind (see paragraph 2.3.3) precisely ensure the connection of the initial audio/reading string processing with the grammatical and semantic information already stored or in other words “the syntactic and semantic properties of words become available once the sensory input has been mapped onto representations of lexical forms” (Tyler:1992).
To sum up, processors first recognize the form of the input and, then, the items is analysed semantically: at this stage, because a trace already exists in the mental lexicon, the input will be fully understood.
Now, it is very important to bear in mind that each processor has to face a huge amount of work and it is the short memory (hereafter working memory) which takes on this challenge. As Ferreri (2005:67) claims the working memory is the “necessary condition to guide to resolution the processing of executive recognition and to establish a link between sounds spellings and meanings”. It seems obvious, then, that in a L2 learning context the above-mentioned processors and working memory are overloaded. To recognize the word listened or read and to retrieve its meaning (and other information) from the mental warehouse are not easy tasks and they require much more time than it is required to a native speaker.
In addition, learners do not understand sentences because of lack of identification of the lexical item. Thus, a developed lexical competence is therefore a crucial prerequisite (among other abilities) of reading or listening comprehension. Indeed, some authors claim that, knowing about 2000 words, the comprehension of a text will be covered for 79.7%. The importance of this point will emerge later.
Now, let us continue and see in more detail two important issues quoted above: working memory (2.3.2) and mental lexicon (2.3.3)
2.3.2. Work in progress: the memory
In the current paragraph we want to explore very briefly how the working memory works and the implications in lexical learning. Evidence from neuropsycholinguistics and cognitive psychology points to the fact that the working memory plays an important role in lexical learning12. During
the first stages of the processing of the language input, the working memory intervenes allowing a temporary storage of the information and at the same time its manipulation. The latter step concerns (among other tasks) the comparison of the lexical item (our input) with the knowledge which already exists in the long term memory.
That said, let us see the features of the working memory in the words of Cardona:
• limited capacity and lifespan, i.e. limited informational load and the information is held for few seconds;
• a (mainly) phonological decoding;
12 For further information, see Baddeley, A., (1992), “Working Memory”, in Science, New Series, Vol. 255, No. 5044. (Jan. 31, 1992), pp. 556-559; Ellis, N., (1997), “Vocabulary acquisition: word structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning”, in Norbert Schmitt, Michael McCarthy (edited by), Vocabulary: description, acquisition
• storage of the information: the working memory has the fundamental role of storage in order to use later the information;
Let us now explore the structure of the working memory. Some researchers13 argue that the
working memory is constituted by two subsystems, the Phonological loop and the Visuo-Spatial scratchpad, and a central executive.
The Phonological Loop is responsible for the decoding of the written message, if for example we are reading a text, transforming it in a phonological datum and allowing the storage of such information in the phonological warehouse. Here the information is held only for about a few seconds in order to retrieve it and to use it later. This process occurs thanks to the subvocal repetition which maintains the phonological trace to be elaborated in a second moment. However, things are different with foreign words which have never been heard before. Indeed, as Ferreri (2005:74) points out, the retrieval of words in the short period is difficult when learners encounter
parole estranee alle consuetudini linguistico-culturali […], parole appartenenti
ad una lingua distante da quella usuale14
That is to say, the Audition processor and the working memory do not recognize the phonological string and the working memory has difficulties in storing and then in retrieving the trace because of lack of identification with lexical items already stored in mind. Similarly, results from several researches, conducted on people afflicted with short memory diseases, have shown that such persons are not able to learn a foreign language with just the exposition to oral input. The reason is that the block of subvocal repetition (of which the Phonological Loop is responsible of) occurs. In the case of foreign language learning such block occurs as well because the lexical input is out of the person's language system and thus it is not recognized. In the second one the memory deficit impedes the subvocalization and as a consequence the phonological trace is lost. Because of these hindrance, the working memory tries to appeal for long term memory's help: however, its help can be efficient only whether the lexical items are already stored in the mental lexicon, in other words if the lexical item are already known, even if only receptively.
It seems clear that, in the case of students studying a foreign language, they have to cope with the task of remembering several words. In addition many of such words have a different phonological
13 Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). “Developments in the concept of working memory” in Neuropsychology, 8, 485-493.
14 “words extraneous to language-cultural habits […], words belonging to a language far apart with respect to the usual one” Our translation;
structure, with respect to that of the mother tongue, which prevents the recognition and consequently the manipulation of the lexical item and its memorization.
What can teachers do? How can they help their students? Ferreri (ibid:75) suggests that to support the capacity of the working memory we should consider the task of chunking (see paragraph 2.6.1) and incite students to link new lexical items with the already known so that when the short term memory revise the new information, at the same time it will "connect and grabs the already known” (ibid: Our translation). In short the working memory plays an important role in lexical acquisition.
However, as the American psychologist George Miller noticed in 1956, the memory span is limited at seven elements. It seems the working memory capacity to sustain the weight of a cognitive process is not sufficient. Now, thanks to psycholinguistics, we know that these seven elements have not to be interpreted as single elements, but as “groups of upper units of meanings”(Cardona, 2001:53). Noteworthy also is that researches about discourse analysis (Schmitt-McCarthy in Menegazzo, 2006) show that a discourse is normally split, by native speakers, into groups of 4 up to 10 words which let them to speak fluently. In other words the working memory analyses the language not for single words but for chunks.
This assumption poses important teaching implications: one is that teachers have to promote activities based on lexical chunking, instead of teaching lists of terms. We will explore later such argument.
2.3.3 Into the mind
After the intervention of the working memory, the long term memory intervenes as well. Thanks to the latter a semantic processing occurs and the lexical input is compared with the lexicon stored in our mind, the mental lexicon. The semantic processing involves deep cognitive processes and as Craick and Lockart15 have proposed, we can talk of 'deep processing': according to their
assumption, with respect to the simple revision of the lexical item (which is the working memory's job) a semantic processing, actually, creates a long-lasting memory trace. Here we want to highlight the expression 'semantic processing' to emphasize that a lexical item enters in the mental warehouse (and from there it will be retrieved when learners will need of it) only if a semantic and hence deep processing occurs. As we will see in 2.6.3, the are some lexical
15 “Levels of processing: a framework for memory research”, Journal of verbal learning & verbal behaviour, 11, 671-684 (1972)
approaches and techniques suggesting this kind of deep processing. On the contrary, in the current paragraph the focal point is on the following questions:
1- What is the mental lexicon?
From a simplistic point of view we could say that once a word is learned we can find it in our mind: each time we see or hear it, we instantly recognize it because it has been learned before, i.e. it is in our mental lexicon. The consequence is that unlike new lexicon, the acquired lexicon does not require a great deal of time to be processed. Indeed, we are often able to understand a written or oral input even with interferences if the lexicon of the message is known. For instance we can understand the announcement at the train station even with all commotion outside: on the contrary we cannot perform the same task if the language used by the speaker is a language that we do not know.
In short all the lexicon stored in mind is called mental lexicon which is:
un insieme di rappresentazioni, cioè di “oggetti” mentali che corrispondono ad elementi della realtà di cui riflettono certe caratteristiche rilevanti, e di processi che si applicano a queste rappresentazioni operando su di esse, trasformandole, o mettendole in relazione tra loro16. (Laudanna and Burani, 1993: 15)
In other words, the mental lexicon is made of phonological or orthographic representations of what is outside our mind, and of several lexical processes on these representations. Its main task is to store information about words, i.e. orthographic, phonological, morphological and syntactic information.
Such information are learned gradually. First and foremost, according to some authors (Baldi:2008:69) children firstly acquire phonological and semantic information and then orthographic one. Furthermore, it seems that phonological and orthographic stores are separated (Ferrari, 2005:79). This assumption clearly poses relevant teaching implications which are often ignored. As a case in point, whether a lexical input is introduced through reading, its oral form, the pronounce, on the contrary is not immediately available. Indeed, in a second moment, students could not be able to recognize such lexical input if it is introduced orally rather than with its written form as it was before introduced.
16 “a set of representations, i.e. of "mental objects" that correspond to elements of reality of which they reflect certain relevant characteristics, and of processes which apply to these representations by acting on them, transforming them or link them” Our translation;
