This book is a study of lexical pragmatics in L2 vocabulary pedagogy. Its aim is to justify the cultivation of CLIC among intermediate or more-advanced-level L2 learners through pedagogical intervention. This chapter will present the general background behind the research.
1.1 Lexical Inferencing and Training: An Abiding Interest in L2 Vocabulary Pedagogy
Vocabulary is a ve ry v ague term ref erring to individual words and formulaic language, including idioms, lexical bundles and collocations that operate as multiword units. With the sheer number of individual words and multiword units in a language, vocabulary learning is a life-long process for L2 learners as well as for native speakers. Few can deny the fact that vocabulary learning is a tremendous task, not only for L2 beginners but also for intermediate or more-advanced-level L2 learners and, accordingly, a great concern for their teachers. Diversified vocabulary learning/teaching methods have been used to teach/learn new words. Typical examples include rote repetition, the guessing of meaning and usage from available clues, use of a dictionary, checking glossaries and taking down notes along the margins, between the lines or in separate vocabulary notebooks. Depending on the presence or absence of a context, these methods can be put into two big categories: the vocabulary-li st approach and the co ntextual approach.
While the vocabulary-li st approach is based on mechanical memorization, the central process of the contextual approach is lexical inferencing. Moreover, while the vocabulary-li st approach is mainly used by beginners and supervised by teachers, the contextual approach is assumed to be especially important for intermediate or more-advanced-level L2 learners (i.e., L2 learners at the university level), who are encouraged to acquire words in the context of their reading. Teachers usually no longer aid vocabulary learning at these higher stages, and learners are encouraged to enlarge their vocabulary size by themselves after class through private reading. The unfamiliar words they unavoidably meet in the process of L2 reading pose both challenges and learning opportunities. Usually, when learners meet an unfamiliar word and nobody is available to ask for help, they will consult a dictionary, if there is a dictionary at hand. But, in not infrequent cases, they may disappointingly find that the dictionary is not very helpful. For example, their complaints about the uselessness of dictionaries can come from their experiences in handling troublesome words like shop and Stalinist in the following sentences.
- Example 1: âWhile we mortals might shop our own closets every day, many figures in the public eye shun recycling their own clothingâ.
- Example 2: âDONâT visit in winter. Beijing can be freezing, Stalinist, polluted and filthy. It is at its best in spring (except for the odd dust storm) and autumn, when making the pilgrimage to the Great Wall will feel a delight, not a chore, as you tick it off the bucket listâ.
In reading these two sentences, learners may hesitate to trust their instinctive interpretations of shop (in Example 1) and Stalinist (in Example 2). They may turn to a dictionary for help. Typically, the information they can find from the dictionary concerning the meaning of the word shop, as well as the meaning they have stored in their memory, is something like buying or the act of shopping. But they will immediately realize that this dictionary-based or memory-based interpretation of the word can make the sentence completely incomprehensible. As for the word Stalinist, when learners consult the dictionary for an interpretation, in most cases they will find that the dictionary does not contain an entry for it; in a few cases, the dictionary will provide some information, but it will offer little help in deciphering the wordâs connotations in the specific context of its use.
So, in situations when nobody (i.e., teachers or friends) is available and when dictionaries are unhelpful, learnersâ vocabulary learning ability in reading is, to a great extent, subject to their ability (or inability) to infer the meaning of unknown words in specific contexts. Because of their repeated failures and fruitless efforts, they frequently complain that the contextual approach is too inefficient and time-consuming. As a matter of fact, the focus on lexical inferencing has been part of an abiding interest in a contextual vocabulary-acquisition approach, which has sought to establish itself in contrast to the more dominant mnemonic vocabulary-li st approach. The present research on cultivating L2 learnersâ ability to conduct lexical inferencing through pedagogical intervention is an effort to address this trend and will hopefully shed some new light on L2 vocabulary pedagogy, which is still a field replete with negligence, uncertainties and knowledge gaps.
1.2 A Field of Controversies, Negligence and Knowledge Gaps
Research on CLIC and CLIC training is a part of L 2 vocabular y pedagogy beset by unsettled controversies over vocabular y teaching/learning methods, an overall inattention to vocabular y in L2 instruction, a general neglect of vocabular y instruction for intermediate or higher-level L2 learners, prevalent me mory-oriented pedagogical assumptions and a behaviorist vocabular y-learning ideology.
1.2.1 Controversies Over Vocabulary Learning With/Without Context
It ca n be s afely stated that all L2 learners and their teachers are well aware of the fact that learning a second language involves learning large numbers of words, that is, individual words and formulaic language. Not surprisingly, many learners are somewhat apprehensive when faced with the enormous task of enlarging their vocabulary size to a satisfactory level. Researchers and teachers, as well as learners, have always shown a keen interest in finding out how words can best be learned, in their contexts of use or out of their contexts of use. Moreover, if contextual vocabulary learning is preferred to context-free vocabulary-list memorization, what contexts are more helpfulâenhanced contexts or natural contexts?
Taken out of context and put into a separate list, words can be learned (i.e., memorized) more directly on the basis of bilingual translations, simple explanations of their meanings, synonyms and antonyms, and so forth. Memorizing voc abulary lists can quickly enlarge learnersâ vocabulary size, which is usually understood as the number of words whose form-meaning mappings are correctly remembered. This ability has been widely accepted as the indicator of L2 learnersâ level of vocabulary knowledge (Nation 2001), although vocabulary knowledge is still a quite vague and complex concept. Many studies have found a positive correlation between learnersâ vocabulary size (as measured by the number of memorized form-meaning mappings of words) and other language skills, typically, reading comprehension (Loewen and Sato 2017). But Nagy and Anderson (1984) described the futility of learning individual words given the massive number of words students need to know in order to comprehend, for example, school texts. Some vocabulary researchers have addressed this concern by arguing that it is critical to determine which words are most important to learn directly (Graves 2015; Nagy and Hiebert 2010). Recently, scholars have argued for learning sophisticated academic words that occur across school contexts (Beck et al. 2013). Yet, it remains unclear whether it is possible for students to learn enough of these academic words to broadly impact their reading comprehension (Wright and Cervetti 2017). The nature of the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension is not entirely understood, but most researchers agree that directly memorized word knowledge (i.e., form-meaning mappings) is not enough. Word meanings learned directly cannot be easily retrieved from memory in real communicative contexts (McKeown and Beck 2014).
To speed up access to word meanings in the reading context, some researchers suggest learning words in their context of use. But complex contextual information can divert learnersâ attention from learning words and reduce vocabulary-learning efficiency. To enhance vocabulary learning, some researchers (Nagy 2005; Stanovich 1986) suggest that context be purposefully modified by adding glosses to provide paraphrases, synonyms and antonyms, and so on. Research has proven improved retention of words learned in enhanced contexts owing to deeper processing of their meanings (Nation 2015; Ender 2014; McKeown and Beck 2014). But whether learnersâ access to memory in new contexts can be speeded up or not is still not clear (Wright and Cervetti 2017). And, similar to the problems faced by direct vocabulary learning, words that can be learned in enhanced contexts are also quite limited in number. Finally, which words should be learned in enhanced contexts is also controversial (Schmitt 2010; Wright and Cervetti 2017). Yet, in spite of the problems and arguments, vocabulary learning in enhanced contexts is the focus of L 2 vocabulary research.
Compared with the enormous amount of research on vocabulary learning in enhanced contexts, research on vocabulary learning in natural contexts is scarce (Wesche and Paribakht 2010; Haastrup 1991). But as a matter of fact, most intermediate or more-advanced level L2 learners (especially L2 learners at the university level) learn words mainly in natural contexts, namely, contexts without external helps (i.e., glossaries, added exposures, dictionaries or teachers). In these contexts, new words can only be learned through lexical inferen cing (Wesche and Paribakht 2010). However, careful examination of the related literature reveals that contextual vocabulary learning in natural contexts has, to a great extent, been confused with vocabulary learning in enhanced contexts in terms of the lexical knowledge expected to be learned and the goal of vocabulary learning in context. In both contexts, the lexical knowledge to be learned consists of form-meaning mappings of the target words, and the goal of learning is retention of the form-meaning mappings. Moreover, the lexical meanings mapped with certain lexical forms in both contexts are checked with dictionaries.
Vocabulary learning in natural contexts is assumed to be more time-consuming and challenging for L2 learners than either vocabulary learning in enhanced contexts or direct vocabulary learning. Despite the differences in the presence/absence of context and in the way contexts are used, they have the same purpose of facilitating vocabulary learning. Yet no systematic research has been conducted to disentangle the complexity of their relat...