Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Teaching Lexically

    Uploaded by

    Olena Pryshchepa
    1K views155 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1K views155 pages

    Teaching Lexically

    Uploaded by

    Olena Pryshchepa

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 155
    DT BS Teaching = Lexically Principles and practice DELTA TEACHER DEVELOPME! DELTA TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SERIES Sorios editors Mike Burghall and Lindsay Clanafield Teaching Lexically Principles and practice Hugh Dellar and Andrew Walkley published by DEITA PUBLISHING Quince Comage Hoe Lane Peake surrey GUSSSW Englnd vn dhapublshingmk ‘Dela Publishing 2016 IBN 97 1-909-78322-5 Alfrighs served, No part of this publication may be reproduce, stored ina tetrieval stem or transmitted ‘nan fxm orby any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or oxerwse, without the prior permission ofthe pblishers ited by Mike Burghall Designed by Christine Cox Cover photo © Tom Franks Shutterstock com Printed by CPL Antony Rove, United Kingdom Acknowledgements First and foremost, we would both ik to thank erryone Delta for beieving inthis project from the tart and fog thie hard work and commitment to ensut light of day. Secondly we would like to thank colleagues past and present ftom both the teaching and the publishing realms ‘Without the constant discussions debates arguments and imeractions over the years, we would not have bea able to develop our ideas as fly a8 we have ites the Despite the inevitability of such list filing to mention all concerned, we felt only proper to mention npasing Leo Sevan, Ivor immis, Nick Barrett, Rebecca Sevel, [ais Pedreira, Margot Van Der Doelen Karen Spill, Chris ‘Wenger, Denis Hogan, Gavin McLean John Metiugh, Bryan Fletcher, Richard Cauldwell, Mark Powell, Chis Gough, Jon Wright, Julian Savage, Andrew Fuchu, ally Dalal, John Smith, Maud Dunkeld and Philp Kr. Thirdly, we are both eternally grateful to our wives and childcen, fr indulging us during the long hours of writing that this project required af us. And finally, we would lke to thank Michael Lewisand Jimmie Hill ~ for lighting the dame fr us back hemi 1990s, and for subsequently encouraging uso kine Hugh's ‘The seeds for ths book were p [had qualified as teacher and Indonesia When I started tn Indonesian, was unconscious words’ approach, memorising grammar forms and rules, The the least! [etook mea while. realise th menggonggog "the dog s ba ‘example of how the present co ‘nor was i representative of wi barking n short it wasa sea _getto grips with the language, ‘tthe same tim, what was he repertotes of relatively ied featuring grammatial struct was able to use with ited heard alot and so on. Of cou repetition and practice ‘When I read The Lexical Appn Lewis, found my language le inadvertently brought me wa and his book provided me wit about this. ater came to und simply one writer working wi lexcally-oriented thinking However while my inital rea ‘energised ne it alsoconfoun ideas about puting thie way 0 tse werent as developed 35 thy activities suggested amount toa thorough recons pedagogy: In the yar that Followed = th ny writing of elasroom mate ns, colleagues and ‘ame to the ides lid out in tl make level teaching more a = hy swith ta From the authors Hugh's story “The seeds for this book were planted in the early 1990s. 1 had qualified as teacher and was living in Jakarta, Indonesia, When I started trying to teach myself Indonesian, I was unconsciously using a'grammar + ‘words’ approach, memorising single words and studying grammar forms and rules. The results were mixed, to say the least! It took mea while to realise that a sentence like ayjing itu menggonggong ~‘the dog is barking’ ~ wasn'ta good example of how the present continuous was generally used, ror was it representative of what i said about dogs or barking. In short, it wasa sentence I'd learned to somehow get to grips with the language, yet which had no real utility. ‘At the same time, what was helping me was learning. repertoires of relatively fixed questions and answers (often featuring grammatical structures 'd not yet studied, but ‘was able to use within limited contexts), common phrases I heard a lot, and so on. Of course, there was also lots of repetition and practice. When I read The Lexical Approach (1993) by Michael, Lewis, found my language learning experiences had inadvertently brought me to lexical view of language - and his book provided me with a clearer way of thinking about this. I later came to understand that Lewis was simply one writer working within a long tradition of lexically-oriented thinking. However, while my initial reading of The Lexical Approach energised me, it also confounded me as felt many of its ideas about putting this way of seeing language to practical use weren't as developed as they might have been. The activities suggested often seemed tokenistic, and didn’t amount toa thorough reconstruction of practical pedagogy. In the years that followed ~ through my classroom practice, ny writing of classroom material, and my conversations with students, colleagues and other EFL professionals ~ came to the ideas laid out in this book: our attempt to make lexical teaching more accessible and more Wipe Hy Andrew’s story My route to lexical way of teaching probably started with my failed attempts to learn French at school, It was only after I started teaching in Spain that I had any real success success that stemmed in speaking a foreign language far more from using the language than from studying ‘grammar rales [started out with no training, but my main approach was to not do to others what my teachers had done to me! Instead, | mainly chatted to my students and told them some words when they asked about them. We listened to songs and watched videos. Grammar finally came back into view when I did my CELTA course. I learnt how you could present grammar via dialogues, and how it could be related to real-life communication. [also ciscovered the Collins Cobuild Fnglish Course (1988), which based its syllabus around frequent words, and Conversation Gambit, from the same year, which contained chunks for conversation. These experiences primed me to receive The Lexical “Approach when | ead iton my Diploma course. However, ‘was also taking on other (sometimes contradictory!) ideas = such as teaching skill and teaching grammar through comparing sentences and discussing differences in meaning. ‘When [ first met Hugh, we were both beginning to wonder about where a lexical approach might go: what would the syllabus be? What shoukl materials and classes be like? We continued to be influenced by other writers, our classroom experience and discussions with colleagues. Getting involved in writing and teacher training brought th focus, because, when you're paid to share materials and practice, you want to be clear about your own belie principles. So for me, this book is an outline of where we have both got to so far in letermining our beliefs, how the ur own practice and how we can explore and sl practice, I's a lexical approach, rather than ihe lexical ware that approach, a good way of teaching, rather than the only ‘way of teaching — and we hope it helps you on your own, Aadoee! journey. rom the authors Ex ‘Teaching lexically E Chapter One Teaching vocabulary lexically What's the word’? Choosing words to teach Giving explanations 1 Giving explanations 2 Giving explanations 3 Giving good examples 1 Giving good examples 2 Giving good examples 3 Giving good examples 4 Asking questions about words 1 ‘Asking questions about words 2 ‘Asking questions about words 3 Asking questions about words 4 Asking questions about words 5 Asking questions about words 6 Using vocabulary exercises 1 Using vocabulary exercises 2 Using vocabulary exercises 3 Using vocabulary exercises 4 Single-word exercises Collocation exercises ‘Whole-sentence exercises Sentence-matching exercises ‘Memorisation tasks Grammar exercises Contents Page 3 Page 7 Page 7 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55, Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Chapter Two Teaching grammar lexically When? Why? Who to? Checking answers to grammar exercises 1 Checking answers to grammar exercises 2 Getting more from exercises 1 Getting more from exercises 2 Getting more from exercises 3 “Teaching grammar as lexis Grammar in vocabulary exercises 1 Grammar in vocabulary exercises 2 ‘Translation and grammar Chapter Three Teaching speaking lexically Before students speak Preparation Scaffolding speaking tasks 1 Scaffolding speaking tasks 2 Feedback on speaking 1 Feedback on speaking 2 Feedback on speaking 3 Beyond correction Chat From speaking to materials: Chapter Four Teaching reading lexically Reading lessons Preparing for a reading lesson Before the text 1 Before the text 2 Before the text 3 Reading aloud Comprehension tasks Talking about reading texts Retelling texts Mining texts for lang Exploiting and expanding on lexis Other kinds of speaking around texts ET Page 0 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 65 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 81 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 9! Encouraging further responses The benefits of extensive reading Appendix Chapter Five Teaching listening lexically Similarities and differences with reading Analysing language Highlighting the stream of speech Generating appropriate language Withholding the correct answer Gapping texts Using scripts Beyond the listening lesson 1 Beyond the listening lesson 2 Beyond the listening lesson 3 Beyond the listening lesson 4 Appendix Chapter Six Teaching writing xically Issues around writing Assessing written texts Helping students organise written work Linking words and phrases Exploiting model texts, Process writing Completing the process, Using criteria for feedback Providing language-focused feedback Other reasons for writing Appendix Chapter Seven Recycling and revising Recycling Revising Revision activity 1 Gapped sentences and dialogues Revision activity 2 Language-generating questions Contents Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 113, Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123, Page 124 Page 125, Page 126 Page 127, Page 128 Page 128 Revision activity 3 Personal questions Revision activity 4 Using translations, Revision activity 5 Stuclent-to-student elicita Revision activity 6 Choose three expressions Revision activity 7 Repeat (and extend) activities Revision activity 9 ‘Test and remember Revision activity 10 Team games Choosing, using and writing lexical materials Assessing materials ‘Teaching one-to-one ‘Teaching low-level eamners ‘Teaching young learners ‘Teaching EAP ‘Teaching exam classes ‘Teacher training Schools and teacher development Organising courses Writing your own materials Bibliography Glossary From the editors From the publisher Page 129 Page 129 Page 130 Page 130 Page 131 Page 131 Page 132 Page 132 Page 133, Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145, Page 147 Page 151 Page 152 ‘By tar te greatest ‘What isa teacher? suite 9004 rein i Fieri insufficient nunber of wore in the learner’ lexicon. tnreseaen who has what you need Studies) lexis vas found to be ig and knows how to plait best predictor of success in 2 ‘bettor than syntax or genera) Christopher Ross, reading ability” 2001 Bhatia Lauter, "Word meanings are like stretchy pullovers, [ whose outine contours visible, but whose detailed shape varies with use.” Jean Aitchison, Peter Wilborg, 1988 ‘utterances, we are creatures. of habit, immensely predictable, ‘rehearsing the same old platitudes ‘After Elementary level {the lergest part of a language and the same old clichés in almost Jeamer’ task sto bull uP ‘everthing we say iit wore not so, ‘an adequate stock of high-priority Ordinary language would become words and lexicalised phrases, including unworkable. Humankind cannot both knowledge of their forms and ‘an awareress of their more important ‘meanings, the major cofocation ‘and syntactic constraints ‘on their use, and so on. Michael Swan, 1996 bear very much creativity" Patrick Hanks, 2013 Teaching lexically There have been many thousands of pages written about how people learn languages, yet ‘we would suggest they can all be neatly summarised in a very small number of principles. Principles of how people learn Essentially, to learn any given item of language, people need to carry out the following. steps: 1. Understand the meaning of the item. 2 Hear/see an example of the item in context. 3. Approximate the sounds of the item. 4 Pay attention to the item and notice its features, 5 Do something with the item — use it in some way. 6 Repeat these steps over time, when encountering the item again in other contexts. Principles of why people learn ‘The second area of principle that we think is uncontroversial, but that is worth spelling out, is why people want to learn foreign languages. The Council of Europe, which published the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR), suggests people learn for the following reasons: | Bibliography . We cite other authors and resources throughout the book and the full reference can be found in the bibliography on pages 145-146. o deal with the business of everyday life in another country, and to help foreigners staying in their own country to do so, © To exchange information and ideas with young people and adults who speak a different nguage, and to communicate thoughts and feelings to them, © Toachievea wider and deeper understanding of the ways of life and forms of thought of other peoples, and of their cultural heritage. ‘One underlying assumption that the CEFR makes is that students will be taking class part of their efforts to learn languages. Itis perhaps worth questioning why this might be. Afterall, many people learn languages without ever participating in formal study. It seems to.us that one of the fundamental reasons stucents take clases is that this allows them to set aside some time for study. lot of people have neither the time nor the discipline to study on their own, While it is clearly true that the best language learners do a lot outside of clas, we believe that teachers should recognise that, for what is probably the majority of learners, class time is basically all they may have spare for language study. — | The first instance of their [on an asterisk *. shat hasimplications fr the pac of progress an for keh, butt alo emphases hon ‘Tt itis that what happens in class meets the main ingustc wants and needs of are chilly: to be able to do things with ther language 1 To beable to chat to others. {To lean to understand other cultures etter, Teaching and learning choices Most ofthe principles outined above ate relatively undisputed, but the thousands of purest abou such inte principles ate festament the et hat debates do Fein fn particular there s mach disagreement about the Following: f The very nature of language ise ‘© What language to tach 1S wether you can actually teach and lean languages~or whether they ae simply acquiced. 4¢ Ther in which to teach the language you choose {Practical ways in which each principle of how to earn languages realise, The reative importance ofeach principe Debates fen revolve around the peo of the learning process and hove esl the leaner willbe able wo take inthe items of language taught and use them eectvely in the word ‘outside the classroom, Theres also much discussion about how the process can be made more —or less “motivating Fr leaeners, “The choices teachers make with rgaed to these fssues maybe informed by reser ani the consideration of evience, but tis sso fae to say that eelable research and vdence ‘ean be hard to come, As sch eachers will inevitably base some ~ orall~of it nis and previous experiences as both teachers an language decisions on bei arg lesen Choices are also likely tobe atleast partly the prodct ofthe attitudes and beets of the ime and place that teachers are living in, and, as such, may also perhaps be reaction to what as come before For example, one might see the current argument asst fun actvitics and games ~ and the move towards more correction and intervention (as exemplified in the recent emergence of the Demand High concept) ~as being reaction othe rce-spending, deb creating economy of the 1990s and 0008 The ‘move in language teaching towards such practices could be seen as eetion ofthe contemporary discourse that clams hat what people want now is something more ‘conteolled and austere, ‘To recognise and acknowledge this simply to state that as teachers trainers ard terials writers ourslies, wear diferent whea it comes to our principles and oF re ear. As such nthe wie f exercises that we Fel best realise the principles des pages of Pat A tha follows, we would like to explore our belies and principles in more depth so that you can see how they it with the exercises and practices that wil alow Patt Bof Teaching Lescally. The sexton on teaching young lens on page 108 stresses turner the importance of exposure atlower levels OE ‘The section on teaching young learners on page 198 stresses further the importance of exposure at lower levels. ) One view of language Grammar plus words plus skills ‘Traditionally, the most dominant view in English Language Teaching is probably that grammar + words = productive language. In other words, there has long been a belief that language can be reduced to a list of grammar structures that you can drop single words into. You may perhaps have seen this described as something along the lines of ‘grammar providing the order into which you slot words: This isa view of language that we disagree with. ‘There are a number of implications that follow from this more traditional view of language — some of which may sometimes be explicitly voiced by teachers, and some which may not. Firstly, grammar is seen as being the most important area of language. If words are there to slot into the spaces which grammar presents, then itis grammar which ‘must come first, and itis grammar which will help students do all the things that they ‘want to do. It also follows that the examples used to illustrate grammar rules are relatively unimportant Seen from this perspective, these examples don't necessarily have to represent what is actually said because understanding the rule will enable students to create all the sentences they could ever possibly want ~ in accordance with the rule. It therefore doesn't matter if an example used to illustrate a rule could not easily (or ever) be used in daily if, Similarly, if words are to fit in the slots provided by grammar, it follows that learning lists of single words is all that is required, and that any word can effectively be used if it fits a particular slot. Seen from this point of view, Dracula didn'tidoesn't/couldn't/mustn't/won't live in Brazil/Spain/the UK are all equally possible and grammatically cortect, as are I'm studying English, l'm not studying English and Am I studying English? Naturalness, or the probable usage of vocabulary, is basically regarded as an irrelevance; students just need to grasp core meaniny have very similar meanings ~ such as murder and assassinate ~ are seen as being more or less interchangeable and, if on occasion they are not, then this isa choice based purely on subtle shades of difference in meaning rather than anything else. At the same time, synonyms* — words that In addition to this, an associated belief has developed: that grammar is acquired in a particular order ~ the so-called ‘building blocks’ appreach that sees students start by attempting to master what are seen as more basic structures, before moving on to more advanced ones, When following this approach, studen's do not get to see, let alone use, a structure before they have been formally taught it. For this reason, beginner- and clementary-level coursebooks do not generally have any past or future forms in the first half of the book, and may exclude other common tenses and grammatical structures altogether. Finally, over the last thirty years, another layer has beea added to this view of learning. This looks to address skills ~ speaking, listening, reading and writing. If content is essentially catered for by the presentation of grammar rules plus words, then where there isa de in fluency or writing or reading, the claim is that this may be connected to a lack of appropriate skills ‘These skills are seen as existing independently of language, and a lack of them is thought to result in such problems as not being sufficiently confident, not planning, not making Foran excise on ‘he ite of grammar see page 61 tse of clues suc as pitures to deduce meaning, not thinking about the context of conversation, an 0 00 ‘Asa resul, any coutss will claim to teach these skill and you sil yal ind spamebooks with sections on grammar, sections on vocabulary, and hen etons abel Srapeaking listening, weting or reading. The prevailing formola might hen read: “grammar + words + kill = productive language Alexical view of language From words with words to grammar In some sectors the grammar + words + kills = productive language’ view is presented isthe only option, but in fact there are countries and institutions which orgie their Tanguageslabust diferent, and there is abo an alternative view f how language set ‘works thats supported by reser, observation of language and logical arguments, “Tis alternative view sone we both sha. Ife een othe principle that lvrners want to beable todo things with tee Language and tocommunicate, then communication almost abays depends more on vocabulary than on grammar even if we asume the' grammar + words’ model. For example ake the sentence’ ve been wanting tose that lm for ages Saying want see fm is more likey chive the intended communicative mesage i a conversation than only using what can ‘be epaded as the grammar and fanetion words" ve been ~ing to that for: rom this pint of view, we should se words as more valuable. This does notentily clude the'grammar + word’ model, but it does undermine it. Would the message be the ore of those words were changed? Not dramatically lescle {lm want see sero fle seefilm wnt wa file sce Actual the division between vocabulary and grammar is arly clear-cut; intent rather izzy Grammar i restricted by the words we vse, and vie era. In day i, tere ae not infinite variations ofeach and every structure and we dow accep spony in all cases For example, we may say Pv been wanting ose tha forages, but nt Pv ben Sancying sing hat forages. Sarl, we may say if a high/ealading, but 0 ih nro al emporaar, Furthermore, we ofen make use of phrases or chunks of language, whieh apes 0 DE stored and recalled as wile rather than constructed fram an underlying kolo ‘words. To pu it another way, we consistently choose one prtivule way any othe possibile. ‘grammar +i ‘of saying something geamatis, athe than any ofthe Intheir seminal 1983 atcle~"Two puzzles fr linguistic theory: native-ke seeton and) of this Al ofthe following ate gr speakers nie ike huency’~ Paley and Sper cit the way we tell the tne as anexamp natcally posible, yet most are not chosen Huet six ess em tw tind pas fie 1 fry pase. exces ive by fry Weathnd sie Wstenafer half fie ‘Mos competent ser of English — including you, almost certainly ~ tend to opt fr ithe 16 ety oso 1's five forty. There re thousands of sila instances, adit ws HE For mare on some of ‘te probleme caused by teeing on synanns see page St For more on some of ‘the problems caused by focusing on synonyms ~ ‘and how to tackle them ‘996 page 54 dens, annoy, others, that led Michel Laure tv hectare in The Lexical Appin (99) that language was grarniaticalised Vewist’ rather than ‘lec abel yratntnar” hs 4 root, Ihe rejected the idea that we shenill caitinie with « elses based on nenthy entare grammar structures and, instead, adver ated slabnuses, materials and teaching corned around collocation® and chunks alongpide large aninunts of init fron texts, From this input, a geany of yranimar ‘ves’ anid correct visage wend emerge exgeriatiy the input were mediated by the wuidarice Uf teachers helping students ta neAice ni and meanings. More recently, Michael Hoey has given therrretical suppuirtfor this approach fo bike ewe Lexical Priming, (20005), he shervis her weds ich are aparently sprunprtnis sich a result and consequence ~ typically friction in quite Wifferent ways, Matietically, tn Ve renee common than the other in most situations, and otter these differences are very snared, “The way synonyms are used differs not only in tersns of the other words ientmuediately around ther that they collecate vit, bast ale in terinscf the ovords that co occie in the wider surrounding, text, Near-synonyins may al occi in diferent parts of sernences of in different yenres*, or may be followed by different gramnnatical patterow, Hoey argues that these statistical differences must come about because, when we firet encounter these words (he calls such encounters’ prisniogs®), nur bain wnnebora subconsciously record some or all of this kind uf information about the way the words are used, Our next encounter may reaffirm — or possibly contradict = this inital priming a8 will the next encounter, and the one after that ~ and son, If this was not the case, then result and consequence vanild be equally prevalent in all caves, cor one would he used more consistently in all contexts, Noey suggests that many of what we might think of as being, our yrannunatical choices are actually detersnined by the words theaselves and by our experience of huv they are used and the pattern that attach themselves 1 the words — rather than by any underlying, knorwledye of yrarnmnar rules anid an ability to then slot in words, Hoey haw also cited evidence from paycholinguistic studies to support his clains about such procemes, and to help explain why language ue works in this way, One experiment he mentions shows how words are recongnived quicker when they are related in use than when they are not So, for example, once a test subject has been given the word cow, the words milk or field might then be recognised more quickly than, say, the word airport. Jn another experiment, unrelated pairs of words such as scarlet onion were taught. After a day during, which the test subjects were exposed to 4 lol more language, participant were then tested on recognition of words baved on prompt words, When the prompt word was onion ~ the word scarlet wan recalled more quickly than other words. These experiments wuygent firtly, that we do indeed remeaber words in pairings and in groups, and that doing so allows for quicker and more accurate processing of the language we hear and want to produce, Quicker, that is, than constantly constructing new and creative sentences, Jf yous accept this, then is not too great leap to believe that spoken fluency, the speed at which we read and the ease and accuracy oth which we listen may all develop asa result Of language vers being, mnore familiar with growin bes more likely source of developanent than relying otton up, using grammar and words, Af words, ‘This certainly seems to ‘constsucting, sentences from the Seen Hike this, probleme connected 10 skills ent tially come back to being, more about " ‘he sectons on teaching EAP (page 139) an@ fxar cuasos (pane 140) Srphasse now essential itor student 0 Srowsen theca. See page 7 forthelistot principles. poles with ngage stents not ont dt know enough word bu hy ak rp haw words arsed rho they might sound ingroup of words aa sch as Nick Elis (2013), ave suggested that what alowsus to acquire Sor nage sents wth vsbolry intimately intervined wit rama. Tiegh the example ofthe sentence He mand co th lor. We can work ot Fright mean, more orks because we kw many other ver acs stall acros the floor, go crs He lr, lither Som what mardubld Melo patterns (alk ars dhe flor vos he lorena ars he flo, and 3000). ‘fal hese posible examples the vast majority of actual we will const ofa very oe pumber of words with go cos Helo and wk ars te loo bing the most se Es argues that tt epee earings af the Fequent combina that rh these base patterns nthe mind and tht nce we have these patens ware then able to understand and to slot in new words. “This shows how patterns can be generative tab shows ove grammar can work, bat rane be very clear that this isthe kind of grammar whichis general taught chooks. stead itis wht we coud cal exco-grammatica’ patterns, ‘Now forthe stk far et us tate thats in keeping with these ideas, we Believe that: For mors on ways fe words have more value than grammar. cof working wih languages essentially lexically driven, and words generaly come with thir wm ‘spontangous speech soe page 60. ‘connected gramma. fe our avn uiige x determined by our experience of how language suse. there huge number of patterns that can be generative to at least some degree and Aisincldes the traditional graramar patter taught in ELT). «the vast majority othe examples of anyone patter willbe made up ofa smal percentage ofl the possible words that coud be used with the pattern «o vetocaions and pattens willbe primed to go with other collocation and patterns in similarly ited was, A lexical view of teaching Towards a practical lexical pedagogy Setting ou thes principles about nguage i one thing. There sill emainsthe ise of We weren't having am argument. We were just having alaugl. @ Word form ‘As we saw in the last example, we may also use different forms of a word within at For asks to hop you erpione unas might Coma vetoed oer anette of language, soe page 67 in, overtone an ens angelangument),Sometines, different snd 1 drive from one rt word wl have diferent meanings, nd wy that re 7 an, ee mat Incl, you might ask the students: Wheeled i ass fmt Once they have provided the answers, you may then also want wo ge eee andaskenaqusions bout colleatins hatareconmeced othe tens ‘because these wil allbe used diferent. ‘© Pragmatic meanings Soret ing phe sihas Then’ bod i the UK tase tang nearing of ret to mee Ws ease o imagine a pragmatic fang a {ot have an argument than for present an agunen For example, ne cons mae someone wing ous a ofce when another person appear sod hoa agg The waiting person a They having a argument Gay his isnot simple description Pragmatic speaking ian cet outp {he ae wing and advice tothe oer petion not to knock So we mek eregere response sucha (Ob right. Thanks. come bak later, Fo mast peopl, thes leaps of understanding are lea, and we doa realy sed a such aspects ofthe language. However, there may be some common flenes ones ‘Bote calturly bound, where we sigh want emphasis this agp Neve ena The nner sponse tothe statement which meet eng ike this ‘A They te having an argument 1: What abou? A: They te having an argument 8 Wy? ‘8 They having an argument 1: Again! ‘Hye having aman 1M come bak er Synonyms. nally, ey 9 HMI a WORKS, Thin se a the ost nie atEN Se ond bnovvedge " Men ayy a Yay a give Mean, Hemet He {te things ae ve leat sn et ws at OE HE a.com span We Wh see that nw ia sanayan awe ave usumen Wt prom ane Wie we thnk he ang aE tars Frsoe or srceet or sage SS mere For more on concept checking, see the tasks on page 62 - and those (on page 63 for more on explanation, fan argument, row may share some collocations, but not others, so someone is much more likely to be at the centre ofa growing row than at the centre of a growing argument. Row’ may also be more common with certain genres, such as political journalism. It is also used by native speakers far less frequently than argument, and so, in class with students who havea limited amount of time, rather than asking ‘What's another way of saying have an argument?’ ~a question which might generate words with similar (but slightly different) meanings, we would probably be better off teaching something different and. ‘more frequent ~ or else simply exploring the word they have just learnt in more detail. Grammar: a lexical view A broader, more nuanced perspective ‘One of the most common misconceptions about teaching grammar from a lexical perspective is that it somehow means a ban on the use of grammar terms such as noun, verb, preposition, the present continuous, and so on ~ of, worse, that it means no explicit focus on grammar whatsoever. Certainly, there are plenty of people who have acquired a second language without having learned this kind of meta-language*, but we believe that if students are familiar with these terms, it makes it easier for teachers to draw attention to language and to encourage the students to notice salient features. We have already seen one small example of this earlier, when we looked at how we might expand on students’ knowledge of words that are part of the same word family. ‘We have also seen that a central part of the process of learning has to be noticing, and many theorists ~ even those like Krashen and Long, who emphasise a more natural’ kind of acquisition that mirrors the way children acquire their own first language ~ suggest that some knowledge of rules may contribute to the learning process. We very firmly believe that the kind of basics that you might have learned on initial training courses, such as explaining rules and checking concepts with questions, are good things to have in your repertoire, However, as we have already seen, taking a lexical view of language means realising that what can be described as grammar’ is much broader than traditional ELT coursebooks suggest: @ A traditional coursebook will typically have between 20-30 grammar points, many of which will be repeated and expanded upon at different levels, This means probably no more than about a hundred it sms altogether. ‘© In contrast, lexical view of language might reveal, end make explicit to learners, several hundred patterns ~ if not thousands. ‘At the same time, though, having a lexical view of language also means seeing the restrictions on creativity and the limitations on variations that occur within patterns, joned earlier, a small number of possible words tend to dominate in any fen pattern, When tackling the meaning of verb tenses (which still tnd to dominate courses), a lexical teacher might not want to spend much more time on them than they would on teaching a comparable number of words. For example, the meaning of present tenses is essentially now | the future ~the present simple signifies one of the following: habit / ata particular moment {timetabled f fact / always; while the present continuous form simply means temporary {in progress | incomplete or emphasis. 23, For mere on exploring atural usage, see the tasks on page 66 4 a spend hour after our teaching and retean precious classroom time going oy that is, unfortunately all that we are rea of ese rules adds nothing extra to student stl clearly be wrone 1 nd hour U when we SPE fe stuctUress gs ofthese st ition ne Ye spon hour of wend Seriemeanin er pet i ate more fluent. Wi iy bitty, comms thencabout teaching a greater varity of pattems ang ays. Limited bat not limiting, Because the thro fiom a lexical view is that we pay attention to act, .ge beyond the sentence level sxically is ‘Teaching grammar Ie “ be ‘exploring them in more li sci i also means thinking more about usag thing tl ag ~and thi ‘grammar and in discourse it may well be best 0 restrict students exposure to some doe poctures Single phrases or chunks if Yu prefer ~ Such a Have yOu egg secxemles ofa particular structure (inthis instance, the present perfect simple), then has to be taught in its entirety ~with examples of positive sentences, negatives nd question forms all filled with a wide range of different verbs. @ Chunks as. “At lower levels in particu [es worth pointing out hete that ‘Have you ever Been to-+ place? isa generative pattern, just as‘have + subject + past paricipl’is It may be less ‘creative’ and limited, butitsake ge more on rounded in common usage. Furthermore, when looking a such a pattern, the ecal to draw stud teacher might focus mote on exploring language that might be used alongsideit-andiy attention to con the many different possible ways that the structure itself could be lexicalsed see pages 5 ‘We might be less concerned, for example, with using auxiliaries in short answers (i, have | No, [ haven't) and more concerned with what follows a particular structure in ‘everyday conversation. This might means considering the range of possible esponssto the question above: © Yes © Na © Nonever Have you? (© No, never, but Pi lve to, © Yeah, quite a few times, actually. © No, but I'm thinking of going hr his sume ac Andon sume actualy Jn other words, we would egamme nee focus more on discourse than on trying to ‘over allaspe8~ At higher levels, we would obs We would obvious «an be lexcalised (Hae 0) but we would stl 'y expand on the range of different ways struct rent 02 Have you ever eid it? / Have you ve fal Pe focus more on the most common verbs used witht SunMUre and continue to look at how dig "se around examples of the st tinue to look at ho i ples of the structure In this way exc ly -oriente with ees gan ete teacher wit Pethaps tend to show a structure’ itera Maistre more oem and wile ee hat student en, ct ‘hat students have already mes and will more frequently recycle st" © Words de “ing grammar: usage over rul : rules ind that some trai OF about countabilty) ar ive extr extra examples that c al rules (for examples "ho fe over-simplified, and ta n larity such matters for te —_— drink coffee) or the use of it differently (= have dere She's dating them), but F don't Tdon't see it ike that. I see somicone at the moment texical teachers will also be avare of the fact that individual words be frequently used with part colligation* ~ and that th Tealised. This means we Texpected it to be quicker 1 dis? expect it to take so tong sentences it tends to colligate ‘we could say that in positive colligates with so (or such) in negative sentences it often comparative forms, while For more on how A lexical view of language to draw students’ based grammar, but incre attention to syntax, with more attention being See pages 56 and 58. described as syntax* might mean limiting the amount asing the amount of time s 18 paid to areas such as nou: and discourse. Of time we devote to tense- Pent on the grammar around words, in phrases* and to what might be © Grammar is all around Finally, teaching lexically means we in exercises, Brammar exercises, we may draw attention to vocabul attention to grammar ~ both ‘traditional and ‘lexical Tt may also mean that we sometime that students are trying to produc traditional grammar syllabus, I — in vocabulary exercises, es correct and draw attention to gramm: tical structures * before they have been formally taught them via their Finally, teaching lexically may involve a conscious (pany one particular grammar structure, but it may also mean that we end up prow ‘ding the students with many more encounters with grammat and many more opporntin {0 notice patterns than traditional approaches — where grammar and vocabulary are ‘generally parceled up and separated ~ allow for, decision not to devote whole lessons » Skills: a lexical view The central importance of language We noted earlier that, over recent decades, there had been a trend in ELT towards treating reading and listening as skills that are somehow separate from language, but that the insights of lexical views of language suggest that poor skills are largely the result of Janguage problems: ; ¢ Esertlyfor howe who can akendy re inthe wn st ngage the st majority of problems they to read in English are due to the fact that they do r ough common combinations of not know enough language, and they do not know enough words. 28 rr srablers of not being able xe wil be the ation P a me ahey already Know we they are used in «e When listening in Ene ising wor For exercises on Fas, oF 0 ECE TSunaehaes ond worea = ‘eerste veers ae caw “ may also just not know about more spoken f gn fl ot ieners do not 2 set cont ene 18 OE dead tie sae 9 deatised put native speaker NSE js still something to stent Sfng ative user texts wheter they be of the language, students, comer con writen forms f atucdies have predom y focused pinanth sand can have differing grammar Conversations at ‘rumber of the kind of so be that and lexi. It may a native ke choicest such a8 speaking like some Kind Shations that students Wl 6 i ents maybe Hitenin reat ae rene or songs in Enel

    You might also like