SecondLanguageVocabularyInstructioninHistoricalTrends

楊海燕

【摘要】 In the past decades， the role of vocabulary has been neglected and downplayed because more emphasis has been placed on syntax and phonology. This thesis will seek to show how vocabulary is viewed and presented in some major teaching approaches and methods. The purpose of the thesis is to build a better understanding of the past and to indicate likely development in lexical pedagogy in the future.

【關鍵詞】 vocabulary instruction； neglected； major teaching approaches and methods； Lexical pedagogy.

【中圖分類號】 G642.3 【文獻標識碼】 A 【文章編號】 1992-7711（2014）07-047-04

Introduction

As we enter the 21st century， acquisition of vocabulary has assumed a more important role， and as some would argue， the central role in learning a second language （Lewis， 1993）. Also， there is now general agreement among vocabulary specialists that lexical competence is at the very heart of communicative competence， the ability to communicate successfully and appropriately （Coady and Huckin， 1997）. However， in the past decades， the role of vocabulary has been neglected and downplayed because more emphasis has been placed on syntax and phonology. This thesis will seek to show how vocabulary is viewed and presented in some major teaching approaches and methods. The purpose of the thesis is to build a better understanding of the past and to indicate likely development in lexical pedagogy in the future.

The Grammar Translation Method

The Grammar-Translation Method is the most traditional method. In the 19th century， the Classical Method came to be known as the Grammar-Translation Method， which is actually an extension of the approach used to teach classical languages to the teaching of modern languages. The goal of foreign language study is to learn a language in order to read its literature or in order to benefit from the mental discipline and intellectual development that result from foreign-language study. This method was based on explicit instruction in the grammatical analysis of the target language and translation of sentences from the native language into the target language and vice versa. Its focus was on grammatical rules， the memorization of vocabulary and of various declensions and conjugations， translations of texts， doing written exercises. And the major characteristics of GT are these（Richards &Rodgers， 1986， p.3-4）：

1. The students native language is the medium of instruction.

2. Reading and writing are the major focus； little or no systematic attention is paid to speaking or listening.

3. Grammar is taught deductively.

4. Accuracy is emphasized.

5. The sentence is the basic unit of teaching and language practice.

6. Vocabulary selection is based solely on the reading texts used， and words are taught through bilingual word list of isolated words， dictionary study， and memorization. （Richards &Rodgers， 1986）.

Typical Grammar-translation Lessons consisted of a reading selection， two or three long columns of new vocabulary items with native- language equivalents， and a test （Rivers， 1981）. Literary language samples used primarily archaic strictures and obsolete vocabulary （Rivers， 1981） which was selected according to its ability to illustrate grammatical rules， and direct vocabulary instruction was included only when a word illustrated a grammatical rule （Kelly， 1969）. The teaching of vocabulary was based on definition and etymology throughout the nineteenth century， at least in part because of the prevalent belief that the connection between etymon and derivative should be protectively preserved to avoid degeneration of the language. Bilingual word lists （vocabularies）， used as instructional aids rather than as reference， were organized according to semantic fields and had been a normal part of grammars and readers since the mid-seventeenth century. During the period of Grammar Translation methodology， bilingual dictionaries became common as reference tools （ Kelly， 1969）.

Grammar Translation dominated European and foreign language teaching from the 1840s to the 1940s， and in modified form it continues to be widely used in some parts of the world today. Though the Grammar-Translation Method is still widely practiced， it has no advocates. It was criticized for emphasizing grammar rules in classical literature， and for neglecting spoken language. It was also criticized by its archaic and unusable lists of vocabulary. In Grammar Translation Method， with a strong emphasis on accuracy and explicit grammar rule， vocabulary received limited attention and was only selected to illustrate grammar rule. The bilingually written word lists which presented new words in isolation were important resource for students vocabulary learning.

The Direct Method/The Reading Method

The Direct Method was developed from the Natural Method used by L. Sauveur in the late 1860s. It became well known in the United States because of the Berlitz language schools. Its practitioners taught L2 in the target language exclusively in small classes by real objects， body gestures， facial expression， pictures， video tapes， etc.. oral communication skills and correct pronunciation and grammar were the major focus. Translation was not used in classes. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught. New teaching points wee introduced orally. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration， objects， and pictures； abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas. （Richards &Rodgers， 1986， p.9-10）

Although the Direct Method was successful， it was criticized for its over simplification of the similarities between L1 and L2 and its lack of consideration of the practical logistics of the public classroom （ Richards & Rodgers， 1986）. It was also criticized for its lack of a systematic methodology. Complex grammar points， and abstract thoughts and phenomena were explained to great length， which hindered or blurred the comprehension of language learners.

A study begun in 1923 on the state of foreign language teaching in the United States concluded that no single method could guarantee successful results. The goal of trying to teach conversation skills was considered impractical in view of the restricted time available for foreign language teaching in schools， the limited skills of teachers， and the perceived irrelevance of conversation skills in a foreign language for the average American college student. The study published as the Coleman Report-advocated that a more reasonable goal for a foreign language course would be a reading knowledge of a foreign language， achieved through the gradual introduction of words and grammatical structures in simple reading texts. The main result of this recommendation was that reading became the goal of most foreign language programs in the United States （Coleman 1929）. （Richards &Rodgers， 1986）

The Coleman Report in 1929 recommended a reading-based approach to foreign teaching for use in American school and colleges. This emphasized teaching the comprehension of texts. Teachers taught from books containing short reading passages in the foreign language， preceded by lists of vocabulary. Rapid silent reading was the goal.

The Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching

The Oral Approach or Situational Language Teaching was developed by British linguists from the 1930s to the 1960s. The theory of language underlying Situational Language Teaching can be characterized as a type of British “structuralism.” Speech was regarded as the basis of language， and structure was viewed as being at the heart of speaking ability. The theory of learning underlying it is a type of behaviorist habit-learning theory. The objectives are to teach a practical command of the four basic skills of language， goals shared with most methods. But the skills are approached through structure. Accuracy in both pronunciation and grammar is regarded as crucial， and errors are to be avoided at all costs. Harold Palmer and A. S. Hornby were two prominent figures. They had developed a systematic study of the principles and procedures that could be applied to the selection and organization of the content of a language course （Palmer 1917， 1921） （Richards &Rodgers， 1986）.

One of the first aspects of method design to receive attention was the role of vocabulary. In the 1920s and 1930s several large-scale investigations of foreign language vocabulary were undertaken. The impetus for this research came from two quarters. First， there was a general consensus among language teaching specialists， such as Palmer， that vocabulary was one of the most important aspects of foreign language learning. A second influence was the increased emphasis on reading skills as the goal of foreign language study in some countries. This had been the recommendation of the Coleman Report and also the independent conclusion of another British language teaching specialist， Michael West， who had examined the role of English in India in the 1920s. Vocabulary was seen as an essential component of reading proficiency.

This led to the development of principles of vocabulary control， which were to have a major practical impact on the teaching of English in the following decades. Frequency counts showed that a core of 2， 000 or so words would greatly assist in reading a foreign language. Harold Palmer， Michel West， and other specialists produced a guide to the English vocabulary needed for teaching English as a foreign language， The Interim Report on Vocabulary Selection （Faucett et al. 1936）， based on frequency as well as other criteria. This was later revised by West and Published in 1953 as A General Service List of English Word（Richards &Rodgers， 1986， p.32）， which contains 2000 high-frequency words. There is plenty of evidence that 2000 words is an appropriate size for such a list. The information from frequency studies suggests a cost-benefit approach to dealing with vocabulary. If we use frequency counts to distinguish high-frequency words from low-frequency words then it seems clear that the high-frequency words need to be the first and main vocabulary goal of learners. （Nation & Meara， 2002， p.37-39）

The Oral Approach was the accepted British approach to English language teaching by the 1950s.

Like the Direct Method， Situational Language Teaching adopts an inductive approach to the teaching of grammar. The meaning of words or structures is not to be given through explanation in either the native tongue or the target language but is to be induced from the way the form is used in a situation. “ If we give the meaning of a new word， either by translation into the home language or by an equivalent in the same language， as soon as we introduce it， we weaken the impression which the word makes on the mind”（Billows 1961：28）. Explanation is therefore discouraged， and the learner is expected to deduce the meaning of a particular structure or vocabulary item from the situation in which it is presented. Extending structures and vocabulary to new situations takes place by generalization.

Only when the teacher is reasonably certain that learners can speak fairly correctly within the limits of their knowledge of sentence structure and vocabulary may he allow them free choice in sentence patterns and vocabulary. （Pittman 1963： 188）

The Audio-lingual Method

The Audio-Lingual Method was widely used in the United States and other countries in the 1950's and 1960's. It is still used in some programs today. This method is based on the principles of behavior psychology. It adapted many of the principles and procedures of the Direct Method， in part as a reaction to the lack of speaking skills of the Reading Approach. Audiolingualism （the term was coined by Professor Nelson Brooks in 1964） combined structures of L2 with aural-oral practice of the language and also L2 language teaching with technology. Spoken language was primary. Language was learned through a mechanical stimulus-response process. Oral skill was the foundation for other language skills. It was teacher-dominated and indispensable of audio equipments. L2 instruction was discouraged.

The descriptive practices of structural linguists suggested a number of hypotheses about language learning， and hence about language teaching as well. For example， since the structure is what is important and unique about a language， early practice should focus on mastery of phonological and grammatical structures rather than on mastery of vocabulary. Vocabulary should be minimized until all common structures have been learned. Only when he is thoroughly familiar with sounds， arrangements， and forms does he center his attention on enlarging his vocabulary…（Brooks， 1964：50）. This is because that during this period it was suggested that too much vocabulary early in the language learning process gives students a false sense of security（Zimmerman， 1997）. Teacher should guide the student in choosing and learning vocabulary， show how words relate to meaning in the target language. In addition， a lexical syllabus of basic vocabulary items is also usually specified in advance. In Foundations for English Teaching （Fries and Fries， 1961）， for example， a corpus of structural and lexical items graded into three levels is proposed， together with suggestions as to the situations that could be used to contextualize them. And vocabulary should be studied only in context. The meanings that the words of a language have for the native speaker can be learned only in a linguistic and cultural context and not in isolation. Teaching a language thus involves teaching aspects of the cultural system of the people who speak the language （Rivers， 1964， p. 19-22）.

The teaching vocabulary is related to development of oral fluency. Reading and writing skills may be taught， but they are dependent upon prior oral skills. Language is primarily speech in audiolingual theory， but speaking skills are themselves dependent upon the ability to accurately perceive and produce the major phonological features of the target language， fluency in the use of the key grammatical patterns in the language， and knowledge of sufficient vocabulary to use with these patterns. （Richards &Rodgers， 1986， p.52）

In The Audio-Lingual Method， because the emphasis was on teaching grammatical and phonological structures， the vocabulary needed to be relatively simple， with new words introduced only as they were needed to make the drills possible （Zimmerman 1997）. The assumption was that once students learned the structural frames， lexical items to fill the grammatical slots in the frames could be learned later， as needed.

Communicative Language Teaching

Communicative language teaching began in Britain in the 1960s as a replacement to the earlier structural method， called Situational Language Teaching. This was partly in response to Chomsky's criticisms of structural theories of language and partly based on the theories of British functional linguists， such as Firth and Halliday， as well as American sociolinguists， such as Hymes ， Gumperz and Labov and the writings of Austin and Searle on speech acts.

The publication of Nome Chomskys Syntactic Structure in 1957 brought about revolutionary changes in linguistic theory. Chomsky rejected the behaviorist notion of habit formation and supplanted it with a rationalist framework， the central assumption being that language is represented as a speakers mental grammar， a set of abstract rules for generating grammatical sentences. The rules generate the syntactic structure， and lexical items from appropriate grammatical categories （noun， verb， adjective， etc..， ） are selected to fill in the corresponding slots in the syntactic frame. Chomsky maintained that language existed in the individual quite apart from communicating needs， and labeled the internalized （unconscious） mental grammar of a language competence， and the actual use of it performance. At the same time， though， Chomskys interests centered mainly on rule-governed behavior and on the grammatical structure of sentences and did not include concerns for the appropriate use of language. Language learning approaches based on this theory viewed learning as rule acquisition， not habit formation， and emphasized grammatical rules.

Hymes （1972）， while not rejecting Chomskys model， extended it and gave greater emphasis to the sociolinguistic and pragmatic factors governing effective use of language. Hymes was especially concerned with the concept of communicative competence， which emphasized using language for meaningful communication， including the appropriate use of language in particular social contexts （for example， informal conversation at the dinner table versus formal conversation the bank， etc.）. the teaching approach that evolved from these notions （see also Halliday 1973）， referred to as communicative language teaching， promoted fluency over accuracy and consequently shifted the focus from sentence-level forms to discourse-level functions （e.g.， requests， greetings， apologies， and so on）. The approach aims to （a） make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and （b） develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication.

In the argument for fluency over accuracy， Rivers has exhorted language educators to pay more attention to words， considering carefully how to help learners communicate meaning （Rivers，1983， p.120）. Similarly， Widdowson （1978） has claimed that native speakers can better understand ungrammatical utterances with accurate vocabulary than those with accurate grammar and inaccurate vocabulary. Though， vocabulary was given secondary status， taught mainly as support for functional language use.

In 1972， Wilkins proposed a functional for communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for developing communicative syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkinss contribution was an analysis of the communicative meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express. Rather than describe the core of language through traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary， Wikins attempted to demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative uses of language. He described two types of meanings： notional categories （concept such as time， sequence， quantity， location， frequency） and categories of communicative function （requests， denials， offers， complaints） （Richards & Rodgers， 1986， p.65）. Wilkins later revised and expanded his 1972 document into a book called Notional Syllabuses （Wilkins 1976）， which had a significant impact on the development of Communicative Language Teaching. The Council of Europe expanded and developed this into a syllabus that included descriptions of the objectives or foreign language courses for European adults， the situations in which they might typically nee to use a foreign language（ e.g.， travel， business）， the topics they might need to talk about （e.g.， personal identification， education， shopping）， the functions they needed language for （e.g.， describing something， requesting information， expressing agreement and disagreement）， the notions made use of in communication （e.g.， time， frequency， duration）， as well as the vocabulary and grammar needed. Nevertheless， the lexical content of a notional or functional syllabus would arise from the contexts chosen to illustrate the exponents of the selected functions and notions. These contexts strove to resemble those which the learner might encounter when in an English-speaking environment. Typically， restaurants， hotels， doctors waiting rooms and airports superseded the more literary vocabulary of earlier courses. Although not denying the importance of vocabulary， syllabus designers of this period did not focus an enormous amount of attention on it， presumably assuming that vocabulary acquisition was a fairly haphazard process which would happen naturally alongside the more important tasks of learning the grammar/ notions/communication. In other words， vocabulary was subservient to the other more important elements of learning and was usually introduced in ways that suited the presentation of grammar of functions， or through texts used for various structural or communicative purposes （ O Dell， 1997 ）.

The Natural Approach

In 1977， Tracy Terrell， a teacher of Spanish in Califronia， outlined “ a proposal for a ‘new philosophy of language teaching which he called the Natural Approach. This was an attempt to develop a language teaching proposal that incorporated the “naturalistic” principles researchers had identified in studies of second language acquisition. The Natural Approach grew out of Terrells experiences teaching Spanish classes. Since that time Terrell and others have experimented with implementing the Natural Approach in elementary to advanced-level classes and with other languages. At the same time he has joined forces with Stephen Kradshen， an applied linguist at the University of Southern California， in elaborating a theoretical rational for the Natural Approach， drawing on Krashens influential theory of second language acquisition， which consists of five hypothesizes： （1） the acquisition-Learning Hypothesis （2） the Natural Order Hypothesis； （3） the Monitor Hypothesis； （4） the Input Hypothesis and （5） the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Natural Approach methodology emphasizes comprehensible and meaningful input rather than grammatically correct production.

Krashen and Terrell see communication as the primary function of language， and since their approach focuses on teaching communicative abilities， they refer to the Natural Approach as an example of a communicative approach. What Krashen and Terrell do describe about the nature of language emphasizes the primacy of meaning. The importance of the vocabulary is stressed， for example， suggesting the view that a language is essentially its lexicon and only inconsequently the grammar that determines how the lexicon is exploited to produce messages. Terrell quotes Dwight Bolinger to support this view

The quantity of information in the lexicon far outweighs that in any other part of the language， and if there is anything to the notion of redundancy it should be easier to reconstruct a message containing just words than one containing just the syntactic relations. The significant fact is the subordinate role of grammar. The most important thing is to get the words in. （Bolinger， in Terrell 1977：333）.

The recommended teaching method for vocabulary， as for all aspects of language， emphasizes the importance of interesting and relevant input； student attention should be focused on the understanding of messages. The instructor uses context and the items themselves to make the meanings of the key words clear. When introducing new vocabulary， instructors use visuals， typically magazine pictures.

For students beyond the beginning levels， Krashen（1989）， argues that language learners acquire vocabulary and spelling most efficiently by receiving comprehensible input while reading. He claims that this results from the Input Hypothesis. Instead of more traditional pedagogical approaches to L2 vocabulary learning， Krashen advocates massive quantities of pleasure reading in the students own area of interest as well as large quantities of light， low-risk material that students are not tested on.

Current and future perspectives on lexical issues

With the assistance of computer-aided research， the status of vocabulary has changed dramatically within the last two decades because the corpus studies were providing huge amounts of database and information about how words are actually used. The Collins-Birmingham University International Language Database （COBUILD） project is an extensive computer analysis base on central corpus of twenty million words， accounting for patterns of phrase and clause sequence in actual English use.

New directions of the L2 vocabulary learning and teaching first call attention for the study of more relationship， such as collocations （Schmitt and McCarthy， 1997）. Researchers begin to believe that best vocabulary learning involves learning frequent chunks， such as collocations， lexical phrases and idioms， rather that learning by the process of piecing together isolated words. Learning language chunks enables learners to achieve native-like fluency because those frequent lexical chunks are what native speakers use in everyday conversation.

Secondly， the integration of lexical syllabus into former topic-， notion-， or function-based syllabuses has been emphasized （Willis， 1990）. Willis believes that a lexical syllabus based on naturalistic and authentic use of language would reconcile the contradiction between the traditional methodologies and the Communicative Approach. Both of these two groups have been proved to be some how inefficient as the former ones itemize and piece language， the CA treats language too holistically. The lexical syllabus that exposes learners to language items in natural contexts （like collocations） enables them to learn from their own experience.

Finally， Lexis （1993） proposes the integration of the Communicative Approach into classroom activities with a focus on naturally occurring vocabulary. Embracing most of the assumption of the Communicative Approach to language teaching， he introduces “ Lexical Approach” which is a lexical-based teaching method that emphasized on the acquisition of multiword phrases， including polywords， collocations， fixed and semi-fixed expressions. Lexical items are central to both language use and teaching as “ Language consists of grammaticalised lexis， not lexicalized grammar.” （Lewis， 1993：89）.

Conclusion

Theoretical priorities have changed throughout language teaching history， as reflected in the relative importance placed on pronunciation， grammar， reading， or conversing. Although vocabulary is arguably central to language acquisition and use， the teaching and learning of vocabulary have not been a priority in the field of second language acquisition its varying stages and up to the present day. Dubin and Olshtain write （Dubin & Olshtain， 1986， 111-12， cited in ODell， 1997）：

Lexis has failed to receive enough attention either in older grammatical syllabuses， or in more recent communicative approaches. In fact， lay people believe that ‘knowing a language consists of knowing words， while modern linguistic theories have placed little emphasis on vocabulary， focusing more on structures， functions， notions and communication strategies. However， it may be the case that possessing a good vocabulary stock is what enables many learners to use their knowledge of the language effectively and in ways which fit their specific needs.

It is hoped that the essential role of vocabulary in the reality of language learning will one day be reflected in the attention given to it in research and the classroom.

References

[1]Howatt， A.P.R. （1984）. A history of English language teaching. Oxford： Oxfordd University Press.

[2]Kelly， L.G. （1969）. Centuries of language teaching. Rowley， MA： Nwebury House.

[3]Krashen， S. （1989）. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading： Additional evidence for the input hypotheses. Modern Language Journal， 73（4）， 440-464.

[4]Krashen， S.， & Terrell， T. （1983）. The natural approach： Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford： Pergamon.

[5]Lewis， M. （1993）. The lexical approach： The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove， England： Language Teaching Publications.

[6]O Dell， F. （1997）. Incorporating vocabulary into the syllabus. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy （Eds.）， Vocabulary： Description， acquisition and pedagogy （pp.258-278）. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

[7]Richards， J.， & Rodgers，T. S. （1986）. Approaches and methods in language teaching： A description and analysis. New York： Cambridge University Press.

[8]West，M. （1953）. A general service list of English words. London： Longman，Green and Co.

[9]Widdowson，H. G. （1978）. Teaching language as communication. Oxford： Oxford University Press.

[10]Wilkins，D. （1972）. Linguistics in language teaching. London： Edward Arnold. （1974）. Second-language learning and teaching. London： Edward Arnold.

[11]Zimmerman，C. B. （1997）. Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In J. Coady & T. Huckin （Eds.），Second language vocabulary acquisition （pp.5-17）. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.