Definition Plus Collocation in Vocabulary Teaching and Learning

Joseph G. Stockdale III
cheoahjoe [at] yahoo.com

Introduction

Definition and collocation are both important in vocabulary learning and teaching. Definition is concerned with establishing a single word's meaning, whereas collocation takes definition for granted and is concerned with the words that typically appear with any particular word: the verbs that might occur with a noun, for example. Such collocational information often enables a word to be used.

In this paper, I examine definition and collocation as they relate to our presentations and dictionaries. It is my hope that, after reading this paper, teachers will be better able to assess the relative weight they pay to definition and collocation in their vocabulary presentations and explanations, and adjust their teaching accordingly, if necessary.

Presentations

When our focus is on definition, we might explain a verb like dream as follows:

"A dream is like a film in your head that you sometimes have when you are asleep."

When learners hear a presentation based on definition, their main purpose is to decode the stream of words with the goal of matching an L1 translation equivalent to the new word in their minds. They are less likely to notice and retain a collocating verb, and afterwards they are unlikely to come up with collocating adjectives like bad or scary on their own, much less an expression like, "Sweet dreams!"

When our focus is on collocation, we might say something like the following:

"An important verb for dream is have. Two frequently appearing modifiers for dream are bad and recurrent, and two prepositions that often occur with dream are about and in: 'I had a dream about.. and 'In my dream, I was ..' In addition, dream can be used as a modifier in words like dream catcher and dream diary. When we put a child to bed at night, we often say, 'Sweet dreams!'"

Both definition and collocation have their limitations. A presentation based only on collocation might enable a student to say, "I had a bad dream," but not know what they are saying. And a presentation based solely on definition would allow a student to match an L1 translation to dream, but perhaps not be able to use it. Definition plus collocation, on the other hand, makes for a complete presentation that allows for meaning and use.

Dictionaries

To find a word's definition, teachers and students can look in any number of definition-based dictionaries. In addition, there are bilingual dictionaries that provide translations, and picture dictionaries that supply pictures. Bilingual electronic dictionaries exist that will not only provide a translation, but pronounce the word and save it for download to a computer later. Using such resources, students can look a word up and find a definition, translation, or picture, and even hear the word pronounced.

To find a word's collocates, teachers can look in dictionaries of collocations such as the LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations (Hill and Lewis), or the Oxford Collocations Dictionary (2002). And this is a very good thing, because we are simply not very good at coming up with a word's collocates off the top of our heads (Fox).

Explaining Words

When our focus is on definition of single words, we commonly do things like provide a picture of a word, or bring realia to class to show students the object itself, or mention a synonym, opposite, superordinate (Gairns and Redman). Or we might explain by saying, "Best is the superlative of good." We might ask students to learn "word families" like grow,growth, grower in the hope that this will spur rapid acquisition. (DeCarrico).

When are emphasis is on collocation, we immediately encounter some problems with the above practices.

(1) Opposites. A word might have two opposites: the opposite of short might be long ortall, depending on if we are referring to a person's hair or a person's height. The opposite of a bad case of poison ivy is not a good one, but a mild one, and the opposite of rock-hard would not be rock-soft, but might be expressed as baby-soft.

Also, it is hard to say what an opposite is. Is enemy the opposite of friend? Friend might be contrasted with enemy in a proverb like, "A thousand friends are not enough, one enemy is too many." But in naturally occurring language friend is more often connected with words like the following: "family, friends and acquaintances," "friends, neighbors, co-workers," "friends and acquaintances," etc. Hopefully, the new dictionary of collocations will contain series like these.

(2) Synonyms. In certain contexts earth and world might be roughly synonymous, but when we use those words for expression we say, "the largest airport in the world," or "the largest airport on earth," not "the largest airport on world," or "the largest airport in the earth." Gairns and Redman (1986) point out that while break out may have the meaning ofstart in a sentence like, "A fire broke out," it would be quite wrong to say, "Class breaks out at 7:30 every morning," even if it seems like it.

(3) Superordinates. Boxing is often categorized as a sport, but it is a particular kind of sport, and might just as well be categorized as entertainment, business, a skill, art or a science.

Providing examples of words as they naturally occur in the frame, "X, Y and other / similar / related Zs" is a better way to provide hyponyms and superordinates for words. If we type "waterfalls and other" in a computer browser, we find things like, "beaches, lava flows, waterfalls, and other scenic attractions (Hawaii)" or "canyons, mountain ranges, waterfalls and other natural features," and "waterfalls and other obstacles (salmon)." Naturally occurring usages like these remind us that a waterfall can be many things, including a scenic attraction, a natural feature and an obstacle to fish. Hopefully, the dictionaries of collocations produced in the future will include examples of words being used in these frames.

(4) Word families. A word like grower is regularly derived from the verb, but is almost always premodified, and students need examples like "peach growers" and "sugar growers," and "chicken growers," if they are to actually use the word. The idea that you can "grow" chickens might surprise many students!

In general, the ways we mention opposites, synonyms, superordinates and word families are useful for grouping words, or establishing sense relations, but like all definition-based strategies don't really teach words for use. When our emphasis is on collocation, we might start out our explanation of better by saying, "Well, better is the comparative of good," or "Better is the opposite of worse," but we would go on to mention such exemplifications as "a better world / future / job" or expressions with verbs like "feel better" and "look better" and "get better" and "make something better," or modification with adverbs like, "a little / somewhat / quite / much / significantly better," etc.

Definition Versus Exemplification

When our focus is on definition, we commonly define a word by using it in the subject position (An X is...), often supply a superordinate, and supply a picture if possible. The following definition of donkey from the Collins Cobuild New Student's Dictionary contains all these features:

"A donkey is an animal like a small horse with long ears => see picture on page 815."

When we focus on collocation, we are more interested in exemplifications, both for analysis and production, as illustrated by the following sentence:

"My donkey helps me carry water four times a day."

Definitions are rather formal affairs. An exemplification, on the other hand, is an example of the word in use, may embody almost any thought, is conversational, and more revealing in terms of a word's collocates.

In the exemplification for donkey, the possessive adjective + noun collocation ("My donkey...") reminds us that someone usually owns a donkey, and the collocating verb ("My donkey helps me...") reminds us of the important role that donkeys play in many societies.

Exemplifications like these can be thought provoking (Fox), and affect the way we think about things. In many societies, for example, a woman without a donkey must be a donkey herself. Definition cannot provide such an insight, but exemplification can.

Comprehension Questions

When our focus is on identification or definition of single words, our comprehension questions mirror our focus. And so, after presenting a word like friend, we test comprehension with questions like, "What's a friend?" or "What's the opposite of friend?" or "What's friend in your language?"

When our focus is on collocation, our comprehension questions also mirror our focus, but we ask different kinds of questions. We might ask things like, "What are some verbs used with friend used as an object?" or "What kinds of friends are there?" or "What would I call I friend whom I met in the army or college?" or "Give me some modifiers for friend that relate to nationality," or "Give me some modifiers for friend that relate to the length of the relationship," or "what words often occur with friend in a series?" or "I'm a friend of Ali's ... now spell 'Ali's.'"

Notes

In classrooms and courses that emphasize vocabulary as the definition of single words, students typically annotate the alphabetized list of new vocabulary that begin each unit with L1 translations, and do the same for the word in context. Students will often write down a long list of unrelated words with their L1 translation on a piece of paper, and study it before a test.

In classrooms and courses that emphasize collocation, students are far more likely to highlight a collocating verb, or circle a collocating preposition. And their notes will look quite different. They might write down a noun along with five or six verbs. Or an adjective and five or six things it can modify. Or a verb, followed by five or six collocating adverbs. Such notes generally include few or no L1 translations.

Recycling

In a curriculum that emphasizes collocation, no opportunity is missed to recycle a vocabulary item from the start of the course to the end. This level of recycling is quite different to what most of us are used to. For example, heed and ignore would not simply be mentioned in the context of advice, but recycled when we introduce warning, order,recommendation, suggestion, etc. Constant recycling is a hallmark of collocation, and an important reason why students end up using and learning words.

Teachers who teach the same curriculum over and over again, and stick to it, are most at risk for forgetting to recycle words, and I offer myself as an example. For years I taught "limb" in one unit, and "artificial" in another, without ever thinking to put them together to create artificial limb. And that is in spite of the fact that I am an amputee, and wear one!

Conclusion

When we focus solely on definition, our students are less likely to be able to use vocabulary for expression, and they miss countless opportunities to recycle words they know. If we focus only on collocation, students may be able to use words but not know what they are saying. The solution to either approach's flaws is obvious. A teacher need only add definition to collocation, or collocation to definition, to to compliment each other. To give definition its due, it must come first.

Collocation is of much higher importance, however, in terms of use, acquisition and ultimate success in language learning. In a vocabulary presentation, one-tenth of our time should be spent on establishing a definition, and the rest of the time should be spent on collocation and use.

Future dictionaries of collocations would be improved by inclusion of words in series connected by and, or and versus, and words as they appear in the frame "X, Y and other / similar / related Zs." They will also hopefully include possessive noun + noun collocations (city's neighborhoods / ins and outs / attractions, etc.) and collocations in the frame "X and it's / their Y" (data and their interpretation / storage / analysis / interpretation, etc.) as a way of further associating vocabulary.

Teachers are more accustomed to providing definition than collocation in their presentations. This will change, however, as dictionaries of collocations catch on and new and better dictionaries of collocations appear on the market. With a dictionary of collocations, a teacher can simply look up a word, view a word's collocates, and incorporate the information and examples in a presentation. In time, teachers will be as quick to think of a word's collocates as they are now to think of a definition.

References

• Cobuild New Student's Dictionary (2^nd edition), 2002. UK: HarperCollins.
• Carter, R. 1987. Vocabulary: Applied linguistics perspectives. London: Routledge.
• DeCarrico, J. 2001. Vocabulary learning and teaching. In Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3^rd edition), edited by M. Celcia-Murcia. pp. 285-299. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
• Fox, G. 1987. The case for examples. In Looking up, An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing, edited by J. Sinclair. pp. 173-149. London: HarperCollins.
• Gairns, R., and S. Redman. 1986. Working with words: A guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hill, J., and M. Lewis, eds. 1997. Dictionary of selected collocations. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
• Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English (2002). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

---

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 5, May 2004
http://iteslj.org/

---

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Stockdale-Vocabulary.html

Considerations of Choosing an English-English Dictionary for ESL Students

Lindsay Taylor
ltaylor1 [at] unbsj.ca
Saint John College, University of New Brunswick (Saint John, Canada)

An English-English dictionary is an essential and invaluable resource for ESL students at various levels, yet many of the dictionaries recommended to students are too sophisticated for students' lexical abilities. This article will discuss the criteria instructors should consider when selecting and recommending English-English dictionaries, and will examine how dictionary definitions can vary in degree of difficulty, thereby making vocabulary learning more complex.

Introduction

Acquiring new words is a primary concern for most ESL students, as they seem to feel that an extensive vocabulary is an essential component of becoming a fluent English speaker. As a result, ESL students learn to rely heavily on English-English dictionaries--hard copy and electronic--to facilitate the language learning process, but often use dictionaries that are too linguistically complex or which act merely as translators. As a result, students often look to their English instructors for suggestions on which is the best dictionary to help them better understand and learn the language. The answer to this question seems simple – buy a good English-English dictionary. But what exactly constitutes a good English-English dictionary? The answer cannot only be determined by which brand of dictionary is most affordable or most available, nor can it be based on an instructor's own familiarity with a particular dictionary. When recommending an English-English dictionary to ESL students, an instructor must consider a number of elements such as the level of the students, and the degree of ease with which the dictionary can be used. An instructor must also consider whether students have the knowledge of how a dictionary functions and of how to interpret and use the information provided in dictionary definitions.

This paper will examine many of the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of English-English dictionaries when used as a tool for language learning among ESL students in an attempt at providing a guide for instructors to use when recommending dictionaries to students. This examination will include a discussion of what constitutes a good dictionary as well as an analysis of ESL students' prior knowledge of dictionary use.  Many of the findings discussed within are based on experiences with ESL students studying in an advanced-level academic preparatory program at a Canadian university, and their experiences with English-English dictionaries. It will also discuss the challenges that English-English dictionary definitions can pose for ESL students and will offer suggestions as to what instructors and students should be looking for in definitions when selecting English-English dictionaries.

Assumptions about Dictionary Use

An appropriate place to begin is with a discussion of the various assumptions that both instructors and dictionary publishers seem to make about students (ESL in particular) and their use of dictionaries. First, many ESL instructors seem to assume that all students are equipped with the knowledge of how an English-English dictionary functions and is used. Perhaps this stems from their personal experiences as students, whose teachers expected and required them to know how to use a dictionary. Likewise, it could derive from the expectation that students arrive in their classes with an understanding of how L1 (first language/native language) dictionaries function, and so they assume these skills are transferable to use with an English-English dictionary. These expectations and assumptions are far from the reality of the situation. When asked whether they had ever been given explicit instruction by a foreign or domestic instructor on how to use an English-English dictionary, thirty-one out of thirty-two ESL students responded that they had never been formally introduced to an English-English dictionary and its functions. Even more surprising is the fact that only one out of thirty-two students surveyed claimed to have been taught how to use an L1 dictionary.

While these results are not true of every ESL student, what remains is that instructors cannot assume that students are familiar or comfortable with dictionary use. The same seems to be true of dictionary publishers who assume that students are being provided with the prior instruction necessary to use a dictionary properly, while also assuming that students have the language skills necessary to use such an important reference tool effectively and with ease. And while most English-English dictionaries include introductory guides designed to facilitate students' dictionary use, these guides seem to offer very limited assistance to students below a high-intermediate level of proficiency. As McKeown (1993) indicates, "dictionary consultation assumes a lexical, linguistic sophistication on the part of the user. It demands the user possess broad semantic categories to relate the unfamiliar word&". Yet, ESL instructors know that such skills are necessary for both native and non-native speakers if they are to learn unfamiliar words through the use of a dictionary. Therefore, it is essential for instructors to provide explicit instruction in how to use an English-English dictionary if students are expected to benefit from dictionary consultation.

Challenges of Dictionary Use for ESL Students

It is clear that with proper guidance and instruction on prudent use of English-English dictionaries, ESL students' language learning can be made much easier. Not only can dictionary consultation assist students, it is considered the initial step in learning a new word (Gonzalez 1999). Dictionary use cannot be effective, however, unless performed with a well-structured, user-friendly dictionary. ESL Instructors are typically aware of how frustrating dictionaries can be, especially in terms of how definitions are presented and worded, but for second-language learners, the wording used in typical definitions can be extremely intimidating. As Rhoder and Huerster (2002) point out in their research on the relationship between dictionary use and vocabulary learning, "Definitions are short, abstract generalizations often written in dense, embedded text. No concrete examples are offered, and ideas are never repeated in different words&". In light of the difficulties certain dictionaries present for ESL students, what should instructors be looking for in a good dictionary for their students? In other words, what are the criteria of a useful and effective English-English dictionary, especially for ESL students?

Criteria of a Good English-English Dictionary

While most English-English dictionaries provide the same standard pieces of information about each word, including part of speech, phonetic spelling, and a list of meanings for each word, it is the way in which these pieces of information are presented that determines whether a student can benefit from using the dictionary. Therefore, a good English-English dictionary for ESL students should include most, if not all, of the following components:

• A list of possible definitions of a word presented in order of frequency of use (most common to least common). If structured this way, students will be able to recognize which is the most popular use of a word, rather than trying to determine this independently.
• Definitions that show high levels of differentiation. This will enable students to become familiar with the various uses of a word without a great deal of confusion and additional searching.
• Definitions should be followed by useful and clear contextual examples, or by what Gonzalez (1999) calls, "high explanatory support&". This is likely the most essential component of a good dictionary, as it is these types of examples that provide students with knowledge of the practical uses of a word. Without practical and clear examples of how a word can be used, dictionaries provide nothing but meaningless lists of unfamiliar words.
• Finally, dictionaries should present multiple pieces of information in a clear, organized, and non-intimidating manner for the user (Gonzalez).

Recognizing what students require from a dictionary to facilitate language acquisition is crucial to an instructor's ability to make an informed recommendation to students. This is only half the battle, however, considering the multitude and variety of English-English dictionaries currently on the market. Instructors must be conscious of students' needs, but must also familiarize themselves with the numerous types and brands of dictionaries available to students. While the simplest solution would be to recommend a time-tested academic favorite, or to have students purchase dictionaries designed specifically for second-language learning, it seems likely that ESL students beyond a high-beginner level would benefit more from using a regular English-English dictionary designed for either native-speakers or general academic study. In this way, students will be exposed to larger vocabularies, while also feeling that the dictionary they are using is not over-simplifying the language because they are second language learners.

While aspects such as layout, structure, and size of word bank are important factors in whether an English-English dictionary is useful to ESL students, it is the definitions themselves that are the determining factor for ESL students. As a result, instructors must recognize that definitions provided in English-English dictionaries can vary greatly in degree of difficulty. Often, the definitions provided in English-English dictionaries are abstract and difficult to interpret.  This reflects the notion that dictionaries often provide dense, multi-layered definitions that only serve to be cognitively disruptive (Rhoder & Huerster 2002) to students' learning process. This problem stems from the fact that many definitions are filled with numerous other words that are most likely unfamiliar to ESL students, which necessitates a never-ending process of searching for word after word. This endless searching can result in the student's inability to learn the meaning of the word he was originally searching for. Neither are definitions always followed by practical, contextual examples of the word, which leaves the user to either guess at how the word is used, or to skip over the word altogether.

In selecting English-English dictionaries that will facilitate ESL students' language learning rather than complicate it, instructors should look for dictionaries that offer definitions which contain wording that is straightforward and easy to understand. Likewise, they should look for definitions in which there are relatively few words that would confuse the user. Finally, to further students' understanding of a word's definition, English-English dictionaries should also provide clear, contextualized examples of how each word is used.

Conclusion

English-English dictionaries are an essential tool in building language for both native and non-native speakers, and as such must be used wisely and with caution. Regardless of a student's level of English proficiency, instructors must recognize that the skills necessary for proper dictionary consultation are not inherent; they must be acquired through explicit instruction and practice. They must also recognize that students rely heavily on the advice of their instructors, especially when making the decision to purchase a dictionary, a book that is likely to become one of students' biggest and most valuable language learning resources. Consequently, instructors need to educate themselves about what components are most important in a student dictionary, as well as of how to teach students the skills required to use a dictionary properly. Most instructors recognize that their students have not yet developed the extensive language skills required to filter meaning out of the abstract and dense wording often used in academic English-English dictionaries, therefore they must recommend dictionaries which are level-appropriate, and which will facilitate students' language learning. In doing so, they will not only be helping their students acquire language in a practical way, but will also be providing them with a sense of independence in the learning process.

References

• Gonzalez, O. (November 1999). Building vocabulary: Dictionary consultation and the ESL student. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 3, 264.
• McKeown, M.G. (1993). Creating effective definitions for young word learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 17-31.
• Rhoder, C. & Huerster, P. (May 2002) Use dictionaries for word learning with caution. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45, 8. 730.
• Taylor, L. (January 2003) Student Survey on Reading. Created for use in the ESL Support Program. University of New Brunswick, Saint John.

---

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 7, July 2004
http://iteslj.org/

---

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Taylor-Dictionaries.html

Corpus Linguistics: What It Is and How It Can Be Applied to Teaching

Daniel Krieger
dannykrieger99 [at] hotmail.com
Siebold University of Nagasaki (Nagasaki, Japan)

Introduction

In recent years a lot of investigation has been devoted to how computers can facilitate language learning.  One specific area on the computer frontier which still remains quite open to exploration is corpus linguistics.  Having heard a declaration that corpora will revolutionize language teaching, I became very curious to find out for myself what corpus studies have to offer the English language teacher and how feasible such an implementation would be.  This article will address those questions by examining what corpus linguistics is, how it can be applied to teaching English, and some of the issues involved. Resources are also included which will assist anyone who is interested in pursuing this line of study further.

What is Corpus Linguistics?

Corpora, Concordancing, and Usage

In order to conduct a study of language which is corpus-based, it is necessary to gain access to a corpus and a concordancing program. A corpus consists of a databank of natural texts, compiled from writing and/or a transcription of recorded speech.  A concordancer is a software program which analyzes corpora and lists the results.  The main focus of corpus linguistics is to discover patterns of authentic language use through analysis of actual usage. The aim of a corpus based analysis is not to generate theories of what is possible in the language, such as Chomsky's phrase structure grammar which can generate an infinite number of sentences but which does not account for the probable choices that speakers actually make.  Corpus linguistics’ only concern is the usage patterns of the empirical data and what that reveals to us about language behavior.

Register Variation

One frequently overlooked aspect of language use which is difficult to keep track of without corpus analysis is register. Register consists of varieties of language which are used for different situations.  Language can be divided into many registers, which range from the general to the highly specific, depending upon the degree of specificity that is sought.  A general register could include fiction, academic prose, newspapers, or casual conversation, whereas a specific register would be sub-registers within academic prose, such as scientific texts, literary criticism, and linguistics studies, each with their own field specific characteristics.  Corpus analysis reveals that language often behaves differently according to the register, each with some unique patterns and rules.

The Advantages of Doing Corpus-Based Analyses

Corpus linguistics provides a more objective view of language than that of introspection, intuition and anecdotes. John Sinclair (1998) pointed out that this is because speakers do not have access to the subliminal patterns which run through a language.  A corpus-based analysis can investigate almost any language patterns--lexical, structural, lexico-grammatical, discourse, phonological, morphological--often with very specific agendas such as discovering male versus female usage of tag questions, children's acquisition of irregular past participles, or counterfactual statement error patterns of Japanese students. With the proper analytical tools, an investigator can discover not only the patterns of language use, but the extent to which they are used, and the contextual factors that influence variability. For example, one could examine the past perfect to see how often it is used in speaking versus writing or newspapers versus fiction.  Or one might want to investigate the use of synonyms like begin and start or big/large/great to determine their contextual preferences and frequency distribution.

Applying Corpus Linguistics to Teaching

According to Barlow (2002), three realms in which corpus linguistics can be applied to teaching are syllabus design, materials development, and classroom activities.

Syllabus Design

The syllabus organizes the teacher's decisions regarding the focus of a class with respect to the students’ needs.  Frequency and register information could be quite helpful in course planning choices. By conducting an analysis of a corpus which is relevant to the purpose a particular class, the teacher can determine what language items are linked to the target register.

Materials Development

The development of materials often relies on a developer's intuitive sense of what students need to learn. With the help of a corpus, a materials developer could create exercises based on real examples which provide students with an opportunity to discover features of language use.  In this scenario, the materials developer could conduct the analysis or simply use a published corpus study as a reference guide.

Classroom Activities

These can consist of hands on student-conducted language analyses in which the students use a concordancing program and a deliberately chosen corpus to make their own discoveries about language use.  The teacher can guide a predetermined investigation which will lead to predictable results or can have the students do it on their own, leading to less predictable findings. This exemplifies data driven learning, which encourages learner autonomy by training students to draw their own conclusions about language use.

Teacher/Student Roles and Benefits

The teacher would act as a research facilitator rather than the more traditional imparter of knowledge. The benefit of such student-centered discovery learning is that the students are given access to the facts of authentic language use, which comes from real contexts rather than being constructed for pedagogical purposes, and are challenged to construct generalizations and note patterns of language behavior. Even if this kind of study does not have immediately quantifiable results, studying concordances can make students more aware of language use.  Richard Schmidt (1990), a proponent of consciousness-raising, argues that “what language learners become conscious of -- what they pay attention to, what they notice...influences and in some ways determines the outcome of learning." According to Willis (1998), students may be able to determine:

• the potential different meanings and uses of common words
• useful phrases and typical collocations they might use themselves
• the structure and nature of both written and spoken discourse
• that certain language features are more typical of some kinds of text than others

Barlow (1992) suggests that a corpus and concordancer can be used to:

• compare language use--student/native speaker, standard English/scientific English, written/spoken
• analyze the language in books, readers, and course books
• generate exercises and student activities
• analyze usage--when is it appropriate to use obtain rather than get?
• examine word order
• compare similar words--ask vs. request

Problematic Issues Involved

Several challenges are involved in implementing the use of a corpus for the purpose of teaching.  The first is that of corpus selection. For some teaching purposes, any large corpus will serve.  Some corpora are available on-line for free (see appendix 2) or on disk.  But the teacher needs to make sure that the corpus is useful for the particular teaching context and is representative of the target register.  Another option is to construct a corpus, especially when the target register is highly specific. This can be done by using a textbook, course reader, or a bunch of articles which the students have to read or are representative of what they have to read.  A corpus does not need to be large in order to be effective.  The primary consideration is that of relevance to the students--it ought to be selected with the learning objectives of the class in mind, matching the purpose for learning with the corpus.

Related to the issue of corpus selection is that of corpus bias, which can cause frustration for the teacher and student.  This is because the data can be misleading; if one uses a very large general corpus, it may obscure the register variation which reveals important contextual information about language use.  The pitfall is that a corpus may tell us more about itself than about language use.  Another obstacle to confront is the comprehensibility issue: if you use concordancing in a class, it can be quite difficult for the students (or even the teacher) to understand the data that it provides.  Lastly, the issue of learning style differences--for some students, discovery learning is simply not the optimal approach. All of these points reinforce the caveat that careful consideration is required before a new technology is introduced in the classroom, especially one which has not been thoroughly explored and streamlined.
 

Exploiting a Corpus for a Classroom Activity

Although corpora may sound reasonable in theory, applying it to the classroom is challenging because the information it provides appears to be so chaotic.  For this reason, it is the teacher's responsibility to harness a corpus by filtering the data for the students.  Although I support having students conduct their own analyses, at present I see corpora’s greatest potential as a source for materials development.  Susan Conrad (2000) suggests that materials writers take register specific corpus studies into account.  Biber, Conrad and Reppen (1998) emphasize the need for materials writers to acknowledge the frequency which corpus studies reveal of words and structures in their materials design. (See Appendix 1 for an example).

Taking a Closer Look at "Any"

As an English teacher, I have always taught "any" in the following way:

• Interrogatives: Are there any Turkish students in your class?
• Negatives: No, there aren't any Turkish students in my class.
• Affirmatives: *Yes, there are any Turkish students in my class.

A corpus study by Mindt (1998) concluded that 50% of any usage takes place in affirmative statements, 40% in negative statements, and only 10% in interrogatives.  My own concordance analysis bore his claim out, so I constructed the following exercise to represent the percentage distribution of the three structural uses of any, using ten representative examples. The purpose of this exercise is to get the students to discover three usage patterns and their relative frequency.  These concordance lines can also be exploited for other purposes such as defining functions and common language chunks of any. It is assumed that an exercise like this would be part of a lesson context in which the students were studying quantifiers or something related.

Appendix 1

A Closer Look at "Any"

Part 1

Read through the following lines taken from a concordance of the word any.

• This is going to be a test like any other test, like, for example
• working with you.. If there are any questions about how we're going to
• and I didn't receive any materials for the November meeting
• and it probably won't make any difference. I mean, that's the next
• You can do it any way you want.
• Do you want to ask any questions? make any comments?
• I don't have any problem with that. I'm just saying
• if they make any changes, they would be minor changes.
• I think we ought to use any kind of calculator. I think that way
• I see it and it doesn't make any sense to me, but I can take that

Source: Corpus of Spoken Professional American English

What conclusions can you draw about the use of any?

Part 2

What are the three main uses of any in order of frequency?

Any 1:

Any 2:

Any3:

Appendix 2

Links to Help You Get Started

• English Corpora and Concordancers for on-line use--jump right in and try it.
• http://vlc.polyu.edu.hk/
• http://www.edict.com.hk/concordance/WWWConcappE.htm
• Tim John's web page on concordancing (geared toward language teachers):
• http://web.bham.ac.uk/johnstf/timconc.htm
• Catherine Ball's web page on concordances and corpora (provides a useful tutorial):
• http://www.georgetown.edu/cball/corpora/tutorial.html
• Mike Barlow's corpus linguistics website:
• http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~barlow/corpus.html
• David Lee's bookmarks for corpus-based linguistics:
• http://devoted.to/corpora

References

• Altenberg, Bengt & Granger, Sylviane (2001) The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied linguistics Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 173-194
• Aston, guy (1997) Enriching the learning environment: corpora in ELT, In Gerry Knowles, Tony Mcenery, Stephen Fligelstone, Anne Wichman, (Eds.) Teaching and language corpora . Longman pp. 51-66
• Barlow, Michael ( 1992) Using Concordance Software in Language Teaching and Research. In Shinjo, W. et al. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Foreign Language Education and Technology. Kasugai, Japan: LLAJ & IALL pp. 365-373
• Barlow, Michael (2002) Corpora, concordancing, and language teaching. Proceedings of the 2002 KAMALL International Conference. Daejon, Korea
• Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan (2001) Corpus based research in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 331-335
• Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan & Reppen, Randi (1998) Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use . Cambridge
• Conrad, Susan (2000) Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly Vol. 34, pp. 548-560
• Fox, Gwyneth (1998) Using corpus data in the classroom, In Brian Tomlinson (Ed.)Materials development in language teaching, Cambridge
• Leech, Geoffrey (1997) Teaching in language corpora: a convergence, In Gerry Knowles, Tony Mcenery, Stephen Fligelstone, Anne Wichman, (Eds.) Teaching and language corpora . Longman pp. 1-22
• McCarthy, Michael & Carter, Ronald (2001) Size isn't everything: spoken English, corpus, and the classroom. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 337-340
• Mindt, Dieter (1997) Corpora and the teaching of English in Germany, In Gerry Knowles, Tony Mcenery, Stephen Fligelstone, Anne Wichman, (Eds.) Teaching and language corpora . Longman pp. 40-50
• Nation, I.S.P (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language . Cambridge
• Schmidt, Richard (1990) Input, interaction, attention, and awareness: the case for consciousness-raising in second language teaching. Paper prepared for presentation at Enpuli Encontro Nacional Professores Universitarios de Lengua Inglesa, Rio de Janeiro
• Sinclair, John (1998) Corpus evidence in language description, In Gerry Knowles, Tony Mcenery, Stephen Fligelstone, Anne Wichman, (Eds.) Teaching and language corpora . Longman pp. 27-39
• Stevens, Vance (1995) Concordancing with language learners: Why? When? What?CAELL Journal Vol 6, No. 2 pp. 2-10.
• Stevens, Vance (1991) Classroom concordancing: Vocabulary materials derived from relevant, authentic text. English for Specific Purposes Vol. 10, pp. 35-46.
• Thurstun, Jennifer & Candlin, Christopher (1998) Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 267-280
• Willis, Jane (1998) Concordances in the classroom without a computer, In Brian Tomlinson (Ed.) Materials development in language teaching, Cambridge

---

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IX, No. 3, March 2003
http://iteslj.org/

---

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Krieger-Corpus.html

Interlingual Transfer of Idioms by Arab Learners of English

Abdulmoneim Mahmoud
amahmoud [at] squ.edu.om
Sultan Qaboos University (Sultanate of Oman)

Introduction

Interlingual transfer (i.e. transfer from the mother tongue or any other previously learned language) in foreign language learning is a major cognitive strategy that learners fall back on when their linguistic means falls short of achieving their communicative ends. Needless to say, the mother tongue is an additional source for hypothesis formation that the first language learner does not have. The influence of the mother tongue and the pervasiveness of interlingual transfer is indisputable, especially in learning situations where students' exposure to the foreign language is confined to a few hours per week of formal classroom instruction, (for more information see e.g. Mahmoud 2000). Thus, interlingual transfer is a strategy that is readily available to the learners to compensate for the inadequacies when attempting to communicate in the foreign language.

Deviations resulting from interlingual transfer have been recorded at all linguistic levels, (see e.g. Gass and Selinker, 1983, 1994; Odlin, 1989). This paper sheds light on the transfer of idiomatic expressions from Arabic into English, an area that has not received much attention so far. Very few studies (e.g. Kharma and Hajjaj, 1989; Mahmoud, 2002) touch on idioms in passing as a part of a review of the difficulties that Arab students face when learning English as a foreign language (EFL). This scarcity of studies on the transfer of idioms could be attributed to the fact that students cannot understand and use idioms unless they attain a fairly advanced level of proficiency in the foreign language. Even then, EFL students' ability to comprehend and produce idioms does not go anywhere near that of a native speaker (see Baker, 1992; James, 1998). EFL learners usually manage to express themselves in plain non-idiomatic language.

An idiom is a group of words which, as a whole, has a different meaning from the meaning of the individual words it contains. Hence, the meaning of the idiomatic expression is not the sum total of the words taken individually. Accordingly, an idiom is learned and used as a single unit of language; it should not be analyzed into its constituent elements. Idioms are sometimes referred to as 'fixed expressions' because in many cases the users should not make linguistic changes such as adding or dropping words, replacing a word with another, or changing the order of words. In some cases, slant lines and brackets are used in dictionaries to indicate alternative words and words that can be left out respectively, (see e.g. Cowie and Mackin, 1975; Seidl and McMordie, 1992; Shalati and Huda, 2000).

Like single lexical items, some idiomatic expressions are common while others are language-specific. Whether common or language-specific, their frequent, spontaneous and appropriate daily use is an indication of native or near-native command of the language. In this respect, Kharma and Hajjaj (1989: 73) say "the foreign learner of English who tries to avoid them â€| will immediately single himself out as a foreigner". However, the learner's non-use of idiomatic expressions could be also be due to the lack of knowledge (i.e. ignorance) rather than 'avoidance' which implies knowledge and choice to use or not, (for more information on avoidance see e.g. Hulstijn and Marchena, 1989; Laufer and Eliasson, 1993). Idiomaticity may not be expected of many foreign language learners; their non-use of idioms is attributed to their low level of proficiency in the language. Arabic-speaking learners of EFL are not different in this respect. After ten years of formal classroom instruction, many of them hardly attain an intermediate level of proficiency in EFL. The purpose of this study is to present empirical data verifying the assumption that low proficiency in the foreign language encourages interlingual transfer. Like native speakers of English, Arabic speakers use idioms when communicating in their mother tongue. It is the intention in this study to see whether they transfer those idioms when they write in EFL.

Empirical Data

Relevant data were collected from paragraphs, essays and term papers written by Arabic-speaking second-year university students majoring in English, (academic years 1995/96 to 2000/01). Students from various batches wrote those paragraphs and essays as weekly assignments in partial fulfillment of the requirements of their reading and writing courses. A total of 124 idioms (excluding phrasal verbs and binomials) were found in 3220 pieces written by 230 students. Out of the 124 idioms detected, 25 (i.e. 20%) were grammatically, lexically and contextually correct. Upon close scrutiny, over two thirds (18 idioms) of these correctly used idioms were found to have Arabic equivalents. They were contextually, formally and semantically equivalent to the corresponding Arabic idioms. The following are examples of correct idioms:

• history repeats itself
• a white lie
• behind his back
• twist his arm
• the black list
• between the lines

The fact that these correctly produced idioms have Arabic equivalents cannot be taken as evidence of positive interlingual transfer. The remaining seven idioms out of the 25 correct idioms had no grammatical and/or lexical Arabic equivalents. Informal discussions with some students revealed that those idioms were either picked up from the teacher in or outside the classroom or deliberately taught or students learned them from dictionaries. Here are some examples :

• raining cats and dogs
• a man of straw
• in line with
• thumb a lift

The remaining 99 (i.e. 80%) idioms were all used in the right context. However, 78 of them contained grammatical or lexical errors and the rest (21) were Arabic-specific. Spelling errors were not considered because Arabic and English are completely different in this respect. These linguistically incorrect idioms could be grouped into the following three main cross-linguistic categories:

(1) Same meaning, different form (66 idioms)

The difference in form ranged from a single grammatical or lexical item to a whole phrase. Most of the grammatical errors were in the areas of articles and prepositions.

[a] Grammatical errors

• the eye by the eye (= an eye for an eye)
• the silence is from gold (= silence is golden)
• from the cover to the cover (= from cover to cover)
• a drop in an ocean (= a drop in the ocean)
• in his face (= to his face)
• in my service (= at my service)
• hand by hand (= hand in hand)
• by any price (= at any price)
• crocodiles' tears (= crocodile tears)

[b] Lexical errors

• gave me the red eye (= evil)
• from time to another (= time)
• a cat has seven lives (= nine)

The errors in this category could be attributed to negative transfer from Arabic. In all cases where the definite article "the " was incorrectly added, Arabic uses the definite article (al). In case of * a drop in an ocean , Arabic uses a zero article to indicate indefiniteness (nuqta fi moheet ). The preposition errors are due to translation from Arabic where the preposition (bi) is most cases rendered as "by " and (fi) as "in ". The use of the noun (thahab) in Arabic accounts for the use of the same grammatical class of the word in English (*silence is from gold ). In the Arabic equivalent of the English idiom "crocodile tears ", both nouns are plural (dumu attamaseeh). The lexical substitution in the above examples could also be attributed to negative interlingual transfer of the Arabic idioms which are identical to the English ones except for one word. A few of the incorrect idioms contained both grammatical and lexical errors reflecting the words and structure of the corresponding Arabic idioms as in :

• took his right by his hand (= took the law into his hands)
• the luck smiled to him (= fortune smiled on him)
• they added the fire wood (= added fuel to the fire)
• the chance of the age (= the chance of a lifetime)

In a number of cases of negative transfer, the error could be attributed to the fact that a completely different form is used in Arabic to express the same meaning of the English idiom as in:

• in the seventh sky (= on cloud nine)
• he was an ostrich (= chicken-hearted)
• drink from the sea (= go and fly a kite)
• as their mothers born them (= in their birthday suits)
• a ring in her finger (= under her thumb)

(2) Same form, different meaning (12 idioms)

There are cases where Arabic and English use similar words and structures to express slightly or completely different meanings. Transfer from Arabic, in this case, leads to formally correct but semantically incorrect use of idioms. The following are examples of idioms that were contextually incorrect. Most of them were related to the parts of the body.

Idiom	Meaning in English	Meaning in Arabic
day after day	every day	every other day
red-faced	embarrassed	furious
pull one's leg	(jokingly) say something untrue	let him talk
stretch one's legs	take a walk	lie down
head over heels	completely (in love)	upside down

(3) Arabic Language-specific Idioms (21 idioms)

As in any language, there are language specific idiomatic expressions in Arabic reflecting the Arab culture and environment. Transfer of such idioms to English may result in comprehension problems if the listener or reader is not familiar with the Arabic language and culture. The following are some Arabic language-specific idioms detected in the written assignments examined:

• he paid in spite of his nose
• it was Osman's shirt
• clear and no dust on it
• tries to put ash in the eyes
• as if birds on their heads
• we left the camel with the load

Conclusion and Implications

This paper sheds light on the interlingual transfer of idiomatic expressions, an issue which has not received much attention. The scarcity of studies in this area is justified since foreign-language students usually express themselves in non-idiomatic language, hence are not expected to use idioms unless they attain a native-like command of the language. Such a high level of proficiency is unlikely to be attained by most students even after university education in contexts where exposure to EFL is confined to classroom instruction.

This study presents empirical data related to the use of idioms by students in classroom EFL learning situations. The small number of idioms used by 230 university students (only 124 idioms in 3220 written assignments) together with the high frequency negative transfer (80%) are indicative of the problems encountered in learning and using idioms. Baker (1992) attributes the non-use of idioms by Arabic speakers to the influence of written formal Arabic where idioms are avoided. However, idioms are frequently used in non-standard spoken Arabic and some of these idioms are transferred from standard Arabic. The variety of Arabic which EFL learners transfer from is till a point of debate (see Mahmoud, 2000). In addition to the proficiency level in EFL, the students non-use of idioms may be attributed to the teachers' 'avoidance' of idioms in their attempt to facilitate comprehension or their non-use by teachers who are not native speakers of English. Students' exposure to idioms is further reduced due to the fact that the written academic or scientific discourse they read is usually not idiomatic. Thus, university students may encounter the EFL idioms only in discourse used for general purposes such as the passages they read in their language courses in the first two or three semesters. Other sources of idioms include the lists some teachers prepare for their students and books or dictionaries of idioms.

Adults use idioms fluently and frequently in their mother tongue. Therefore they are aware of the importance of idioms in learning and using EFL. They know that the use of idiomatic expressions is a mark of good English. Hence, faced with the problem of low proficiency in EFL on the one hand and the urge to achieve idiomaticity in it on the other hand, university students seem to arrive at a compromise by falling back on the interlingual transfer strategy. The pedagogical implication here is that these adult learners could be made aware of this transfer strategy and its outcome. Cases of positive and negative transfer could be discussed with them so that they know when to transfer and when not to. Needless to say, more exposure to the language through reading and listening is necessary. The language courses should aim at idiomaticity as well as fluency and accuracy. Another step that can be taken in this respect is the compilation of lists of some frequently used English-Arabic idioms divided into the following categories:

• Formally and semantically similar
• Formally similar, semantically different
• Semantically similar, formally different
• Grammatically different
• Lexically different
• English-specific
• Arabic-specific

Transfer studies such as this one need to be complemented, if possible, by learners' introspections since the issue of transfer is in the eye of the beholder. Exclusive reliance on correctly or incorrectly produced foreign-language forms and on linguistic similarities between two languages is nowhere near enough to suggest interlingual transfer as an underlying strategy. Further research is needed before any significant use could be made of the findings of this study. Similar studies could be conducted not only with different samples of adult Arab learners of EFL but also with learners of EFL from different first-language backgrounds.

References

• Baker , M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.
• Cowie , A. and Mackin , R. (1975) Oxford Dictionary of Current Idiomatic English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (1983) Language transfer. In F. Eppert (ed) Transfer and Translation in Language Learning and Teaching. Singapore: SEAMEO.
• Gass , S. and Selinker , L. (1994) Second Language Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hulstijn , J. and Marchena , E. (1989) Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241-255.
• James , C. (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: Longman.
• Kharma , N. and Hajjaj , A. (1997) Errors Among Arabic Speakers: Analaysis and Remedy. Beirut: Libraire du Liban.
• Laufer , B. and Eliasson , S. (1993) What causes avoidance in L2 learning? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35-48.
• Mahmoud , A. (2000) Modern standard Arabic vs Non-standard Arabic: Where do Arab students transfer from? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13, 126-136.
• Mahmoud , A. (2002) The interlingual errors of Arab students: A coursebook for Education English majors. Sultan Qaboos University. Unpublished manuscript.
• Odlin , T. (1989) Language Transfer. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Seidl , J. and McMordie , W. (1992) Oxford Pocket English Idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Shalati , A. and Huda , S. (2000) Dictionary of English Idioms. Beirut: UCS.

---

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 12, December 2002
http://iteslj.org/

---

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Mahmoud-Idioms.html

Advanced Vocabulary Instruction in EFL

Aly Anwar Amer
alyamer99 [at] yahoo.com
Sultan Qaboos University (Sultanate of Oman)

The prominent role of vocabulary knowledge in EFL learning has been increasingly recognized. Developments in 'lexical semantics' have prompted the development of the 'semantic field theory', 'semantic networks', or 'semantic grid' strategies, which organize words in terms of interrelated lexical meanings. The purpose of the present article is to discuss the pedagogic implications of 'semantic field theory' to EFL vocabulary instruction.

Vocabulary is central to language and of critical importance to the typical language learner (Zimmerman, 1997). The prominent role of vocabulary knowledge in foreign language learning has been increasingly recognized (Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000). The last decade witnessed a growing interest in the 'lexical approach' to EFL teaching. Besides, developments in 'lexical semantics' and the 'mental lexicon' have prompted the development of the 'semantic field theory', 'semantic networks' or 'semantic grid' strategies, which present and organize words in terms of interrelated lexical meanings (Gu & Johnson, 1996, p. 645). The purpose of the present article is to discuss the pedagogic implications of 'Semantic Field Theory' for EFL vocabulary instruction.

The 'semantic field' theory suggests that the lexical content of a language is best treated not as a mere aggregation of independent words or an unstructured list of words but as a collection of interrelating networks of relations between words (Stubbs, 2001). The meaning of most words is governed, in part, by the presence in the language of other words whose semantic functions are related in one or more ways to the same area of situational environment or culture (Robins, 1980). A very simple example of a semantic field is the set of kinship terms: father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, uncle, aunt, etc. Clearly, all these words share some aspect of meaning that is not present in the word chair, for instance.

It is noteworthy that words may be grouped together (related to each other) according to different criteria. Animals, for example, may be grouped in terms of physical or perceptual features; they may be grouped in terms of nonphysical features, such as pet, wild, food, etc.

In a very practical situation, the grading of hotels, the word good has a very different meaning when it is used nontechnically (in the field of good, bad, indifferent, etc.) than when it used 'technically' by some travel agents, in a strictly limited system of comparative grading as the lowest in the field of first-class, luxurious, superior, good (Robin, 1980).

From a stylistic point of view, the verbs steal, pilfer, lift, pinch, swipe, and snitch may be subgrouped in terms of being formal (steal, pilfer), colloquial (lift, pinch), and slang (swipe, snitch).

Semantic Fields and the Psychological Relatedness of Words

To know the meaning of a set of words (like chair, table, apple) would seem to entail knowing that the first two are more closely related to each other than the third. That is, individual word meanings exist within systems of related meanings, and knowledge of the meaning relations among a set of words would seem to follow from knowledge of the constituent meanings. There is ample psychological evidence that supports this assumption (How, 1999). Adults are better at remembering words from lists that contain semantically related subsets than words from lists of unrelated words. In addition, if the semantically related words are separated in the list, adults tend to cluster them by meaning in output. On the other hand, speech errors made by native speakers (slip of the tongue) show that most wrong words used come from the same semantic field as the intended word (Fromkin, 1973).

Semantic Fields and Advanced Vocabulary Instruction

Besides learning the basic sense of each new word, the EFL/ ESL learner should recognize its relation to other words with similar meaning.
It has been shown above that the human mind takes account of such similarity of meaning in organizing words. Hence, it is plausible to assume that a method of teaching that takes account of the psychological processes underlying semantic relatedness must be more effective pedagogically than one that does not. It is therefore logical to explicitly teach some foreign language vocabulary in semantic fields. Semantic interrelationships among words can not be acquired incidentally through reading. They need direct systematic instruction

From the pedagogic point of view, 'componential analysis' (CA) offers a systematic and easy way of describing similarity and difference in meaning. It consists of breaking down the meaning of a word into what are known as semantic components or features (Lyons, 1995).

Using CA to teach semantic sets enables the learner to recognize: first, the semantic relatedness between words (words belong to the same semantic set when they share some semantic features); second, the fact that hardly ever share all features. In practice, very few words in any language are interchangeable in all contexts. Thus the term 'synonym' used in foreign language teaching is often confusing and inaccurate. CA shows the learner that words similar in meaning are not synonymous. Therefore, it is pedagogically desirable to provide the learner with vocabulary richness activities that incorporate various semantic sets. I used some of these activities with my EFL advanced students. Students found them motivating and interesting. Some students indicated that these activities made learning vocabulary a cognitively challenging experience. The following activities are examples:
 

• 1. Using the information in the following table, fill in the blanks in the sentences below:
  
  • A) They were clearly ____________ at our sudden arrival.
  • B) I was ___________ at the three_year_old boy’s ability to swim.
  • C) The tropical islanders were ________ to see snow for the first time in Europe.
  • D) His parents were __________ to learn that their young son had robbed a bank.
  • E) I was ________ to receive so many presents on my birthday.
• 2. Look at the following set of words: palace, villa, mansion, hut, bungalow. Which word means:
• a) A house, small, of one story?
• b) A house or cabin of the plainest or crudest kind?
• c) A house in the country, for the hunting or shooting season?
• d) A house, large and stately?
• e) A house on its own grounds or garden, on the outskirts of a town?
• f) A house, the official residence of a sovereign or an important figure?
• 3. Insert the following words in the sentences below: murdered, executed, assassinated, killed.
• a) The disease _________ the children.
• b) He was _________ by a falling stoned.
• c) President Kennedy was _________ in 1993.
• d) He was ________ for murder.
• e) Five people were _________ in the car accident.
• f) The man who _________ his wife was sentenced to death.
• g) The man who _________ the president was _________ after a fair trial.
• 4. Insert the following words in the sentences below: accused, impeached, incidental, blamed, criticized.
• a) The minister was _________ for taking bribes.
• b) She ________ her servant of stealing her diamond ring.
• c) The arrested people were ________ for the riot.
• d) The committee _________ the factory.
• e) Factories were ________ for polluting the river.
• 5. Use the following information to fill in the blanks in the sentences below:
• Crumb: a small piece of dry food.
• Rag: a small piece of cloth.
• Drop: a small amount of liquid.
• Dab: a small amount of something soft.
• Chip: a small piece broken off something hard.
• Splash: a small amount of liquid added to something.
• Dash: a small amount of something added, liquid or solid.
• a) The mouse ran off with a _______ of cheese.
• b) Stick it down with a _______ of glue.
• c) Milk in your coffee? Yes, pleas. Just a ________.
• d) I’ d like a ________ of pepper in my food.
• e) I need a _________ to polish my shoes with.
• f) There is a ________ of lipstick on your jacket.
• g) A _______ of glass fell on the floor.

Learners should be encouraged to consult dictionaries to arrive at the correct answers. Group discussion is a fruitful technique through which the teacher can help the learners arrive at the correct answers. In activities 1, 2, and 5 the semantic features are given. In activity 3, the verbs are to be explained from a sociolinguistic point of view, i.e., we must understand the differences between the intentions underlying the actions in question and the social settings and roles of the persons involved. A person may be killed in an accident or by a falling stone or by a disease, but he can be murdered, executed, or assassinated only by another human being. Moreover, the difference between them lies in the character of the intension: murder, on purpose, and having the goal of revenge or personal gain; assassinate, having a political aim; and execute, being killed as a legal punishment for some criminal act.

As for the verbs in activity 4, learners should realize that indict applies to the 'formal' accusation of a person based on positive legal evidence; impeach is limited to the 'formal' accusation of a high political figure; accuse would have no effect at all if the judge were unable to prove the accused to be guilty; it also applies to the ' informal' accusation of a person. Moreover, these three verbs involve 'social morality,' and we attribute morality only to people, not to inanimate objects. Therefore, they are used only with human beings. On the other hand, we blame inanimate objects as well as people, but we usually criticize only those objects that are somehow connected with man’s actions. We blame a factory and criticize a factory. While the accused, if he proves to be guilty, deserves punishment, the one who is criticized does not necessarily deserve punishment, and criticism is often understood as a sort of help (Markova, 1978).

At a more advanced level, learners should realize that semantic fields may differ from one culture to another (Allan, 2001). They may be asked to compare semantic sets in English with similar sets in their native language.

Learners should be encouraged to form semantic sets through their reading. They should recognize how the use of one word instead of another within the same semantic set may lead to misunderstanding. Therefore, it is important that they explicitly recognize the objective and rationale behind these vocabulary activities. An explicit understanding of the reason for an activity often improves motivation and facilitates learning. On the other hand, these activities may be considered awareness-raising activities. Conscious awareness of the interrelationships among words provides learners with a tool that enables them to process input more effectively (Lewis, 1997, p.260) as well as a tool for organizing mental lexicon (Singlleton, 1999, p.273).

References

• Allan, K. (2001) Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• GU, Y and Johnson, R. (1996) Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Language Learning Outcomes. Language Learning, 64, 4, pp.643- 679.
• How, M. (1999) A Teacher’s Guide to the Psychology of Learning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
• Fromkin, V. (1973) Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton.
• Lewis, M. (1997) Pedagogical Implications of the Lexical Approach. In. Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (Eds.) Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy. New York: CUP.
• Lyons, J. (1995) Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP.
• Markova, I. (1978) Attributions, Meaning of Verbs, and Reasoning. In Markova, I. (Ed.) The Social Context of Language. London: John Wiley & Sons.
• Robins, R. (1980) General Linguistics: An Introductory Survey. London: Longman.
• Rodriguez, M. and Sadoski, M. (2000) Effects of Rote, Context, Keyword, and Context/ Keyword Methods on Retention of Vocabulary in EFL Classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 2, pp. 385- 412.
• Rudska, B., Channell, J. Ostyn, P. and Putseys, T. (1982) The Words You Need. London: MacMillan.
• Singlleton, D. (1999) Exploring the second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP.
• Stubbs, M. (2001) Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Zimmerman, C. (1997) Do Reading and Interactive Vocabulary Instruction Make a Difference? An Empirical Study. TESOL Quarterly, 31,1, pp. 121- 140.

---

The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 11, November 2002
http://iteslj.org/

---

http://iteslj.org/Articles/Amer-Vocabulary/