Corso di Laurea Magistrale
in Scienze del Linguaggio
ex. D.M 270/2004
Tesi di Laurea
Teaching lexis:
its importance and role in English
as a foreign language in the high school
Relatore
Ch. Prof. Fabio Caon Correlatrice
Ch. Prof.ssa Sveva Battaglia Laureanda
Giulia Scaffai Matricola 849221
Anno Accademico 2018 / 2019
LIST OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION p. 1
CHAPTER 1
WORD AND LEXIS IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE p. 4
1.1 Word p. 4
1.2 Lexis p. 7
1.3 Knowing a word: definitions and models p. 8
1.3.1 Productive and Receptive Vocabulary p. 8 1.3.2 Nation’s model p. 10 1.3.3 Nation’s kinds of word knowledge p. 13 1.3.4 Henriksen (1999), Meara (2005) and Daller et al. (2007) ‘s
models p. 14
1.4 The importance of lexis in foreign language acquisition p. 16
CHAPTER 2
THE ROLE OF LEXIS: APPROACHES AND METHODS p. 22
2.1 The historical profile of lexis in language teaching p. 23
2.1.1 The Grammar-Translation Method p. 24 2.1.2 The Direct method p. 26 2.1.3 The Reading Method p. 27 2.1.4 The Audiolingual method p. 27 2.1.5 The Situational Approach p. 28 2.1.6 The Communicative Approach p. 28 2.1.7 The Natural Approach p. 30
2.1.8 The Vocabulary Control Movement p. 31
2.2 Lexis in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: p. 32 Learning, Teaching, Assessment
CAPITOLO 3
IL LEXICAL APPROACH p. 39
3.1 Il metodo e i principi p. 39
3.1.1 Il ruolo della grammatica p. 41 3.1.2 La struttura del lessico p. 43 3.1.3 Uno sviluppo dell’approccio comunicativo p. 46 3.1.4 Il noticing e lo sviluppo della consapevolezza linguistica p. 46 3.1.5 Learning through discovery: il paradigma
osservazione-ipotesi- sperimentazione p.47
3.2 Gli esercizi p. 48
3.2.1 Le mappe concettuali e i brainstorming p. 49 3.2.2 Identificazione dei chunks p. 52 3.2.3 Abbinamento (o “incastro” o matching) p. 53 3.2.4 Le famiglie di vocaboli p. 57
3.2.5 I cruciverba p. 59
3.2.6 Le catene di parole p. 60
CAPITOLO 4
L’ACQUISIZIONE DEL LESSICO p. 62
4.1.1 Le tecniche glottodidattiche basate sui processi di memoria per
sviluppare il repertorio lessicale p. 67
4.2 Il lessico mentale p. 69
4.2.1. Il legame tra lessico mentale e apprendimento della lingua
straniera p. 69
4.2.2. L’organizzazione del lessico mentale p. 71 4.2.3 La questione dell’unicità p. 73
4.3 Il rovescio della medaglia: l’oblio p. 74
4.4 I fattori che influenzano l’apprendimento del lessico p. 77
4.3.1 Il ruolo del docente p. 77 4.3.2 La motivazione dell’apprendente p. 81 4.3.3 La ripetizione e il recupero p. 82
4.5 L’apprendimento esplicito e implicito p. 85
CAPITOLO 5
INSEGNARE IL LESSICO A SCUOLA: TECNICHE E STRATEGIE
5.1 Il programma d’insegnamento del lessico p. 91
5.2 Le strategie per l’apprendimento del lessico p. 97
5.2.1 Le liste di parole p. 103 5.2.2 Prendere appunti p. 106
5.3 Le tecniche didattiche finalizzate all’acquisizione del lessico p. 109
5.3.1 Le tecniche di presentazione del lessico p. 110 5.3.2 Le tecniche di ripasso e di consolidamento p. 118
5.4 Il contributo delle abilità linguistiche allo sviluppo del lessico p. 122
5.4.1 L’apprendimento del lessico attraverso la lettura p. 123
5.4.1.1 I processi di lettura p. 124 5.4.1.2 La comprensione di nuove parole p. 126 5.4.1.3 Un modello di attività di lettura finalizzata
all’acquisizione del lessico p. 127
5.4.2 L’apprendimento del lessico attraverso la scrittura p. 131
5.4.3 L’apprendimento del lessico attraverso il parlato p. 132
5.4.4 L’apprendimento del lessico attraverso l’ascolto p. 133
CHAPTER 6
TESTING THEORY AND METHODOLOGY: A RESEARCH PROJECT p. 136
6.1 Research presentation p. 136
6.2. Subjects and methods of the study p. 136
6.3 Classroom observations p. 139
6.3.2 The homework correction and the oral tests p. 149 6.3.3 Strategy used p. 155
6.4 The questionnaires p. 156
6.5 Data analysis p. 159
6.5.1 Question 1: “Come definiresti le tue conoscenze lessicali?” p. 159 6.5.2 Question 2: “Scegli la percentuale che rappresenta
l’importanza del lessico e della grammatica nell’acquisizione
di una lingua straniera” p. 160 6.5.3 Question 3: “Quali tecniche e strategie per
l’insegnamento-apprendimento del lessico dovrebbero essere adottate
da un buon insegnante?” p. 161 6.5.4 Question 4: “Quali tecniche e strategie di insegnamento del
lessico utilizza il tuo docente?” p. 162 6.5.5 Question 5: “In media quanto tempo dedica il docente
all’insegnamento esclusivo del lessico?” p. 163 6.5.6 Question 6: “In media quanto tempo vorresti che il tuo docente
dedicasse all'insegnamento esclusivo del lessico?” p. 164 6.5.7 Question 7: “L'insegnante come vi fornisce la spiegazione di
un termine sconosciuto?” p. 165 6.5.8 Question 8: “Cosa fai autonomamente per imparare il lessico?” p. 166 6.5.9 Question 9: “Prima di una nuova lezione, dedichi del tempo
a ripetere il lessico incontrato nelle lezioni precedenti?” p. 166 6.5.10 “Question 10: “Prima di una nuova lezione, dedichi del tempo
a ripetere il lessico incontrato nelle lezioni precedenti?” p. 167 6.5.11 “Question 11: Cosa vorresti che il tuo insegnante facesse
per insegnarti meglio il lessico?” p. 168 6.5.12 “Question 12: Cosa consiglieresti di fare ad un tuo
6.6 Discussion p. 170
CONCLUSION p. 175
REFERENCES p. 178
APPENDIX A p. 200
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies show that both lexis and its teaching have never been given the importance and the attention they deserve. This was also evident in the way I was taught the English language in high school less then 10 years ago, based on the grammar translation method. It was during my university studies that I began to understand that the old traditional methods and approaches that focused exclusively on grammar, and on the translation of sentences, were obsolete and unproductive. I also learned about the existence of other more effective methods, techniques and strategies that could be implemented. Since then I have questioned the importance and value of the vocabulary and grammar in the acquisition of a Foreign Language, if lexis is more important than grammar, or if they are equivalent and, finally, why the teaching of grammar has always prevailed. These questions formed the basis of a theoretical and practical reflection on these topics in this dissertation.
Chapter One begins by analyzing the fundamental building blocks of language which form the lexis, that is what we commonly call words. Their storage, that is, the lexis and its characteristics are described. The definitions, types and models used are based on Nations’ studies. Chapter One concludes by listing the reasons why vocabulary and its teaching are important for the acquisition of English as a Foreign Language, and also with an explanation of the factors that limit their full recognition within school curricula and their use in specific activities.
The notion that lexis, and its teaching, are less fundamental than grammar and its teaching, is the common thread in the approaches discussed in Chapter Two. The methods and the approaches considered are: the Grammar-Translation Method, the Direct Method, the Reading Method, the Audiolingual Method, the Situational Approach, the Natural Approach, the Vocabulary Control Movement and the Communicative Approach. Of these, the Grammar-Translation method stands out. It seems to be the basis of all these traditional approaches and still influences current teaching. In addition, the Communicative Approach remains one of the paradigms which is used worldwide and
has been a decisive turning-point in the field of language teaching. Chapter Two also includes a section on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as its precepts and directives have also influenced the teaching of English in recent years.
In the 1980s-90s the tide began to turn, thanks to the development of the Lexical Approach, theorized by Michael Lewis. The lexis changed from playing a marginal role to being central to Foreign Language teaching and learning. As a result, Chapter Three includes a theoretical examination of this, followed by a discussion of practical approaches including exercise proposals for the implementation of the lexical approach in the school environment.
Chapter Four deals with the neuroscientific topic of the memory processes which are responsible for lexis acquisition. Thanks to relevant studies, an improvement in the methods, techniques and strategies for the teaching of vocabulary and new exercises have been created and implemented (Cardona, 2001). In addition, memory processes and, in particular, the existence of mental lexicon storage and its organization are investigated. The Chapter continues by discussing the phenomenon of forgetfulness. It is one of the possible limitations that occur in the acquisition of the vocabulary and, in response, we look at the remedies to limit it, such as the recovery and retrieval programs at increasing intervals (expanding rehearsal).
Furthermore, mental processes are not the only ones responsible for the acquisition of the lexis. There are numerous other factors involved in this procedure. The role of the teacher, who is responsible for the choice of the lexis, motivation and ways of repetition and recovery are examined.
In Chapter Five we examine practice in more detail. Here, the strategies and techniques suitable for teaching vocabulary are shown, since, as Nation (2001) states, teaching vocabulary does not mean presenting the latter to the class, but it is something more. A selection of techniques to show, review, consolidate lexis and some specific strategies are presented for each phase of teaching. It is here that the skill and the role of the teacher as
an organizer of the learning path and maieuta for extrapolation of knowledge in the students is recognized. He or she must be able to implement a teaching program and, consequently, learning that is modeled on the level, motivations, learning styles and interests of their students. At the end of the chapter, the use and effectiveness of exercises involving the four language skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) in the acquisition of the lexis are analyzed.
Finally, in Chapter Six, a research project is presented. This research was carried out in order to discover and explain the role of lexis and its importance in the classes of a “Liceo” specializing in foreign languages, where English is taught as a foreign language. Firstly, an observation phase took place in order to observe how lexis is treated by teachers in the language programme, how it is taught and consequently learnt. In particular, teachers' methods, techniques and strategies were analyzed with reference to the theoretical framework set out in the previous chapters. Secondly, two questionnaires were created to understand both students’ and teachers’ perspective on the teaching and the learning of lexis. The results are analyzed and compared with each other and with the previously proposed studies.
CHAPTER I
WORD AND LEXIS IN ENGLISH AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Before delving into and analyzing in detail the teaching of the lexis of English as a foreign language, it must be recognized that numerous national researchers (Laudanna A., Burani C., 1993; Bettoni C., 2001; Cardona M., 2001, 2004, 2009a, 2009b; Corda A., Marello C., 2004; Ferreri S., 2005; Camerini D., 2009; Bertocchi D. e Quartapelle F., 2002; Porcelli G., 2004; Balboni P.E., 2014; Maugeri G., 2017) and international scholars (Kachroo J.N., 1962; Nation P., 1978, 1982, 1990, 2001; Nasr R.T. 1979; Allen V.F., 1983; Palmberg R., 1987; Carter R., McCarthy M., 1988, 2014; Channell J., 1988; McCarthy M., 1990; Papagno C., Valentine T., Baddeley A., 1991; Seal B., 1991; Coady J., 1993, 1997; Lewis M., 1993, 1997; Ellis R., 1994; Campillo R.M.L., 1995; Schmitt N., McCarthy M., 1997, 2002; Zimmerman C.B., 1997; Schmitt N., 2000-2010; Gu P.Y., 2003; Boogards P., Laufer B., 2004; Takac V.P., 2008; Moeller A.K., Ketsman O., Masmaliyeva L., 2009; Milton J., 2013; Cook V., Singleton D., 2014; Drljević J., 2014; Alqahtani M., 2015; He H., Deng Y., 2015; Vasu S., Dhanavel P.S., 2015) have been interested in the this topic. In any case, given the breadth and complexity of the discourse, one perceives the need to clarify the basic principles that will be discussed later, starting from the definition of those very numerous minimum units of meaning that constitute the lexis, that is the words.
1.1 Word
As Stubbs (1986: 99) states “When people think of a language, they think almost invariably of words”1. This statement is not surprising as words are the fundamental building blocks of language. On the contrary, we are not used to think about the definition of the term word. It is therefore necessary to agree some common definitions in order to make this dissertation clear. Given the numerous disciplines that study words, we have several definitions available.
1 “Quando le persone pensano ad una lingua, quasi inevitabilmente pensano alle parole”. (Tutte le traduzioni
Firstly, according to the orthographic definition, a “word” is […] any sequence of letters (and a limited number of other characteristics such as hyphen and apostrophe) bounded on either side by a space or punctuation mark. […] Secondly, based on semantics, a word can be defined as the smallest meaningful unit of a language (Carter, 1998: 20-21)2.
These, and many other definitions (Atzeni, 2015; Campillo, 1995; Carter, 1998; Cicero, 2013; Drljević, 2014; Schmitt, 2000), have been considered to be incomplete and ambiguous. For this reason, technical terms have been developed to specify the different kinds of words we can meet. Schmitt in Vocabulary in Language Teaching (2000) states:
Very often, in English, at least, meanings are represented by multiple words. To handle these multiword units, the term lexeme (also lexical unit or lexical item) was coined. These three interchangeable terms are all defined as “an item that functions as a single meaning unit, regardless of the number of words it contains” (Schmitt, 2000: 1-2). Therefore, idioms like to paint the town red and multi-word verbs such as phrasal verb and prepositional verbs will be included (Campillo, 1995: 35)3.
Additionally, three further specific terms have been coined: inflection, derivation and word families. These words sit within the grammatical and morphological permutation of vocabulary and they were defined by Carter (1998: 20) and Schmitt (2000: 2) in this way:
Inflection produces from the root or roots of a given lexeme all the word-forms of the lexeme which are syntactically determined; […] it signals grammatical variants of a given root. […] The inflection of the adjective small would produce the adjectives smaller and smallest. […] Derivation is a process which results in the formation of different lexemes. […] It signals lexical variants of a given root; they change nouns into verbs, verbs into nouns, and so on; for example: adapt/adaptable/adaptation […]. Although these words have different orthographic (written) shapes, they are closely
2 “In primo luogo, secondo la definizione ortografica, una parola è […] una qualsiasi sequenza di lettere (e
un numero limitato di altre caratteristiche come il trattino e l’apostrofo) delimitate su entrambi i lati da uno spazio o un segno di punteggiatura. […] In secondo luogo, secondo la semantica, una parola può essere definita come la più piccola unità dotata di significato di una lingua”.
3 “Molto spesso, perlomeno in inglese, i significati sono rappresentati da più parole. Per gestire questi
gruppi di parole è stato coniato il termine lessema (unità o elemento lessicale). Questi tre termini intercambiabili vengono tutti definiti come “un elemento che funziona come una singola unità di significato, a prescindere dal numero di parole contenute in essa”. Pertanto, modi di dire come to paint the
related in meaning. Sets of words like these are referred to as word families. A word family is usually held to include the base form, all of its inflections, and its common derivatives 4.
A further term to consider is multiword units. They are the result of single orthographic words combined together in a systematic order which compose “a string of words with a single meaning” (Schmitt, 2000: 97)5. “Multiword units are so common that they get memorised indeed speakers use these prefabricated units in communication as wholes, rather than recompose them” (Gilanlioglu, 2002: 44)6. Furthermore, Carter (1998), in his book, makes a list of multiword units which contains, very common constructions such as: compound words, phrasal verbs, fixed phrases, idioms, proverbs and lexical phrases. Some examples are: as a matter of fact, if I were you, how do you do?, to smell a rat, etc.
Finally, the last term to consider is collocations. Collocations are:
[…] frequently recurring two-to-three word syntagmatic units which can include both lexical and grammatical words, e.g. verb + noun (pay tribute), adjective + noun (hot spice), preposition + noun (on guard) and adjective + preposition (immune to) (Bardel, Lindqvist, Laufer, 2013: 30). Some collocation are entirely predictable (e.g. blond and hair), some lexical items have a wide range of collocations (e.g. letter collocates with alphabet, box,
post, write, etc.), and some lexemes appear in so many different context that
it is practically impossible to predict all of their collocations (e.g. verbs like
have or get (Takac, 2008: 7)7.
4 “L’inflessione o desinenza produce dalla radice o dalle radici di un dato lessema tutte le word-forms del
lessema ai quali sono sintatticamente determinate; […] esso segna le varianti grammaticali di una data radice. […] L’inflessione o desinenza dell’aggettivo small produce gli aggettivi smaller e smallest. […] La derivazione è un processo che porta alla formazione di diversi lessemi. […] Esso segnala le varianti lessicali di una data radice; esse cambiano i nomi in verbi, i verbi in nomi, e cosi via; per esempio:
adapt/adaptable/adaptation […]. Sebbene queste parole hanno diverse forme ortografiche (scritte), esse
sono strettamente legate nel significato. Serie di parole come queste sono definite word families. Una famiglia di parole è tenuta a includere la forma base, tutte le sue inflessioni e i suoi derivati più comuni”.
5 “Una fila di parole con un unico significato”.
6 “Le Multiword units sono cosi comuni che vengono memorizzate e i parlanti usano queste unità
prefabbricate nella comunicazione come unità intere piuttosto che ricomporle”.
7 “[…] Sono unità sintagmatiche di due o tre parole che ricorrono frequentemente. Esse possono includere
sia parole lessicali sia grammaticali, per esempio verbo + nome (pay tribute), aggettivo + nome (hot spice), preposizione + nome (on guard) e aggettivo + preposizione (immune to). Alcune collocazioni sono interamente prevedibili (e.g. blond e hair), alcuni elementi lessicali hanno un’ampia gamma di collocazioni (per esempio letter la si può trovare insieme a alphabet, box, post, write, etc.), e alcuni lessemi appaiono in molti contesti differenti che è praticamente impossibile prevedere tutte le loro collocazioni (per esempio verbi come have o get)”.
Therefore, the presence of collocation in our brain makes us sound like native speakers, because there is no need to create the complete discourse, but as we have numerous already-made sequences to use when we produce and receive language (Nation, 2001).
1.2 Lexis
After a brief explanation of some definitions used in this dissertation, it is appropriate to introduce the notions of lexis and vocabulary. These two concepts, as well as the one of word, have been discussed by many authors (Bettoni, 2001; Casadei, 2011; Cicero, 2013 Lo Cascio, 2007, 2009;). Perhaps Lo Cascio’s definition (2007) is one of the clearest.
Il lessico […] insieme alla grammatica è il componente fondamentale di una lingua. D’ altra parte non è l’insieme delle parole di una lingua, ognuna a sé stante, e quindi un componente statico. È anche l’insieme sistematico di una serie infinita di minisistemi di parole che sono collegate tra di loro attraverso rapporti categoriali, semantici, enciclopedici (Lo Cascio, 2007: 4). Il lessico quindi non è un semplice elenco di parole slegate tra loro ma costituisce un sistema che ci impone e ci offre dei meccanismi ben precisi e che funziona come una vera e propria rete (Lo Cascio, 2009: 269).
Each word that creates lexis is, therefore, part of an organised structure which together with grammar and vocabulary contributes to language mastery (Cicero, 2013). At a deeper level, a characteristic of lexical knowledge agreed by many authors is its variable nature. This concept means that lexical acquisition, both of the first and the second language, could never be defined as a process with an end, that is:
[…] accanto alla possibilità di ampliamento esiste una spinta opposta connessa con il contrarsi e ridursi delle parole a disposizione del parlante. […] Il lessico soggiace alla mutevolezza delle necessità ideative ed espressive dei membri di una comunità e affida alla indefinitezza delle sue unità e all’estensibilità dei suoi significati il carico della sua indeterminabilità (Ferreri, 2005: 11-12).
In addition, the term lexis must not be confused with the word vocabulary which Casadei (2003: 115-116) defines as “delle unità lessicali, i cosiddetti vocaboli, che si usano effettivamente nel discorso”.
1.3 Knowing a word: definitions and models
Having defined what we mean by word, now it is important to consider what scholars mean by the expression knowing a word and all the different ways in which the process or state of knowledge is understood.
1.3.1 Productive and Receptive Vocabulary
The first way of explaining what knowing a word means is linked to the definition of two other concepts: productive and receptive vocabulary. People who learn a second or a foreign language can recognize and understand a word while they are reading or listening, but they may have difficulties in retrieving it for using for speech or writing (Schmitt, 2000).
[Therefore, according to Nation] receptive vocabulary use involves perceiving the form of a word while listening or reading and retrieving its meaning. Productive vocabulary use involves wanting to express meanings through speaking or writing and retrieving and producing the appropriate spoken or written word form (Nation, 2001: 25)8.
The accepted sequence of knowing a word seems to be: receptive vocabulary comes first and then productive. This suggests that, knowing a word is far from being a one-piece process because it takes place on different levels.
8 “L’uso del lessico ricettivo coinvolge la percezione della forma di una parola mentre si ascolta o si legge
e si recupera il suo significato. Il lessico produttivo prevede l’espressione del significato attraverso la scrittura o la lettura, recuperando e producendo la forma appropriata, scritta o parlata, della parola”.
More precisely, developing receptive knowledge means not only using the vocabulary correctly, but also “with the correct pronunciation, spelling and stress; with the correct form; and in the appropriate collocation” (Wallace, 1982: 23)9.
I termini ricettivo e produttivo sono a volte sostituiti da di comprensione e di
comunicazione, ma soprattutto dai più noti e fuorvianti attivo e passivo.
Fuorvianti perchè come leggere e ascoltare non sono attività totalmente passive rispetto a scrivere e parlare, così non c’è un’opposizione netta tra conoscenza ricettiva e produttiva del lessico e infatti come nella madrelingua, anche nella lingua straniera può capitare di non ricordare una parola nel momento in cui ci serve: la stessa parola riusciamo però a riconoscerla immediatamente in un testo scritto o parlato. Queste e altre comuni esperienze rivelano la presenza di rapporti tra conoscenza ricettiva e produttiva, sinora oggetto di poche ricerche linguistiche; gli studi esistenti concordano comunque nell’indicare che questi rapporti sono di natura particolarmente complessa (Corda e Marello, 2004: 27).
Ellis and Beaton (1993) state that receptive vocabulary seems to be easier to learn than the productive vocabulary. Firstly, productive vocabulary is seen as more complex as it requires a deeper understanding and takes longer to learn. Secondly, receptive vocabulary is more likely to be practiced than the productive vocabulary. Finally, “Learners are not motivated, for a variety of reasons including socio-cultural background, to use certain kinds of knowledge productively” (Corson, 1995: 30)10.
Furthermore, Corda and Marello (2004) coin the term potential vocabulary. It includes all the words a person doesn’t know but for which he/she is able to deduce their meanings. In this group we can find words which are closed for phonological and morphological characteristics to their L1 (Arici, Cristofori, Maniotti, 2006).
[…] Oppure le parole composte o derivate, che lo studente non ha mai incontrato prima, ma che è in grado di capire senza spiegazione in base alle regole della morfologia derivativa, a conoscenze linguistiche (anche relative ad altre lingue) o a ipotesi fondate sul contesto in cui si presentano. Il vocabolario potenziale costituisce dunque una parte “non attivata” del
9 “Con la corretta pronuncia, spelling e accento; con la forma corretta; e nella collocazione appropriata”. 10 “Per una serie di motivi, incluso il contesto socio-culturale, gli apprendenti non sono motivati ad usare
vocabolario ricettivo, di cui è impossibile determinare l’estensione (Corda e Marello, 2004: 27).
Finally, it has been observed that some words are not part both of the productive or the receptive vocabulary, but there are four different levels in which words can be positioned. Melka (1997: 33) explained these four levels:
Il primo livello non necessita dell’attivazione dei significati, perché rappresenta il primo stadio immediatamente successivo alla percezione. La riproduzione di quanto si è ascoltato o letto dovrebbe essere accompagnata anche da un processo di assimilazione che favorisce la memorizzazione. Se manca l’assimilazione la frase di riproduzione non è molto dissimile da quella dell’imitazione. La riproduzione con assimilazione dell’input invece si avvicina allo stadio finale della produzione, che rappresenta il livello più complesso in quanto implica la creatività del soggetto nell’atto comunicativo.
1.3.2 Nation’s Model
Nation’s explanation of knowing a word deserves deeper analysis. We have accepted definitions of receptive and productive knowledge. With this starting point, Nation (2001) developed a model (Table 1) to help clarify his concept of knowing a word. His table shown below consists of three big sections: form, meaning and use. Each general section is further subdivided into three smaller one. Likewise, each smaller section contains questions which guide the learner towards an understanding of their knowledge about a particular term. Each question is preceded by letter R if it refers to receptive knowledge, and P if it refers to productive language. If the learner is able to answer all the questions, this means they know the word:
What in involved in knowing a word
Form Spoken R What does the word sound like?
P How is the word pronounced? Written R What does the word look like?
P How is the word written and spelled? Word parts R What parts are recognizable in this word?
P What word parts are needed to express the meaning?
Meaning Form and meaning R What meaning does this word form signal? P What word form can be used to express this
meaning?
Concept and referents R What is included in the concept? P What items can the concept refer to? Associations R What other words does this make us think
of?
P What other words could we use instead of this one?
Use Grammatical Functions R In what patterns does the word occur? P In what patterns must we use this word? Collocations R What words or types of words occur with
this one?
P What words or types of words must we use with this one?
Constraints on use (register, frequency …)
R Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word?
P Where, when, and how often can we use this word?
Table 1. Description of “What in involved in knowing a word” (Nation, 2001: 26)
In order to clarify and apply the table, Nation (2001) analyses the word underdeveloped from the point of view of the receptive knowledge and use. He states that receptive knowledge requires:
- being able to recognise the word when it is heard;
- being familiar with its written form so that it is recognized when it is in reading;
- recognizing that it is made up of the parts under-, -develop- and -ed and being able to relate these parts its meaning;
- knowing that underdeveloped signals a particular meaning;
- knowing what the word means in the particular context in which it has just occurred;
- knowing the concept behind the word which will allow understanding in a variety of contexts;
- knowing that there are related words like overdeveloped, backward and
challenged;
- being able to recognize that underdeveloped has been used correctly in the sentence in which it occurs;
- being able to recognize that words such as territories and areas are typical collocations;
- knowing that underdeveloped is not an uncommon word and is not a pejorative word (Nation, 2001: 26-28)11.
Whereas the word becomes part productive knowledge when the learner is able:
- to say it with correct pronunciation including stress; - to write it with correct spelling;
- to construct it using the right word parts in their appropriate forms; - to produce the word to express the meaning “underdeveloped”;
- to produce the word in different contexts to express the range of meaning of underdeveloped;
- to produce synonyms and opposites;
- to use the word correctly in an original sentence; - to produce words that commonly occur with it;
- to decide to use or not the word to suit the degree of formality of the situation (At present developing is more acceptable than underdeveloped which carries a slightly negative meaning) (Nation, 2001: 28)12.
11“- Saper riconoscere una parola quando la si sente;
- conoscere bene la sua forma scritta così che la si riconosce durante la lettura;
- riconoscere le parti che la compongono under-, -develop- e -ed ed essere capaci di mettere in rapporto queste parti con il suo significato;
- sapere che “underdeveloped” trasmette un significato specifico;
- sapere cosa significa una parola nel particolare contesto in cui si presenta;
- sapere che il concetto dietro la parola permetterà la comprensione in molti contesti; - sapere che ci sono parole simili come overdeveloped, backward and challenged;
- saper riconoscere che underdeveloped è stato usato correttamente nelle frasi in cui si trova; - saper riconoscere che parole territories e areas sono tipiche collocazioni;
- sapere che underdeveloped non è una parola inusuale e che non è un termine dispregiativo”.
12 “- Di dire la parola con la pronuncia corretta incluso l’accento;
- di scrivere la parola con il corretto spelling;
- di costruire la parola usando le parti giuste delle parole nella loro forma appropriata; - di elaborare la parola per esprimere il significato underdeveloped;
- di presentare la parola in contesti diversi per esprimere la vasta gamma di significati di underdeveloped - di creare sinonimi e contrari;
- di usare la parola correttamente in una frase originale; - di produrre parole che generalmente si presentano con essa;
Nation’s work was criticized by Schmitt (2000) and Bettoni (2001). Firstly, Schmitt (2000) observed that despite the fact that Nation’s table makes the process clear, the reality is different because the aspects of knowing a word are interrelated.
[In addition] the different types of word knowledge are not necessarily learned at the same time, however. [...] a person will probably know at least one meaning for a word before knowing all of its derivative forms. Each of the word-knowledge types is likely to be learned in a gradual manner, but some may develop later than others and at different rates. From this perspective, vocabulary acquisition must be incremental, as it is clearly impossible to gain immediate mastery of all these word knowledges simultaneously. Thus, at any point in time, unless the word is completely unknown or fully acquired, the different word knowledges will exist at various degrees of mastery (Schmitt, 2000: 5)13.
This view is supported by Bettoni (2011: 66) who points out that “più le proprietà della parola sono complesse, più è probabile che [l’apprendente] non le conosca tutte, e che quindi conosca la parola solo parzialmente”.
1.3.3 Nation’s kinds of word knowledge
Nation (1990) also provides his own contribution in defining the different kinds of word knowledge. The original idea was developed by Jack Richards in 1976 and after revised by Nation (Beltrán, Contesse, López, 2010). According to Nation (1990: 31), knowing a word implies the acquisition of several pieces of information:
- the meaning(s) of the word; - the written form of the word;
developing è più accettabile di underdeveloped che porta un significato un po’ negativo)”.
13 “I diversi tipi di conoscenza delle parole non devono per forza essere imparate nello stesso momento,
comunque [...] una persona probabilmente conoscerà almeno un significato per parola prima di conoscere tutte le forme derivate di ciascuna. Ciascun tipo di word-knowledge è probabile venga imparata in maniera graduale, ma possono svilupparsi anche in seguito, rispetto ad altri e a velocità diverse. Da questa prospettiva, l’acquisizione del vocabolario deve essere incrementale, dato che è impossibile padroneggiare simultaneamente e fin da subito tutti i tipi word knowledge. Così, in qualsiasi momento, a meno che la parola non sia pienamente sconosciuta o acquisita, differenti word knowledge esisteranno con diversi livelli di padronanza”.
- the spoken form of the word;
- the grammatical behavior of the word; - the collocations of the word;
- the register of the word; - the associations of the word; - the frequency of the word14.
This list underlines the importance of the meaning as first step in vocabulary learning but acknowledges that it is a broader concept rather than a defined one. The same importance must be given to the written and the spoken form of a word (Schmitt, 2000). As Beltrán, Contesse, and López, (2010: 31) “report grammatical characteristics entail information about word class (e.g. noun, verb, etc.) and morphology (e.g. grammatical inflections (walked-walked) and derivative affixation (fool-foolish)”15. As far as collocation and associations were discussed in the previous paragraphs. Finally, “there is register variation in the vocabulary people use, developing on where they come from, whom they are communicating with, and the content of their message” (Schmitt, 2000: 43)16 and frequency refers to the rate of a word in a discourse or in a text.
1.3.4 Henriksen (1999), Meara (2005) and Daller et al. (2007)’s models
As we have already mentioned, research has shown that lexical knowledge is far from being a single concept. Ancient Greek, for instance, have believed that knowing a word meant recognizing and producing the spoken from, the written form and understanding the meaning of any term (Milton, 2013). Subsequently, the distinction between receptive and productive vocabulary seemed to be the best model until the development of Nation’s Model (2001) as shown in table 1. After that, Henriksen (1999), Meara (2005) and Daller et al. (2007) developed their three multi-dimensional models.
14 “Il significato (i significati) di una parola, la forma scritta di una parola, la forma parlata di una parola, il
comportamento grammaticale di una parola, le collocazioni di una parola, il registro di una parola, le associazioni di una parola, la frequenza di una parola”.
15 “Riportare caratteristiche grammaticali implica avere informazioni riguardo la classe della parola (per
esempio, nome, verbo, etc.) e la morfologia (per esempio inflessioni grammaticali (walked-walked) e suffissi derivativi (fool-foolish)”.
16 “Quando le persone usano il lessico ci sono variazioni di registro che si attuano in base alla loro
Henriksen’s lexical development model (1999) is made up of three dimensions: the partial-to-practice knowledge, the depth of knowledge, and the receptive-productive knowledge. Meara’s model (2005) of lexical competence includes: vocabulary size, vocabulary organization and vocabulary accessibility. Daller et al.’s model (2007) divides the learner’s vocabulary knowledge into: lexical breath, lexical depth and lexical fluency.
As far as vocabulary size and lexical breaths are concerned, they are two similar concept and they are related more to quantity than quality. Heriksen’s (1999) partial-to-practice dimension is slightly different. It “shows that the knowledge moves from recognition to a vague understanding of the meaning and later to the mastery of a precise comprehension” (Zhong, 2011: 118)17.
Meara’s second dimension is called vocabulary organization and it refers to the learner’s structured mental lexicon. Daller et al. (2007) and Heriksen (1999) second dimensions are similar. Indeed, depth of knowledge refers to “the quality of knowing a word” (Read, 1993: 119)18. The idea underlying this concept is that vocabulary knowledge is developed
as a network building where words are stored in set in the mind (Read, 2004: 119). The more the links between one word and another are strong the deeper a word is known (Maera, Wolter, 2004: 119). [In addition], learners with high vocabulary proficiency have denser and more organized networks than lower proficient language learners (Maera, 2009: 119)19.
According to Nation (2011: 1):
Developing vocabulary depth typically involves the accumulation of knowledge through encountering and using words in a variety of different contexts in order to learn the forms, meanings, and uses of words. Knowledge of a word’s spelling, pronunciation, derivations and inflections, meaning senses, semantic associations, collocations, and grammatical functions, and
17 “Mostra che la conoscenza si sposta dal riconoscimento del significato alla vaga comprensione e in
seguito alla padronanza della precisa comprensione”.
18 “La qualità di come si conosce una parola”.
19 “Come una costruzione di reti dove le parole sono memorizzate in gruppi nella mente. Più i legami tra le
parole sono forti, più è profonda la conoscenza di una parola. [Inoltre], gli apprendenti dotati di un esteso vocabolario hanno reti più dense e più organizzate rispetto agli studenti di lingua meno esperti i quali hanno reti di parole meno dense e meno organizzate”.
when it may be appropriate or inappropriate to use it are all required to fully know words20.
The third dimensions both of Daller et al. (2007) and of Meara (2005) have many points in common. Both refer to the comprehension and production abilities. In particular, lexical fluency is defined as:
[…] how readily and automatically a learner is able to use the words they know and the information they have on the use of these word (Daller et al., 2007: 8). […] This may involve the speed and accuracy with which word forms can be recognised receptively or retrieved for expressing target meaning when speaking or writing (productive vocabulary) (Gyllstad, 2013: 14)21.
The three components of each model are seen as paths which each word takes. Some words can complete the continuum, others can stop before and the person’s knowledge of that particular term will be partial.
1.4 The importance of lexis in foreign language acquisition
Learning new words in a formal environment such as a school has always been undervalued. Teachers and researchers thought that learning vocabulary was typically an individual activity and so practicing it in class was a waste of time (Harris, Snow, 2004). However, recent research (Alqahtani, 2015; Folse, 2004; Chen, Chun, 2008; Karakaya, Kahraman, 2013; Read, 2000; Shoebottom, 2007) confirms that learning vocabulary of English as second or foreign language at school is fundamental. This is because having an extensive vocabulary helps the student both in understanding, when someone is speaking or writing, and in producing through speaking or writing (Shoebottom, 2007).
20 “Sviluppare ciò che viene chiamato vocabulary depth, di solito, implica l’accumulo di conoscenze
attraverso l’incontro e l’uso di parole in diversi contesti, al fine di imparare le forme, i significati e i loro usi. Lo spelling di una parola, la sua pronuncia, le derivazioni e le inflessioni, il senso, le associazioni semantiche, le collocazioni, le funzioni grammaticali e quando può essere appropriato o inappropriato usarle sono tutte richieste per conoscere pienamente una parola”.
21 “[…] Quanto profondamente e automaticamente un apprendente sa usare le parole che conosce e le
informazioni che ha sull’uso di queste ultime. […] Ciò può includere la velocità e l’accuratezza con la quale la forma della parola può essere riconosciuta ricettivamente o recuperata per esprimere il significato quando si parla o si scrive (lessico produttivo)”.
Wilkins (1972, as cited in Herbertson, 2010: 542) describes the importance of vocabulary in his quote “without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed”. The statement shows that without lexis, someone’s attempts to communicate his/her message to others could be to no avail. However, a message could still be understood even though he/she does not use grammatically correct sentences. Yet, problems might occur if one does not know the right word to decode his/ her message. The statement also entails that one could not read or listen without the knowledge of vocabulary22. MacCarthy (1990: 37) shares the same view of Wilkins (1972) explaining that
[…] no matter how well the student learns grammar, no matter how successfully the sounds of L2 are mastered, without words to express a wide range of meanings, communication in an L2 just cannot happen in any meaningful way23.
Hence, a developed vocabulary enables people to communicate successfully. Indeed,
Schmitt (2000: 55) first emphasized that lexical knowledge is central to communicative competence and to the acquisition of a second language than Nation (2001: 22) further describes the relation between vocabulary knowledge and language use is complementary: knowledge of vocabulary enables language use and, conversely, language use leads to an increase in vocabulary knowledge24.
In addition, as far as academic assessment is concerned, Treffers-Daller and Milton (2013: 166) state that “[s]tudents with larger vocabularies tend to score higher in their assignments and exams and to obtain higher degree classifications than those with
22 “Wilkins (1972), come viene citato in Herbertson (2010), descrive l’importanza del vocabolario nella sua
citazione “senza la grammatica molto poco può essere espresso, senza il vocabolario nulla può essere trasmesso”. L’affermazione mostra che senza il lessico, il tentativo di comunicare un messaggio può non avere alcun effetto. In ogni caso, un messaggio viene compreso lo stesso anche se il parlante non usa frasi grammaticalmente corrette. Tuttavia, i problemi potrebbero sorgere se la persona non conosce le parole giuste per decodificare il messaggio. Inoltre, l’affermazione implica (anche) che una persona non sa né leggere né scrivere senza conoscere il vocabolario”.
23 “Non importa quanto bene gli studenti sanno la grammatica, non importa quanto brillantemente
padroneggino i suoni della L2, senza le parole, per esprimere una ampia gamma di significati, comunicare nella L2 non potrà avvenire in modo significativo”.
24 “Schmitt (2000) per prima cosa enfatizza che la conoscenza del lessico è centrale per la competenza
comunicativa e per l’acquisizione di una seconda lingua. In seguito, Nation (2001) descrive ulteriormente la relazione tra la conoscenza del vocabolario e l’uso della lingua definendo essi complementari: conoscere il vocabolario permette l’uso della lingua e, viceversa, l’uso della lingua porta ad un incremento nel vocabolario”.
smaller vocabularies”25. As we can see many others support the huge importance of developing and promoting specific methods and strategies for learning vocabulary. Krashen, in a lecture held in 1987, clearly supported this view when he stated “when students travel, they don’t carry grammar books, they carry dictionaries”26.
Even so, the vocabulary teaching and learning has always been put to one side in favor of old grammatical approaches (Campillo, 1995). Consequently, the L2 and LS vocabulary teaching and learning research has had less attention from researchers. It is only since the 1980s that these issues started to gain attention (Cucchi, 2008). The reasons, it was slow to gain recognition, are outlined below.
a. Unprepared teachers
The idea that lexical learning is an individual task and the easiest skill to be acquired is widespread among teachers. They also think that, among all the other skills and knowledge, it is the least important one so that they don’t want to waste time on this aspect of language learning (Harris, Snow, 2004). They prefer teaching grammar which they consider to be the most difficult task. Behind these approaches, there are the old perspectives on the role of lexis during the class. Actually, many teachers use the same techniques for teaching lexis as were used when they were students. These methods, over the course of time, have become obsolete (Atzeni, 2015). As “many teachers are not confident about best practice in vocabulary teaching and at times don’t know where to begin to form an instructional emphasis on word learning” (Berne, Blachowicz, 2008: 21)27, they decide not to give sufficient attention to it.
Come spiega James Coady (1997: 125), l’atteggiamento di un dato insegnante verso il ruolo del lessico nell’acquisizione della lingua è infatti il prodotto di diversi fattori: l’esperienza personale dell’insegnante nell’apprendere le lingue straniere e il modo in cui affronta il metodo o i metodi che sperimenta;
25 “Gli studenti con un vocabolario più ampio ottengono un punteggio più alto nelle valutazioni e negli
esami e raggiungono posizioni più alte in classifica rispetto a quelli con un vocabolario ridotto”.
26 “Quando gli studenti viaggiano, non portano con loro libri di grammatica, si portano i dizionari”. (British
Council Conference, Milano, 1987 - Something similar was found in one of his articles of 1989).
27 “Molti insegnanti non sono sicuri circa le migliori modalità per insegnare il lessico e, a volte, non sanno
l’atteggiamento metacognitivo che egli ha nei confronti dell’apprendimento del lessico e le idee secondo le quali esso viene appreso in maniera più efficace, ovvero attraverso la lettura, la comunicazione orale, la memorizzazione di parole, e così via; la conoscenza che egli ha in merito alla ricerca condotta sull’acquisizione del lessico e, infine, l’impatto che ha sull’insegnante l’esperienza maturata insegnando.
Therefore, teachers have a responsibility to keep themselves up-to-date with all the most recent techniques for teaching lexis, also to be creative in organizing the lessons and to be ready to justify their approach because they are necessary guides to help students in the learning process (Alqahtani, 2015).
b. Lexical complexity
Vocabulary knowledge is considered a very complex skill. First of all, because of the huge number of lexemes which form an open system. However, as Casadei (2003) states, it is not “un insieme caotico ma al contrario una struttura organizzata secondo diversi tipi di relazioni semantiche”. The learning and the practicing of lexis is the student’s job because
[…] it usually takes many encounters for a lexical item to be fully mastered. […] Before a lexical item appears in oral production learners need to have been exposed to this item several times at least and actually to have repeatedly found themselves in a situation where there is a need for that item to communicate a message (Gilanlioglu, 2002: 22)28.
Therefore, it just requires specific methods and a lifelong learning in order to maintain the word knowledge (Alqahtani, 2015). In addition, Bettoni (2000: 79-80) confirms that “il lessico è un sistema molto più aperto della grammatica o fonologia, e le sue numerosissime unità di base, le parole, si prestano più difficilmente alla regolarizzazione”, but this does not prove that it cannot be taught and learnt.
28 “[…] Di solito sono necessari diversi “incontri” affinché una parola venga pienamente padroneggiata.
[…] Prima che un elemento lessicale appaia nella produzione orale l’apprendente deve essere stato esposto a questo elemento diverse volte almeno, e infatti averlo trovato ripetutamente in una situazione dove c’era bisogno di usare questa parola per comunicare un messaggio”.
Anche ad un livello molto avanzato, i parlanti non-nativi continuano a percepire i loro limiti nella conoscenza dei vocaboli della L2, quando per esempio leggono parole che non riescono a comprendere, o trovano difficoltà nell'esprimere dei concetti con la stessa adeguatezza propria della L1. Per questo, molti studenti credono che l'acquisizione di una lingua seconda sia essenzialmente una questione di apprendimento del lessico e impiegano molte energie e tempo nella memorizzazione di lunghe liste di vocaboli, affidandosi al dizionario bilingue come strumento fondamentale per la comunicazione (Read, 2000: 43).
c. Priority on grammar
Lewis (1993: 5), quoting Widdowson (1989), states that “lexis is where we need to start from, the syntax need to be put to the service of words and not the other way around. […] Quindi è la parola che determina la sua strutturazione circostante, cioé la grammatica: essa è integrata nel lessico”29. This view started gaining acceptance at the end of 1970s, because before than the English language curriculum was centered on grammar. Actually, English lessons were prepared by teachers, not for improving students’ knowledge, but only to pass tests.
Kathy, a high school teacher, commented: “Teachers mainly use grammar-translation methods, in which they only teach grammar and how to translate into the second language or from the L2 into L1, but this doesn’t really help people to communicate” (Kathy interview, December 2009 - Faez, 2011: 40). […] Besides, a lack of knowledge of vocabulary leads to the impossibility of language production and language comprehension. Therefore, the acquisition of new words is a fundamental pre-requisite for language acquisition and this knowledge can be implemented only when teachers employ effective vocabulary teaching and learning strategies (Baccichet, 2018: 10)30.
29 “Il lessico è il punto da dove bisogna iniziare, la sintassi deve essere messa al servizio delle parole e non
in altri modi. […] Quindi è la parola che determina la sua strutturazione circostante, cioè la grammatica: essa è integrata nel lessico”.
30 “Kathy, un insegnante del liceo, osserva: “Le inseganti usano principalmente il metodo
grammaticale-traduttivo nel quale loro devono solo insegnare la grammatica e come tradurre dalla lingua madre alla lingua seconda o dalla L2 alla L1, ma ciò non aiuta molto le persone a comunicare”. (Kathy, interview, 2009). […] Inoltre, la mancanza di vocabolario causa un’impossibilità di produrre e comprendere una lingua. Pertanto, l’acquisizione di nuove parole è un prerequisito fondamentale per l’acquisizione linguistica e questa conoscenza può essere messa in atto solo quando le inseganti realizzano un insegnamento del vocabolario e delle strategie dell’apprendimento efficaci”.
Later, new research, perspectives and studies stated the importance of vocabulary as defined by Lewis (1993: 5), that is “lessico grammaticalizzato e non grammatica lessicalizzata”. He claimed that both lexis and grammar are important and need to be learned together.
[…] ovvero le regole grammaticali appaiono all’interno di frasi naturali e d’uso comune e mostrano quanto l’uso delle forme grammaticali sia strettamente collegato al lessico e da esso potentemente condizionato. Infatti, è soprattutto, il lessico la fonte primaria del significato della comunicazione, e non la grammatica. Il lessico, quindi, ed in particolare la sua collocazione, deve essere al centro (Cicero, 2013: 5-6).
Finally, Carter e McCarthy (1988: 51) summarized that:
[...] although it suffered neglect for a long time, vocabulary pedagogy has benefited in the last fifteen years or so from theoretical advances in the linguistic study of the lexicon, from psycholinguistic investigations into the mental lexicon, from the communicative trend in teaching, which has brought the learner into focus, and from developments in computers. What is perhaps missing in all this is more knowledge about what happens in classrooms when vocabulary crops up31.
So, we can conclude that although vocabulary teaching and learning was neglected and given little attention, now researchers acknowledge their importance, and are now developing different methodologies for teachers and students in order to teach and acquire lexis.
31 “[...] Sebbene abbia sofferto per lungo tempo di trascuratezza, la pedagogia del lessico ne ha beneficiato
negli ultimi quindici anni o circa dagli avanzamenti teorici negli studi della linguistica sul lessico, dalle investigazioni psicolinguistiche nel lessico mentale, dalla tendenza comunicativa nell’insegnamento, che ha portato l’apprendente “a fuoco”, e dagli sviluppi ai computer. Quello che forse manca in tutto ciò è una maggiore conoscenza su ciò che accade quando, in classe, il lessico spunta fuori”.
CHAPTER II
THE ROLE OF LEXIS: APPROACHES AND METHODS
In chapter II, we are looking, in particular, at how vocabulary has been taught and learnt before dealing with the actual methods. This brief report about the old approaches is both made to explain the foundations from which the actual techniques were born and to see which of them are still used and why. Yet, it is important to underline that research on this topic started very late (from 1980). Balboni (1998: 112), aware of this lack of research, reports: “Il problema glottodidattico relativo al lessico […] rappresenta uno dei maggiori casi di rimozione da parte di studiosi, di autori di libri di testo e di multimediali, di insegnanti”.
A specific terminology is used to define how language or vocabulary was taught. The terms are: method, approach and technique. Balboni (1999) in his Dizionario di Glottodidattica provides us with an explanation of those three concepts:
[l]’approccio costituisce la filosofia di fondo di ogni proposta glottodidattica. L’approccio valuta e seleziona dati e impianti epistemologici dalle varie teorie e dalle varie scienze di riferimento, e li riorganizza secondo i parametri propri della glottodidattica, individuando le mete e gli obiettivi dell'insegnamento linguistico. Un approccio genera uno o più metodi che ne realizzano l'applicazione nelle varie situazioni. Nella storia della glottodidattica alcuni approcci sono stati definiti “metodi” (Comunicativo, Formalistico, Metodo diretto, Metodo naturale, Reading Method, Silent Way, Strutturalistico, Suggestopedia). [Il metodo è] la realizzazione di un approccio in termini di procedure didattiche e di modelli operativi. Un metodo non è ‘buono’ o ‘sbagliato’, ‘vecchio’ o ‘moderno’, è semplicemente coerente o incoerente con le premesse dell'approccio che esso intende mettere in pratica. Una tecnica è un’attività di classe attraverso cui il materiale linguistico viene presentato agli studenti e da questi analizzato, elaborato, (ri)prodotto; altre tecniche riguardano le modalità di riflessione sulla lingua o la valutazione. A differenza dell’approccio, che ha una dimensione filosofica, e del metodo, che deve realizzare in termini di progettazione curricolare e organizzazione didattica le indicazioni dell’approccio, le tecniche non ammettono giudizi di valore (“vero/falso”, “coerente/incoerente”), ma solo di efficacia/inefficacia nel produrre l’effetto voluto (Balboni, 1999: 5-64-65-100).
To be more precise and to have no doubt about the reading, an additional specification has to be done between deductive and inductive methods. In the first type of procedure
l’insegnante impartisce esplicitamente le regole della lingua che l’apprendente deve imparare ad applicare, [mentre nel metodo induttivo] il discente è posto di fronte ad una situazione in L2 da cui deve estrapolare (in modo più o meno esplicito) le regole e le strutture che ne stanno alla base (Rizzardi, Barsi, 2005: 20-21).
The developing path of these methods was compared by Balboni (1985) to the movement of a pendulum. The reason behind this metaphor is that, along the historical path, some methods tend to be centered on language rules, which he calls analysis of the language as an object, others on the language as a moving entity which must be used in practice.
The next explanation focuses on some methods and approaches that have been used so far. We are paying particular attention to some of them, such as the old Grammar Translation Method, which is particularly based on translation, the Communicative Approach and Lexical Approach which makes vocabulary its central pivot. Finally, we are briefly explaining his role according to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
2.1 The historical profile of lexis in language teaching
It was a while before lexis became the focus of some methods. In the medieval and Renaissance period, grammar was the main objective in the teaching and learning of Latin. Meanwhile, William of Bath, in 1611, and John Amos Comenius developed their two works on contextualized vocabulary; that is a vocabulary learning method in which you don’t find each single word next to its definition, but words are often in a text and the learner has to understand their meanings thanks to the context clues (Schmitt, 2000). The two authors are remembered for having “[rose] the status of vocabulary, […] getting away from the remote memorization, and avoiding such a strong grammar focus”
(Schmitt, 2000: 11)32. Additionally, despite the growing of grammar acceptance with the publication of the Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762) by Robert Lowth, vocabulary starts confirming the development of a standardized vocabulary with the birth of dictionaries such as A Table Alphabetical by Robert Cawdrey and Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of English Language in 1755 (Schmitt, 2000).
2.1.1 The Grammar-Translation Method
In the 18th and 19th centuries, English started being taught with the methods that teachers used to teach Latin and Ancient Greek, in particular Grammar-Translation Method. For this reason, it is also classified as a “classical method” (Cook, Singleton, 2014). A typical lesson was organised around three activities. The first activity planned the explanation of one or two explicit grammar rules. Secondly, students had to learn “liste di verbi con la loro coniugazione e liste di parole con la traduzione a fianco da imparare a memoria, così come avveniva per i paradigmi verbali e le declinazioni dei casi in latino e greco” (Cardona, 2004: 50). The third activity was centered on the translation from L1 (first language) into the foreign language (or vice versa) of literature passages or citations (Schmitt, 2000).
As far as vocabulary was concerned, it was not the main focus of teaching, but a means to learn grammar. “Gli allievi erano dunque esposti ad un corpus lessicale selezionato in funzione dell’apprendimento della grammatica e ricavato da brani letterari, pertanto spesso obsoleto e di scarsissima frequenza nell’uso della lingua” (Cardona, 2004: 50-51). Additionally, Barsi (2005: 31-32) states that
a livello intuitivo le liste dei vocaboli da imparare a memoria sono spesso costituite attorno a un tema, ma non si procede in alcun caso a una didatticizzazione del lessico attraverso quelle relazioni semantiche che permettono al discente di costruire una rete mentale funzionale all’apprendimento e alla memorizzazione delle parole della lingua straniera. Si può tuttavia affermare che nel metodo grammatica-traduzione la
32 “[accresciuto] lo status del lessico, […] allontanandosi dall’imparare a memoria e evitando una forte
prospettiva onomasiologica domina su quella semasiologica, e cioé l’apprendimento dei nomi delle cose è più importante dello studio del senso delle parole per il quale si ricorre alla traduzione in lingua materna (Barsi, 2005: 31-32).
Sweet (1964) was among the authors who disprove the grammar-translation method. He provided his own learning and teaching path in which there was a stage reserved for the vocabulary learning which is called the Idiomatic Stage. According to him,
non è possibile prescindere dal testo e [pertanto] i nuovi vocaboli non vanno presentati attraverso liste di parole al di fuori della frase, che diviene l’unità minima di riferimento (Cardona, 2004: 51). […] The sentence is the unit of language, not the word. From a purely phonetic point of view words do not exist (Sweet, 1964: 51)33.
An additional limit of this method was its lack of oral and phonological attention in the learning process, because it was centered on literature memorization and translation.
Finally, the fact that this method survived is some kind testimony of its success. At least within the confines of its specific aims, it appears to have succeeded. Thanks to the classical method, Cicero undoubtedly learned to read Plato in Rome in the 1stcentury BC, and at least some English schoolchildren of the 1960s learned to read Livy, Racine and Goethe in Latin, French and German (Cook, Singleton, 2014: 113)34.
This method developed throughout the 19th century and it has never disappeared completely, and indeed it is still present in English classes.
33 “La frase è l’unità della lingua, non la parola. Da un punto di vista puramente fonetico le parole non
esistono”
34 “Infine, il fatto che questo metodo sopravvisse è, in qualche modo, testimonianza del suo successo.
Almeno, all’interno dell’ambito dei suoi obiettivi specifici, sembra che abbia avuto successo. Grazie al metodo classico, Cicerone imparò a leggere Platone a Roma nel primo secolo AC e perlomeno qualche scolaro inglese del 1960 imparò a leggere Livio, Racine e Goethe in Latino, Francese e Tedesco”.
2.1.2 The Direct Method
The Direct method is famous for having tried to follow the natural steps of first language acquisition. The path started with “listening first, then speaking, and only later reading and writing” (Schmitt, 2000: 12)35. Unlike the previous Grammar-Translation Method, grammar was not the focus of the learning anymore and oral skills were emphasised. In addition, translation from L1 to LS (or vice versa) was removed, so that learners practice directly the language that they are acquiring. Actually, “l’aggettivo “diretto” deriva dal fatto che in questo metodo si poneva al centro della didattica il parlare ‘direttamente’ in lingua straniera senza il tramite della L1” (Atzeni, 2015: 91).
As far as vocabulary teaching and learning is concerned,
Vocabulary would be acquired naturally through the interaction during lessons. Concrete vocabulary was explained with pictures or through physical demonstration, with initial vocabulary being kept simple and familiar, for example, objects in classroom and clothing. Thus, vocabulary was connected with reality as much as possible. Only abstract words were presented in the traditional way of being grouped according to topic or associations of ideas (Zimmerman, 1997: 12). Si tratta pertanto di un vocabolario inteso come un
corpus di lemmi da apprendere attraverso le conversazioni e i dialoghi con
l’insegnante madrelingua (Cardona, 2004: 52)36.
Those who theorized this method, towards the end of the nineteenth century, widely underestimated both teacher’s preparedness (the teachers must be highly proficient in the LS) and the huge amount of time so that language learning takes place. As for the second aspect, the few hours dedicated to teaching couldn’t provide satisfactory learning of LS compared to full immersion in the mother tongue learning (Schmitt, 2000). “Despite the limitations, some principles of the Direct Method are the basis of teaching a foreign language even nowadays” (Richards, Rodgers, 2014: 13)37.
35 “Prima l’ascolto poi il parlato e solo più tardi la lettura e la scrittura”.
36 “Il lessico verrebbe acquisito naturalmente tramite l’interazione durante le lezioni. Il lessico astratto
veniva spiegato con immagini o tramite dimostrazioni fisiche, promuovendo un vocabolario iniziale semplice e familiare, per esempio oggetti nella classe e vestiti. Così, il lessico veniva concesso il più possibile alla realtà. Solo le parole astratte venivano presentate nella maniera tradizionale, ovvero venivano raggruppate a seconda dell’argomento o associazione di idee”.
37 “Nonostante le limitazioni, alcuni princìpi del Metodo Diretto sono ancora oggi le basi dell’insegnamento
