INSTITUTO DARDO ROCHA: Lexical Approach

Lexical Approach 1 - What does the lexical approach look like?

This article looks at the theories of language which form the foundations of the lexical approach to teaching English.

Introduction
The principles of the Lexical Approach have been around since Michael Lewis published 'The Lexical Approach' 10 years ago. It seems, however, that many teachers and researchers do not have a clear idea of what the Lexical Approach actually looks like in practice.

In this first of two THINK articles we look at how advocates of the Lexical Approach view language. In our second THINK article we apply theories of language learning to a Lexical Approach and describe what lexical lessons could look like.

We have also produced two TRY pieces containing teaching materials for you to try out in your own classrooms. Your feedback, opinions, comments and suggestions would be more than welcome and used to form the basis of a future article.

The theory of language

Task 1
Look at this version of the introduction. What do the parts printed in bold in square brackets have in common?

The principles of the Lexical Approach have [been around] since Michael Lewis published 'The Lexical Approach' [10 years ago]. [It seems, however, that] many teachers and researchers do not [have a clear idea of] what the Lexical Approach actually [looks like] [in practice].

All the parts in brackets are fixed or set phrases. Different commentators use different and overlapping terms - 'prefabricated phrases', 'lexical phrases', 'formulaic language', 'frozen and semi-frozen phrases', are just some of these terms. We use just two: 'lexical chunks' and 'collocations'.

'Lexical chunk' is an umbrella term which includes all the other terms. We define a lexical chunk as any pair or group of words which is commonly found together, or in close proximity.

'Collocation' is also included in the term 'lexical chunk', but we refer to it separately from time to time, so we define it as a pair of lexical content words commonly found together. Following this definition, 'basic' + 'principles' is a collocation, but 'look' + 'at' is not because it combines a lexical content word and a grammar function word. Identifying chunks and collocations is often a question of intuition, unless you have access to a corpus.

Here are some examples.

Lexical Chunks (that are not collocations)

by the way
up to now
upside down
If I were you
a long way off
out of my mind

Lexical Chunks (that are collocations)

totally convinced
strong accent
terrible accident
sense of humour
sounds exciting
brings good luck

Principle 1- Grammaticalised lexis
In recent years it has been recognised both that native speakers have a vast stock of these lexical chunks and that these lexical chunks are vital for fluent production. Fluency does not depend so much on having a set of generative grammar rules and a separate stock of words - the 'slot and filler' or open choice principle - as on having rapid access to a stock of chunks:

"It is our ability to use lexical phrases that helps us to speak with fluency. This prefabricated speech has both the advantages of more efficient retrieval and of permitting speakers (and learners) to direct their attention to the larger structure of the discourse, rather than keeping it narrowly focused on individual words as they are produced" (Nattinger and DeCarrico 1992).

The basic principle of the lexical approach, then, is: "Language is grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar"(Lewis 1993). In other words, lexis is central in creating meaning, grammar plays a subservient managerial role. If you accept this principle then the logical implication is that we should spend more time helping learners develop their stock of phrases, and less time on grammatical structures.

Let's look at an example of lexical chunks or prefabricated speech in action:

Chris: Carlos tells me Naomi fancies him.
Ivor:: It's just a figment of his imagination.

According to the theory we have just outlined, it is not the case that Ivor has accessed 'figment' and 'imagination' from his vocabulary store and then accessed the structure: it+to be+ adverb + article + noun + of + possessive adjective + noun from the grammar store. It is more likely that Ivor has accessed the whole chunk in one go. We have, in Peters' words, in addition to vocabulary and grammar stores, a 'phrasebook with grammatical notes'. Probably, the chunk is stored something like this:

It is/was + (just/only) + a figment of + possessive + imagination

Accessing, in effect, 8 words in one go allows me to speak fluently and to focus on other aspects of the discourse - more comments about Carlos, for example. We can make 2 more points about this example:

A number of friends and colleagues were asked to give an example of the word 'figment'. They all gave an example which corresponds to our chunk above. When asked to define the word 'figment', hardly anyone could do this accurately. This is an example of how native speakers routinely use chunks without analysing the constituent parts.
There is nothing intrinsically negative in the dictionary definition of the word 'figment', yet it is always, in my experience, used dismissively or derisively. This is an example of how we store information about a word which goes beyond its simple meaning.

Principle 2 - Collocation in action
In an application form a candidate referred to a 'large theme' in his thesis. This sounded ugly, but there is nothing intrinsically ugly about either word, it's just a strange combination to a native-speaker ear. In the Lexical Approach, sensitising students to acceptable collocations is very important, so you might find this kind of task:

Underline the word which does not collocate with 'theme':

main theme / large theme / important theme / central theme / major theme

Task 2

Complete the following sentences with as many different words as you can.

(a) The Lexical Approach has had a strong…………….on me.

(b) Carlos and Ivor ……………..me to try out the Lexical Approach.

A second important aspect of the Lexical Approach is that lexis and grammar are closely related. If you look at the examples above, you will see in (a) that 3 semantically related words - impact, influence, effect - behave the same way grammatically: have a/an impact/influence/effect on something. In (b) verbs connected with initiating action - encourage, persuade, urge, advise etc all follow the pattern verb + object + infinitive. This kind of 'pattern grammar' is considered to be important in the Lexical Approach.

About the authors
Carlos Islam teaches ESL and Applied Linguistics at the University of Maine. He is also involved in materials writing projects, editing Folio (the journal of the Materials Development Association www.matsda.org.uk ) and language acquisition research.

Ivor Timmis is Lecturer in Language Teaching and Learning at Leeds Metropolitan University. He teaches on the MA in Materials Development for Language Teachers, works on materials development consultancies and is also involved in corpus linguistic research.

Further reading
Baigent, Maggie (1999). Teaching in chunks: integrating a lexical approach. Modern English Teacher 8(2): 51-54.
Lewis, Michael (1993), The Lexical Approach, Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, Michael (1996). Implications of a lexical view of language. In Challenge And Change In Language Teaching, Jane Willis and Dave Willis (eds.). Oxford: Heinemann.
Lewis, Michael (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory Into Practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, Michael (2000). Language in the lexical approach. In Teaching Collocation: Further Developments In The Lexical Approach, Michael Lewis (ed.), 126-154. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Nattinger, James R. and DeCarrico Jeanette S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawley, Andrew and Syder, Frances Hodgetts. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: native like selection and native like fluency. In Language And Communication, Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), 191-225. London: Longman.
Thornbury, Scott (1997). Reformulation and reconstruction: tasks that promote 'noticing'. ELT Journal 51(4): 326-334.
Thornbury, Scott (1998). The Lexical Approach: a journey without maps? Modern English Teacher 7(4): 7-13.
Willis, Dave (1990). The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach To Language Learning. London: Collins ELT.
Woolard, George (2000). Collocation- encouraging learner independence. In Teaching Collocation: Further Developments In The Lexical Approach, Michael Lewis (ed.), 28-46. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lexical Approach 2 - What does the lexical approach look like?

This article looks at the theories of language which form the foundations of the lexical approach to teaching English.

In the first of our two THINK articles - Lexical approach 1 - we looked at how advocates of the Lexical Approach view language. In this, our second THINK article, we apply theories of language learning to a Lexical Approach and describe what lexical lessons could look like.

A theory of learning
In our first THINK article, Lexical Approach 1, we spoke about the vast number of chunks and collocations native speakers store. According to Lewis (1997, 2000) native speakers carry a pool of hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of lexical chunks in their heads ready to draw upon in order to produce fluent, accurate and meaningful language. Too many items for teachers and materials to present to learners, ask learners to practise and then produce even if you believed that a PPP methodology - which has been denigrated in recent years - would lead to the acquisition of these language items.

How then are the learners going to learn the lexical items they need? One of the criticisms levelled at the Lexical Approach is its lack of a detailed learning theory. It is worth noting, however, that Lewis (1993) argues the Lexical Approach is not a break with the Communicative Approach, but a development of it. He makes a helpful summary of the findings from first language acquisition research which he thinks are relevant to second language acquisition:

Language is not learnt by learning individual sounds and structures and then combining them, but by an increasing ability to break down wholes into parts.
Grammar is acquired by a process of observation, hypothesis and experiment.
We can use whole phrases without understanding their constituent parts.
Acquisition is accelerated by contact with a sympathetic interlocutor with a higher level of competence in the target language.

Schmitt (2000) makes a significant contribution to a learning theory for the Lexical Approach by adding that 'the mind stores and processes these [lexical] chunks as individual wholes.' The mind is able to store large amounts of information in long term memory but its short term capacity is much more limited, when producing language in speech for example, so it is much more efficient for the brain to recall a chunk of language as if it were one piece of information. 'Figment of his imagination' is, therefore, recalled as one piece of information rather than four separate words.

In our view it is not possible, or even desirable, to attempt to 'teach' an unlimited number of lexical chunks. But, it is beneficial for language learners to gain exposure to lexical chunks and to gain experience in analyzing those chunks in order to begin the process of internalisation. We believe, like Lewis, that encouraging learners to notice language, specifically lexical chunks and collocations, is central to any methodology connected to a lexical view of language.

Noticing
Batstone (1996) describes noticing as 'a complex process: it involves the intake both of meaning and form, and it takes time for learners to progress from initial recognition to the point where they can internalize the underlying rule'. At the same time Lewis (2000) argues that noticing chunks and collocations is a necessary but not sufficient condition for input to become intake. If learners are not directed to notice language in a text there exists a danger that they will 'see through the text' and therefore fail to achieve intake.

Looking back at the tasks and activities in our TRY materials, you can see they are designed to promote noticing. Sometimes the noticing is guided by the teacher i.e. the teacher directs the students' attention to lexical features thought to be useful; sometimes the noticing is 'self-directed', i.e. the students themselves select features they think will be useful for them. Sometimes the noticing is explicit, e.g. when items in a text are highlighted; sometimes it is implicit e.g. when the teacher reformulates a student's text (see Thornbury 1997 for an explanation of how reconstruction and reformulation can enhance noticing and practical suggestions for reformulating).

Language Awareness
It is our assertion that learning materials and teachers can best help learners achieve noticing of lexical chunks by combining a Language Awareness approach to learning with a Lexical Approach to describing language.

Tomlinson (2003) sums up the principles, objectives and procedures of a language awareness approach as:

'Paying deliberate attention to features of language in use can help learners to notice the gap between their own performance in the target language and the performance of proficient users of the language.
Noticing can give salience to a feature, so that it becomes more noticeable in future input, so contributing to the learner's psychological readiness to acquire that feature.
The main objective is to help learners to notice for themselves how language is typically used so that they will note the gaps and 'achieve learning readiness' [as well as independence from the teacher and teaching materials].
The first procedures are usually experiential rather than analytical and aim to involve the learners in affective interaction with a potentially engaging text. [That is, learners read a text, and respond with their own views and opinions before studying the language in the text or answering comprehension type questions.]
Learners are later encouraged to focus on a particular feature of the text, identify instances of the feature, make discoveries and articulate generalizations about its use.'

In a small research project at The University of Maine, groups of students were exposed to materials (see TRY 1) based on the principles and procedures Tomlinson outlines. The noticing activities asked students to identify, analyse and make generalisations about lexical chunks and collocations.

The students involved in the research were surveyed after using these materials and asked how useful and enjoyable they found the materials.

All but one of the students said the materials were very useful and all the students reported the class was either very useful or useful.
All the students said the materials would help them learn independently.
Over half the students thought the materials were useful for learning vocabulary.
All the students said they enjoyed the stories.
The teachers said that the readings were 'great', the students understood and could appreciate the materials relevance for developing reading as well a productive skills.
One teacher said he was not sure if making the distinction between different types of lexical chunks was necessary.

We hope these THINK articles and TRY materials shine some light on what a Lexical Approach could look like in teaching materials and provide ideas of how it might appear in the classroom.

About the authors
Carlos Islam teaches ESL and Applied Linguistics at the University of Maine. He is also involved in materials writing projects, editing Folio (the journal of the Materials Development Association www.matsda.org.uk ) and language acquisition research.

INSTITUTO DARDO ROCHA

Blog Archive

Followers

Wednesday 9 September 2009

Lexical Approach

No comments:

Post a Comment