a rich view of lexical competence

A rich view of lexical competence

Peter J. Robinson

In this article I begin by examining some features of the negotiation of meaning between learners and teachers, where the goal of the interaction is to convey the meaning of a technical word from the teacher to a learner. I suggest that this examination leads us to distinguish between the declarative knowledge ‘that’ words have particular meanings, and the procedures we typically employ for realizing or ‘achieving’ this declarative knowledge. These procedures form part of our ‘procedural’ knowledge of ‘how’ to negotiate. A communicative view of the interactive nature of lexical negotiation requires that we focus as much on procedures as we do on the more narrowly defined declarative meanings which specialist words have. I then argue that this requires us to take a ‘richer’ view of what is involved in lexical competence than that which many vocabulary learning materials seem to be based on. My own proposal is to adopt Canale and Swain’s (1980) checklist of the dimensions of communicative competence, and I present exercise types which exemplify how these dimensions could be covered lexically.

General words, There is an obvious, and much-investigated difference between specific, technical words, and technical words and the more general ‘core’ words often used to convey negotiating meaning their meanings.1 The enabling facility which some words have has long

been recognized. It is particularly evident in the simplified language of ‘motherese’ and ‘foreigner talk’, and is as much in evidence in written language as in spoken language2. For example, the enabling facility of words is a criterion for selecting the words used in dictionary definitions, like this one from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English:

vermicelli: a food made from flour paste in the form of very thin strings which have been dried and are made soft again by boiling.

The enabling facility of such words as made soft, the form of thin strings, etc., is a feature too of the subtechnical language used in the oral explanation of more technical concepts. Hutchinson and Waters (1981) have demon- strated the difficulty which learners face in coping with these words. They claim that it is not the performance repertoire of a technical, specialist vocabulary which is called on in giving and understanding technical explanations, but language like:

‘Now copper is a. . is very ductile. What do we mean by ductile? - It’ll stretch - we can stretch it, we can change its shape, yes.’ (1981: 6)

Hutchinson and Waters conclude from their observations that ‘the student

274 ELT Journal Volume 43/4 October 1989 © Oxford University Press 1989

does not need the specific vocabulary of his [sic] subject area prior to starting his course. He needs the ability to recognize the glossing tech- niques whereby teachers introduce specific terms, and the ability to ask questions when an explanation is not given. But the basic resource of both these strategies is a fund of general vocabulary in which the explanation will be expressed.’ (1981: 6-7).

These ‘general’ words are thrown up, together with more ‘specific’ words, in any frequency count of a specific language area. Widdowson calls words like do ‘procedural’. They take on the indexical value which particular contexts attribute to them, while having little independent meaning themselves (1983: 92). Sinclair and Renouf, working on the COBUILD corpus of English text, have also identified the fact that these words tend to change their meaning depending on the textual context in which they are embedded. They refer to such words as ‘delexical’ (1988),

Asserting and In fact the two types of words seem to correspond to two different ways of assimilating meaning. Type 1 words, general words, are used in defining other words,

meanings but are attached to no particular schema, and depend on context for their occasional or ‘potential’ meaning. Type 2 words, specific words, are highly schematic, and have meaning independently of particular contexts in which they are used. However, they are less useful in giving definitions of other words. Type 1 meanings are realized through attributive behaviour, while Type 2 words seem to have more permanent and durable ‘fixed’ meanings.

The two sorts of meaning are involved, typically, in any negotiation, particularly those in the technical classroom demonstration. The effort of one participant is often to fix, or explain what she or he means by finding ‘the right word’, while the other partner, more suppliant, tries to ‘see’ what she or he means. In other words, one tries to assert a meaning, while the other tries to break down what is said into more simple and manageable units so as to assimilate them. The teacher is often called on, as in Hutchinson and Waters’ example above, to do both jobs, to offer the asserted meaning, and then in the face of incomprehension to break it down so as to make it more assimilable.

Here is another example of this taking place. The declarative knowledge, the meaning being asserted, is that of tripod. The procedural words used to break this down for the learner and render it assimilable are legs, three, and stand.

Learner Teacher and the, em, video camera is supported by a tripod, see, here ...

teacher, what means tripod? em ... it has three legs, see here... tri means three, pod means legs ... three legs . . . it, er, holds it up, it’s a sort of stand

stand yes, it stands on it.3

Knowledge ‘that’ and Knowing a word involves both knowing ‘that’ it has a particular meaning, knowledge ‘how’: and knowing ‘how’ it can be, and is being, used. The specialist vocabulary methodology and identified as belonging to specific fields seems to demand little more than

materials the declarative knowledge ‘that’ it has a certain fixed meaning: for example, the meaning of the word tripod, which is relatively fixed and non-negotiable,

A rich view of lexical competence 275

as opposed to those words of wider meaning potential like legs, and stand, which can be used to convey this meaning.

It is because of this wider ‘meaning potential’ that such general, basic

words constitute a useful common ground to which participants in conver- sation can retreat to sort out difficulties in negotiating meaning. But there are many quite complex conditions of occupancy of this common ground, and these affect the possible uses of such words. Their low lexical content

means that the users have to agree on the procedures to follow in attributing and inferring their values each time they are used. Such procedural words then require a simultaneous development of procedural ability in the

learner if they are to be of use. This has implications for pedagogy. The declarative and procedural

components of lexical competence demand, one could say, not only that we focus on groups of fairly specific and fairly general words respectively, but

also on quite different methodologies, and consequently different materials if both components are to be fully achieved. But the emphasis has been, for a long time in vocabulary teaching, on the accumulation and memorization of lists of definitions, and completion of test items that require the selection of the correct word from a given group to fill in a gap in a sentence. McCarthy has suggested this can result in ‘an atomized approach, an obsession with items in isolation and with definition, and an overall pre- occupation with lexis at clause- or sentence-level’ (McCarthy 1984: 14).

The ‘word store’ and But what checklists, and consequently what range of exercise types, do we the storekeeper have for representing the vastness of this view of the job involved in

developing lexical competence? The situation as regards the variety of

exercise types could now be said to be improving.4 But the job of learning vocabulary is still represented in many vocabulary development materials in the largely declarative terms I outlined previously, of learning a word-list and associated lists of definitions. Consequently exercises with instructions like the following still predominate:

1 In the blanks, write the most appropriate word or phrase from the list given below:

The reading on the _____ was nearly ninety______. (thermometer, degrees, etc.)

2 Match each word with its definition: a. To _____: to say that somebody is responsible for a crime. b. To _____: to subject someone to persistent ill-treatment.

(accuse, persecute, etc.)

3 Study the following words and the use of them: (an) object: An object is something you can touch that has a definite shape. The moon is a spherical o____ct.

Such materials derive from the ‘vocabulary-as-product’ view of lexical competence. In this sense the lexicon is a ‘word store’ of listed items. But if it is to be used, supplemented, updated, and drawn on, any store needs a ‘storekeeper’ practised in the application of principles for selecting and distributing the relevant and needed items; in this case, the words needed in discourse. A ‘rich’ view of the dimensions of lexical competence has therefore to account for the development of procedural ability, and inevitably therefore for the many ways lexical knowledge is drawn on in communi-

276 Peter J. Robinson

cation. I suggest, accordingly, that we can adopt Canale and Swain’s (1980) checklist of the dimensions of communicative competence as a way of dividing up the areas to be covered by our materials and methodologies for teaching lexis.

Communicative Canale (1983) describes communicative competence as ‘the underlying

competence systems of knowledge and skill required for communication’ (1983: 5), and distinguishes four areas of this competence:

1 Grammatical competence, concerned with mastery of the language code, vocabulary, and linguistic semantics.

2 Sociolinguistic competence, involved in decisions about appropriacy of language to context.

3 Discourse competence, the ability to construct and maintain in negotiation,

properly coherent talk and text. 4 Strategic competence, involved in decisions about how to repair breakdowns

that occur in communication, or to enhance the message.

Of course all these levels interact, but the point of separating them here is to examine the ‘coverage’ that might be given to each in developing lexical competence. To take two groups of students at the University of Bahrain, Gulf Polytechnic as an example, engineers and business students are likely to be involved in using language in different settings, to different addressees, and on different topics, and this would affect the sociolinguistic performance that we might wish to prioritize in their learning materials. Similarly, the situation of our students on an orientation year means that we might identify specific performance manifestations of strategic compe-

tence as most immediately relevant to their likely needs, for example asking for clarification by reformulating content, using reference sources to check understanding, or coping with background noise in a laboratory session.

Using this framework, I am now going to present some materials for learning and teaching vocabulary which have been developed in Bahrain. Though the emphasis is on developing procedural ability, and on the vocabulary we see as a means to further learning, my colleagues and I recognize the importance of declarative learning, and as this has an especial cultural saliency as a preferred mode of learning in Bahrain, I will begin with it, before moving on to materials more suited to the orientation I have outlined above.

Learning sty/es and Learning predisposition is, in a sense, Koranic, with the emphasis on rote

exercise types memorization. Vocabulary lends itself, from one perspective, quite readily

Rote learning to this declarative view of what it is to know and learn. Therefore, to provide a sense of continuity with their school education and cultural orientation, I provided students with various exercises which test vocabulary learnt in this way.

For example, there are many multiple-choice quizzes, with the emphasis on all-or-nothing answers; many ‘frames’ or definitional phrases which are recycled in computer lessons5 and which students like to learn by heart, for example:

When we subtract an amount, we take it away from a larger amount.

Words learnt in this way can then be tested via gap-filler quizzes of the sort described previously.


278

Contextualizing I am not very keen on weaning students off this sort of artificial fixation of meaning. But what I do want to do is balance it with some procedural orientation to establishing word meaning in fluctuating contexts. This is the idea that lies behind many of the Word Set exercises we use, which are much more heavily dependent on teacher elicitation, and aim to encourage learners to imagine ‘possible worlds’ to contextualize the presented lexis.

These exercises are therefore very open-ended, and draw on interpreta- tive procedures, but they do assume that the declarative base, the provisional definition, has been fixed in place first.

Word Sets Here is a puzzle. There is more than one answer which might be correct. Look at the words in italics. Imagine they have been used in a letter. Can you decide who the intended reader of the letter might be, what the letter might be about, and what the purpose of the letter might be? Tick the answers which you think might be correct.

inconvenient incorrect total a kind of problem subtract check

Intended reader: The letter is about: a computer programmer a wedding a shopkeeper a bill a teacher your salary a bank manager a new car

a car dealer Arabic history

your grandmother a meal

The purpose is: to persuade to amuse to warn to complain to teach to advertise to agree

My methodology in using this exercise has involved going round the class asking students to justify what seem to be unusual choices or decisions: How could it be about a meal? etc. The important thing is to exploit as much as possible the leeway which this gives students for imagining possible worlds or contexts which can justify their choices.

My provisional answer is that the reader could be any of those given, except the grandmother. The letter could be about any of the listed sub- jects, except Arabic history or a wedding (unless the wedding involves a bill for the reception). The purpose could be warning, teaching, or - most likely - complaining, (because of ‘inconvenient’, ‘incorrect’, and ‘check’). There are no absolutely correct answers to exercises like this. They are ways of making conscious the activity of sorting words into schemas and attributing frames of reference. These are what I mean by ‘word sets’. The idea is that the area or frame of reference suggested by the title will constrain the selection of likely words.

Peter J. Robinson

Associating The above contextualizing activities take place in relation to Word Sets which result from learner projections of possible shared sociolinguistic settings. They therefore draw on and develop a sociolinguistic knowledge of the conventions regulating participation in standardized speech events: how a particular addressor addresses a particular addressee to achieve a particular purpose through the particular channel of a written letter.

However, other relations between words are more cognitive and private. These relations are independent of any conventions regulating specific speech events. The Word Net exercise below aims to develop this network of private associations.

Word Nets Look at the word net for plentiful things in Bahrain. Try to complete it yourself by adding as many words for things that are plentiful as you can.

nn

Now can you do a word net for things that are scarce in Bahrain, or Gulf Polytechnic?

Strategy building Having touched on the sociolinguistic and grammatical dimensions of lexical competence, here is an exercise which refers back to my introduc- tion, in which I distinguished specific words from those of more general, basic meaning. The aim here is to practise strategies for using procedural words to paraphrase the meanings of more specific or technical words.

Using Basic Words Some words in English are very general and can be used instead of a lot of other words. Here are some very general words:

let way watch get go guess do

and here are some words from Unit 9. Can you use the general words above to paraphrase the meaning of these words?

disappear predict revise direction acquire observe enable


For example: What does enable mean? It means to help or let someone do something. What does observe mean? What does revise mean? Discuss the other words with your teacher. Which general words do you find helpful in paraphrasing and giving definitions?

Now ask your partner to explain the meaning of one of the words from Unit 9. See if he uses any of your general, basic words. He will ask you to explain a word. Use your own basic words when you reply Did you use any of these words?

used for a kind of can a sort of make usually is a which always has.

Following text chains I have defined discourse competence, briefly, as the ability to maintain properly cohesive and coherent talk and text. One illustration of this with respect to text which can be the focus for vocabulary exercises is the ability to distinguish between the two types of chaining which Hasan (1984) describes as the properties of coherent text. The first type of chain she calls an identity chain, as in this example:

identity chain: John

This chain establishes co-reference to a topic internal to the text. Similarity chains, however, reflect world or schema knowledge of semantic relations that are not text-specific, but are brought to the text and pre-exist it, as in this example:

similarity chain:

Notice how general words like pronouns he, they, etc. and verbs like do, make, etc. are important to forming and following identity chains, while similarity chains are made of more specific, lexical words. Such chains can be deleted in cloze exercises at a variety of levels, and on a variety of topics.

They can also be the focus for two types of listening exercise. Firstly, an intensive listening activity, where the student has to listen for and identify the order of references made to a particular topic in an extract from a lecture, e.g. ‘a hammer’: this thing, it, this heavy object, etc. Secondly, extensive listening exercises where students are asked to note down as many words as they can relating to a frame of reference or schema like the sea.


Puzzle value A final consideration to be mentioned here involves increasing appetite to learn by providing a variety of exercises which have a ‘puzzle value’ for the learner. Nation (I 983) is a good source of these.

Conclusion My aim in this article has been to distinguish between the declarative and procedural dimensions of vocabulary knowledge. I have also suggested that these two dimensions correspond to a large extent to two types of words, highly specific or technical, lexical words, and the more general delexical words. I have claimed that vocabulary materials in the past may have over- emphasized the declarative, static meaning that attaches to a technical

word, while ignoring procedural aspects of vocabulary learning. Knowing how to use procedural words to negotiate the meaning of more

technical words is essential to learners if they are to engage in fruitful classroom communication. I have proposed a framework for providing coverage of the communicative dimensions of lexical competence based on Canale and Swain’s checklist. The example exercise types given here are intended to develop awareness of the communicative potential of vocabulary for negotiating meaning, to provide contexts for exchanges and discussion, and for developing awareness of the structural environments which words typically have, and the textual relations they can enter into.6 • Received July 1988

Notes 1 See Carter 1986 and Stubbs 1986, who describe

various tests for coreness.

2 For a discussion of motherese, see Snow 1973; and of foreigner talk, see Ferguson 1971, and Blum and Levenston 1983.

3 This also provides an example of Allwright’s claim

(1986) that learners get all sorts of grammatical

information ‘via the questions they ask about

words’.

4 See Morgan and Rinvolucri 1986, Gairns and Red-

man 1985, McCarthy et al. 1985 for interesting

examples of new approaches to vocabulary exercise

types. 5 For some discussion of how we put vocabulary exer-

cises on a computer network, see Cramp 1987.

6 Thanks are due to my colleagues at the University of

Bahrain, Alan Cramp, Barbara Duff, and Tony

Watson, who helped in the development of these

materials and, latterly, colleagues and students at

the University of Pittsburgh, and Mike McCarthy at the University of Birmingham, with whom I have

discussed some of the ideas underlying this

approach.

References Allwright, R., S. Pit Corder, and R. Rossner. 1986.

‘Talking shop: language teaching and applied lin-

guistics’. ELT Journal 40/3:185-91.

Blum-Kulka, S., and E. A. Levenston. 1983. ‘Uni-

versals of lexical simplification’ in K. Faerch and G.

Kasper (eds.): Strategies in Interlanguage Communi- cation. London: Longman.

Canale, M. 1983. ‘From communicative competence

to language pedagogy’ in J. Richards and R.

Schmidt (eds.): Language and Communication. London:

Longman.

Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. ‘Theoretical bases of

communicative approaches to second language

teaching and testing’. Applied Linguistics 1/1:1-47.

Carter, R. 1986. ‘Core vocabulary and discourse in the

curriculum: a question of the subject’. RELC Journal 17/1:52-70.

Cramp, A. 1987. ‘Setting up a computer networking

system for the Gulf Polytechnic English Language

Unit’. The Voice of Technology 7/1:22-29.

Ferguson, C. 197 1. ‘Absence of copula and the notion

of simplicity’ in D. Hymes (ed.): Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Gairns, R. and S. Redman. 1986. Working with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hasan, R. 1984. ‘Coherence and cohesive harmony’ in

J. Flood (ed.): Understanding Reading Comprehension. Newark, Del: International Reading Association.

Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters. 1981. ‘Performance

and competence in ESP’. Applied Linguistics 2/1. McCarthy, M. J. 1984. ‘A new look at vocabulary in

EFL’. Applied Linguistics 5/1: 12-22.

McCarthy, M. J., A. McLean, and M. O’Malley. 1985. Proficiency Plus. Oxford: Blackwell.


Morgan, J. and M. Rinvolucri. 1986. Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nation, P. 1983. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Uni-

versity of Wellington, Occasional Paper no.7.

Sinclair, J. McH., and A. Renouf. 1988. ‘A lexical

syllabus for language learning’ in R. Carter and M.

J. McCarthy (eds.): Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Snow, C. 1973. ‘Mother’s speech to children learning

language’. Child Development 43:549/73. Stubbs, M. 1986. ‘Language development, lexical

competence and nuclear vocabulary’ in Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Widdowson, H. G. 1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The author Peter Robinson has a BA from the University of Wales,

a PGCE from the University of Nottingham, and an

MA from the University of London Institute of Edu-

cation. He has taught in Bahrain, England, Libya, the

United Arab Emirates, and most recently in the USA,

where he taught linguistic and applied linguistic

courses at the University of Pittsburgh.


a rich view of lexical competence

Documents