Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rngvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T16:29:09.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-focused activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

Batia Laufer
Batia Laufer*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, Israelbatialau@research.haifa.ac.il
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Interest in L2 vocabulary learning and teaching started long before the nineteen-eighties (for references to earlier studies, see Rob Waring's database http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/vocab/vocrefs/vocref.html) but it declined with the advent of generative linguistics to the point of discrimination and neglect (Meara 1980). In 1986, I argued that vocabulary was about to acquire a legitimate and prominent place within applied linguistics (Laufer 1986), but I did not envisage the vast quantities of lexical research that would have been produced in the following two decades. One of the central concerns of vocabulary researchers is the source of L2 vocabulary learning. Is it L2 input, enhanced input, interaction, communicative tasks, non-communicative ‘artificial’ exercises, list learning, or repetition? A similar question is addressed by SLA researchers in general. This similarity of interests, which demonstrates the integration of vocabulary into mainstream SLA, prompted me to define the topic of this timeline as I did. And since the field of SLA developed in the 1980s, this timeline starts in the nineteen-eighties. I focus here on the external sources of learning, i.e. language input and instructional techniques, and not on learner-related variables, like motivation, L1, age, or strategies of learning. Nor do I focus on any other areas of lexical research, important as they may be, such as the construct of vocabulary knowledge, lexical development, testing, bilingual mental lexicon, or corpora analyses.

Information

Type
Research Timeline
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , July 2009 , pp. 341 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Interest in L2 vocabulary learning and teaching started long before the nineteen-eighties (for references to earlier studies, see Rob Waring's database http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/vocab/vocrefs/vocref.html) but it declined with the advent of generative linguistics to the point of discrimination and neglect (Meara Reference Meara1980). In 1986, I argued that vocabulary was about to acquire a legitimate and prominent place within applied linguistics (Laufer Reference Laufer1986), but I did not envisage the vast quantities of lexical research that would have been produced in the following two decades. One of the central concerns of vocabulary researchers is the source of L2 vocabulary learning. Is it L2 input, enhanced input, interaction, communicative tasks, non-communicative ‘artificial’ exercises, list learning, or repetition? A similar question is addressed by SLA researchers in general. This similarity of interests, which demonstrates the integration of vocabulary into mainstream SLA, prompted me to define the topic of this timeline as I did. And since the field of SLA developed in the 1980s, this timeline starts in the nineteen-eighties. I focus here on the external sources of learning, i.e. language input and instructional techniques, and not on learner-related variables, like motivation, L1, age, or strategies of learning. Nor do I focus on any other areas of lexical research, important as they may be, such as the construct of vocabulary knowledge, lexical development, testing, bilingual mental lexicon, or corpora analyses.

The precursors of input-based learning and form-focused instruction were indirect and direct learning and teaching of vocabulary (Nation Reference Nation1982). The indirect approaches found theoretical support in the Input Hypothesis (Krashen Reference Krashen1985). However, the hypotheses of Noticing (Schmidt Reference Schmidt1990), limited processing ability (VanPatten Reference VanPatten1990), and ‘pushed’ output (Swain Reference Swain, Gass and Madden1985) provided the theoretical underpinning of ‘Focus on Form’ (Long Reference Long, de Bot, Ginsberg and Kramsch1991; Ellis Reference Ellis2001), which in turn became the pedagogical framework for direct approaches to vocabulary learning through communicative activities. Decontextualized vocabulary learning that is associated with Focus on Forms had been strongly discouraged since the heyday of communicative language teaching, but its association with the skill acquisition theory (DeKeyser Reference DeKeyser, Doughty and Williams1998) contributed to the view that this type of learning is legitimate for studying the basic vocabulary quickly. Most recent approaches to vocabulary learning attach less importance to the source of learning, and more to the quality of elaboration of word information, task involvement, and frequent rehearsals. It is also believed that different aspects of word knowledge may be affected differently by different conditions of learning. Finally, a growing number of empirical studies suggest that input together with engaging word-focused activities and frequent rehearsals are likely to yield the best results.

My selection of notable publications aims to represent the above developments. I constructed this timeline by consulting the LLBAFootnote 1 database, Paul Nation's data base (http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/vocrefs/index.aspx) and the latest issues of the most prominent journals in applied linguistics. The selection represents seven recurring themes, each of which is marked by a capital letter A – G in my annotations to each publication:

  1. A Effects of text input, without lexical support (A1) and with lexical support (A2)

  2. B Learning words in authentic and/or communicative tasks with Focus on Form

  3. C Learning decontextualized vocabulary, or in minimal contexts with Focus on Forms

  4. D Multiple exposures/rehearsals

  5. E Acquiring partial knowledge of words

  6. F Theoretical positions related to vocabulary learning

  7. G Technology in vocabulary research and learning

Batia Laufer is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the department of English Language and Literature, at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her research is on lexicography, cross linguistic influence, reading, and testing, but mainly on Vocabulary Acquisition in Additional Languages. She has published numerous journal articles and book chapters, and lectured extensively in and outside of Israel. Her most known and cited work is on vocabulary threshold for reading comprehension, vocabulary development, task effect on learning, quantitative assessment of vocabulary, and factors of word difficulty.

Footnotes

1 Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (electronic resource). The Hague: Mouton.

References

DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspective on learning and practical second language grammar. In Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning 51.1 (supplement 1), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (1986). Possible changes in attitude towards vocabulary acquisition research. International Review of Applied Linguistics 24.1, 69–75.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In de Bot, K., Ginsberg, R. & Kramsch, C. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. M. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 13.4, 221–246.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC Journal 13.1, 14–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11.2, 17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. & Madden, C. G. (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to content and form in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12.3, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar