Theories of Learning and Teaching Specific Vocabulary - Literature review Example

Theories of Learning and Teaching Specific Vocabulary I. Introduction Teaching specific vocabulary is one of the most important aspects of language learning. Indeed, since words are the basic units of any language, whether it be the English language or any foreign language, learning and acquiring new words is an important aspect of the process of learning and studying the whole language. However, oftentimes in the classroom, it has been observed that learning and teaching vocabulary tend to be relegated to the margins as mere appendices to the learning of grammar and semantics, as mere supplementary to writing, reading and speaking exercises. The reason for this is that there is a debate among scholars of teaching English, in general, and in particular, that of learning and teaching English vocabulary, as to the best method for teaching the latter. Some scholars believe that vocabulary acquisition is best taught using lexical methods which are do-contextualized. Others, however, believe the contrary and would emphasize highly-contextualized vocabulary teaching and learning methods in the classroom. Another reason is that teachers tend to be unaware of relevant theories and research findings on teaching vocabulary. And for those who are knowledgeable, there is a tendency to be biased in the selection of which theories to apply and which strategies to employ in actual classroom settings. This essay will discuss these various theories and approaches, assessing their reliability and efficacy. II. Teaching English for Specific Purposes in General Nation explained that “vocabulary knowledge enables language use, and language use. Knowledge of the world enables the increase of vocabulary, and language use, etc.” In his paper, Developing Vocabulary in Second Language Acquisition: From Theories to the Classroom, Jeff Mehring examines the theories behind vocabulary acquisition and some of the results obtained during his tenure as a teacher trainee. According to Nation and Waring (1997) (as cited in Mehring), members of the population who are 5-years old and speak English as their first language starting their primary years of education would possess a vocabulary of between 4,000 to 5,000 lexical groups, accumulating approximately 1,000 lexical groups annually until they finish university studies with a vocabulary of nearly 20,000 lexical groups (p. 7). Nakata (2006) writes that learning vocabulary is an ongoing process that takes time and practice. Nakata acknowledged that continual repetition is required in vocabulary acquisition, to achieve effective vocabulary learning (p. 19). Unlike grammar lessons, vocabulary building and development cannot be attained by sheer expenditure of time studying or by rote memorization. Vocabulary development demands a lot of focus and concentration from the pupil, who needs to allocate long hours every single day familiarizing with words that sound new or strange to him. According to Nation and Waring, students would have to face new words several times over in real exercises and activities in spoken, read, and written formats (p. 8), so that students would be able to retain and recall high frequency words and save such words somewhere in their memory for possible use and recall over lengthy periods of time. Mehring observes that it is time-consuming to develop lessons which would allow students to encounter new words many times; thus enabling them to store the new words into their memory for possible use and recall over lengthy periods of time. Mehring believes that “learning vocabulary through context also helps the student understand the word’s correct usage and prevents students from making sentences from dictionary definitions such as, ‘There is a large cleavage between the rich and the poor in America.’ Yongqi Gu (2003) adds that learning new words thru context is just one step that students may use. Yongqi Gu suggests that students should learn to think meta-cognitively and learn new words within the context of where they appear. In Yongqi’s work, two kinds of distinction are formulated: first, the distinction between high context and low context words; and, second, the distinction between high frequency and low frequency words. Yongqi Gu posits that acquiring new words and developing vocabulary is an exercise that is principally concentrated and dependent upon the student. As such, the question of which strategies are effective depend to a large extent on the attitudes of the student and his or her perspective on acquiring new vocabulary (p. 2). Mehring agrees with this view. He states that the principal criterion which motivates learners should emanate from the learner himself or herself. However, findings show that in an environment where students cooperate and learn from fellow pupils, they tend to learn more and faster. The definition of the term “high frequency words” was first proposed by Nation (2005) as “words that occur so regularly in daily conversation that if students understand these words, they are able to write and speak in comprehensible English. Low frequency words, as described by Nation, are words that deal more with academic studies, words that appear throughout all academic texts and courses, but not very often in day to day speech, such as formulate, index, and modify. (p. 48). This process of distinguishing and classifying should help remove the burden of teachers when they assess what words students understand, but according to Nation, the harder set to employ in teaching are the low frequency words, which students find more difficult to understand. Mehring adds that the creation of vocabulary lists is an alternative method to assist learners in the retention and application of new words. . Murphey and Arao (2001) observes that students felt more relaxed and learned more from peers since they saw that making mistakes is acceptable, that having goals is good, and that learning English can be fun (p. 2). Thus, within a cooperative learning environment, even though vocabulary acquisition is a learner-centered activity, students may tend to enjoy the activity with regard to studying and being more disciplined to set goals, thus enhancing their learning capacity and acquiring more vocabulary as a result. III. Theories on Terminology and Specific Vocabulary Palmberg (1990) proposed two main types of teaching methods to improve vocabulary learning. The first is focused on the L2 based exercises and activities. These are the main target of CLT and have received relatively greater attention in vocabulary teaching practices and materials in recent years. It is difficult to incorporate this into the design of most published materials because associations are dependent in part on the language background of learners. The learning experiences of learners can be very diverse, especially those coming from multi-lingual societies. As a result, teachers find it necessary to include an element of uncertainty or flexibility into their classroom activities. The purpose of this is to support the development of the built-in lexical syllabus of learners. From the overall standpoint, the two teaching methods proposed by Palmberg are based on which objectives in vocabulary teaching are involved. In others words, the type or kind of goal specified for vocabulary teaching determines, to a certain extent, the teaching method employed. For instance, Seal (1991) classified vocabulary teaching strategies as either planned or unplanned activities in classrooms. According Hatch and Brown, certain factors may determine the variation in vocabulary teaching strategies. As a result of these factors, strategies of teachers may differ from teacher to teacher, from one lesson to the next, and from one class to another. These are usually the unplanned vocabulary teaching strategies. However, it has been observed that unplanned vocabulary teaching strategies take considerably lesser time as compared to planned vocabulary teaching strategies (Hatch and Brown 1995). Scholars point out that in planned vocabulary teaching strategies, what consumes the time of teachers is the level and degree of preparation required. In most cases, the teachers spend a lot of time preparing their materials for the classroom. This usually involves use of a textbook, the creation of a list of words for additional vocabulary. On the other hand, unplanned strategies involve situations when learners are presented with an opportunity, often in an involuntary manner, of expanding their environment; often stating that words may be learned incidentally and accidentally in class when students request particular meanings of the word, or when the teacher becomes aware of any relevant words to which attention needs to be drawn. In the attempt of attaining a more detailed analysis of vocabulary teaching methods, Oxford and Crookall (1990) further classified common techniques into four categories: (1) de-contextualising: word lists, flash cars, and dictionary use; (2) semi-contextualising: word grouping, association, visual imagery, aural imaginary, keyword, physical response, physical sensation, and semantic mapping; (3) fully contextualizing: reading, listening, speaking, and writing; and (4) adaptable: structured reviewing. Therefore, it has been suggested that two groups of teaching dynamics are needed for an effective pedagogy: contextual and consolidating (2C) dimensions and dynamics of strategies. These dynamics parallel Palmberg’s (1990) two teaching types, and will build on Oxford and Crookall’s (1990) model mentioned earlier. While consolidating ones are used to restore words, contextual strategies, on the other hand, are useful for both lexical input and output. IV. Theories of Learning and Teaching Specific Vocabulary and Terminology In recent years, there has been a growing movement to formulate substitutes to the traditional theory of specific vocabulary or terminology. In 2003, various seminars, workshops and other academic colloquia were held in several countries in Europe. A central theme of these intellectual exchanges is the necessity to revive the fundamentals of the theory of terminology which would be separate and distinct from linguistics or lexicography. This stems from the advocacy of the defenders and supporters of the traditional theory of specific vocabulary or terminology to address the increasing number of criticisms being leveled against it (Castellvi 2003: 162). One of the most significant academic meetings was the Vasa seminar. The Vasa seminar was virtually a gathering of the advocates and supporters of the traditional theory. The seminar was organized to evaluate and assess what the present views criticizing the traditional theory mean and what they signify. The inferences arrived at in the Vasa Seminar can be summed up into two. First, the scholars gathered there recognized the gap in the development of a theory about units of terminology and concepts instead of that of a theory of terminology. This particular conclusion was premised on the complex level and character of the terminology created by the gaps between their real and varied communicative text. The other seminar excluded the critical views of those who did not belong to their group. The justification given for this exclusion was that the participants claimed they were not acquainted with Wuster or that they are totally unfamiliar with the works and research findings of scholars who subscribed to his theories. Wuster is considered by many scholars of terminology as the principal author of the traditional theory of terminology. One of the most significant works of Wuster was a collation written by H. Felber and published as Einfuhbrung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie in 1979. The main thrust of this book is that it emphasizes the distinction between the disciplines of terminology and linguistics. According to Castellvi, this book discusses several angles of the debate between terminology and linguistics. First, it touches on language; Second, regarding assumptions about its evolution – the conscious management of conceptual and semantic development; and c. regarding working methods – use solely of the method of onomasiology as contrasted with method of semasiology approach or lexicography (p. 167). The most significant theoretical and discursive function of Wuster’s book is that it is an attempt to found an entirely autonomous discipline in the Theory of Terminology. This attempt is carried out by identifying and formulating distinctions between terminology and linguistics. The unit of analysis in what is being founded as the new and autonomous discipline of terminology would be concepts. These concepts are formed through the clustering of features that would be a unification of numerous and various features of similar concepts from the international community of scholars. These concepts would be expressed by means of equivalent signs. These signs would, in turn, be derived from different linguistic and non-linguistic systems. The underlying premise of this position is that a concept is universal, independent of cultural differences. What prescinds from this presupposition is that the only variance in terminology is that created by the diversity of languages. The theory of terminology proposed by Wuster is that a specific object in a particular subject field should be characterized by scientists and technicians in the same way that they would a particular language. The rationale offered for this is the necessity and desirability of maintaining the differences in terminologies to the barest minimum. For Wuster, this bare minimum should be nothing more than the differences in the words or specific terms used for the same object or concept among different languages. In other words, the desired goal stated by Wuster is to keep the differences between terminologies semantic; and that scholars and researchers should attempt to achieve conceptual standardization if not uniformity. One of the special problems seen by Wuster is that large variances in terminologies could create dissonance in how scholars and researchers communicate to one another and how they understand each other’s work. This dissonance refers to the need for scholars to publish their research findings, discoveries and relevant theories; publication being the most recognized form of dissemination as well as the medium of debate among scholars all over the world. For instance, a scholar in the United States who claims to have formulated a new theory should publish his work so that other scholars both from the United States as well as from other countries may assess and evaluate his claims. Aside from being a feedback mechanism, this publication requirement also functions as a validation of the originality of theories and ideas. However, if there are large variances and disparate differences at the conceptual level, special problems are bound to arise between and among the works of various scholars touching upon similar subjects. Having foreseen these consequences, Wuster became an articulate and outspoken exponent of a uniform language for scientific and technical communication. Broadly, there are three sources of criticisms of traditional terminology. The first group comes from cognitive science, the second from language sciences and the third one from the communication sciences (Castellvi 2003: 182). For scholars of cognitive psychology and philosophy, their fundamental criticism leveled against the traditional theory of specific vocabulary and terminology is that it is very difficult to draw a line of distinction between general and specialized knowledge. What is more, these critics say that the two bodies of knowledge tend to complement each other; that is, general knowledge contributes to the accumulation of specialized knowledge and vice versa. Among scholars of the language sciences, particularly linguistics and sociolinguistics, the fundamental criticism leveled against the traditional theory of specific vocabulary and terminology is that there exists a ruptured delineation and particularized exchange of words and thoroughly examined the societal foundations of special languages. The basic position of these groups of scholars is that the use of terminologies by these various disciplines are able to conceptualize general hypotheses, which may eventually lead to the integration of the general and special through the development of relevant and applicable frameworks of analysis. Finally, the criticism leveled by scholars of the communication sciences is that the creation or foundation of a theory of terminology as an entirely separate and autonomous discipline is unnecessary. For these scholars, instead of classifying terminologies as a different type of communication, it would be more scientific to treat these objects of concepts in the form of frames in which specialized communication is integrated inside a single schema. In recent years, discourse analysis has been increasingly interested in specialized discourse and its social representation and distribution (Castellvi 2003: 187). According to Budin (2001: 17), the theories and schools of terminology turned out to have a lot of characteristics and traits to share than erstwhile assumed. One controversial and contested assertion of Budin is that the belief held in the past that these terminology schools are separate and isolated traditions is not true. Budin contends that these classifications and delineations did not really exist. He adds that the more accurate description of the taxonomy of these theories is that they have very close connections and is characterized more by interactive research traditions, often sharing a common major set of theoretical assumptions and premises in hypotheses. The schools referred to are the so-called Vienna School with Fuster and Felber as the principal branches, the so-called Soviet School and the so-called Prague School and several other schools of terminology and specific vocabulary such as those based in Canada, Germany, Scandinavia and other recent and contemporary efforts in specific vocabulary and terminology. V. Justification and Conclusion on Approaches to Learning Terminology There are proposals for a consolidated theory of terminology. It has been contended, however, that terminology will only develop as a scientific area of research if those sincerely enthusiastic in terminology research and the discipline of specific vocabulary would be able to communicate their concepts and expound and elaborate on them using verifiable and empirical data (Castellvi 2003). Castellvi posits that in order to contribute effectively to the conceptualization, formulation and evolution of a theory of specific vocabulary and terminology, there is a need for a broad theoretical conception which would be able to embrace variations in notions and concepts regarding units of terminology. The assumptions prescribed by Castellvi in her analysis are that: terminology is all at the same time a set of necessities, a set of practices to address the necessities, and an integrated area of research and scientific discipline; the second assumption is that the elements of terminology are the units of terminology themselves (Castellvi 2003). First of all, it is best to learn terminology using the cooperative approach since terminology presupposes a need for all the activities related to the representation and transmission of specialized knowledge such as technical translation, the pedagogy of languages for particularized objectives, technical writing, the pedagogy of particularized areas of study, recording, organization and management of documents, design of special language, language planning and formulation of technical standards. As such, what can be inferred from this premise is that the teaching and learning of terminology must be a solutions-oriented approach. The rationale for this is that terminology has the function of providing solutions and formulations to gaps in the existing structure of language for technical and scientific purposes. Second, the learning of terminology should be inter-disciplinary and multidisciplinary. This conclusion is justified by: first, the convergent thinking on proposals for a unified theory of terminology; which, in turn, stems largely from recognition of the importance of a broad and general perspective in the study and application of terminology. Equally important, terminology must be inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary because the solutions – the terminological units – should be able to address the specific needs of the disciplines requiring these formulations. VI. References 1. Castellvi, M. Teresa Cabre (2003). Theories of Terminology: Their Description, Prescription and Explanation; 2. Cobb, T. (1999). The compleat lexical tutor (Version 4.5) [Computer software]. University of Quebec at Montreal; 3. Maiguashca, R. U. (1993). Teaching and learning vocabulary in a second language: Past, present and future directions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50 (1), 83-100; 4. Mehring, Jeff (2005). Contextual Vocabulary Acquisition: A Computational Theory and Educational Curriculum; 5. Murphey, T., & Arao, H. (2001). Reported belief changes through near peer role modeling. TESL-EJ, 593); 6. Nakata, T. (2006). Implementing optimal spaced learning for English vocabulary learning: Towards improvement of the low-first method derived from the reactivation theory. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(2), 3-18; 7. Nation, P., & Waring. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 8. Nation, P. (2005). Teaching vocabulary Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 47-54; 9. Sevier, M. (204). The compleat lexical tutor, v. 4. TESL-EJ, 8(3); 10. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from content. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.). The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89-105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 11. Wei-wei Shen. (2003). Current Trends in Vocabulary Teaching and Learning Strategies for EFL Settings; Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, pp. 187-224, Vo. 7, November 2003; 12. Yongqi Gu, P. (2003). Vocabulary learning in second language. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Read More