Language Teaching

http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA

Additional services for Language Teaching:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Learning and processing L2 vocabulary

David Singleton

Language Teaching / Volume 30 / Issue 04 / October 1997, pp 213 - 225

DOI: 10.1017/S0261444800014968, Published online: 12 June 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0261444800014968

How to cite this article:

David Singleton (1997). Learning and processing L2 vocabulary. Language Teaching, 30, pp 213-225 doi:10.1017/
S0261444800014968

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LTA, IP address: 138.251.14.35 on 02 Apr 2015

 State of the art article
Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
David Singleton Trinity College, Dublin

Introductory preliminary general thoughts on the lexicon and with

some thumb-nail commentaries on a selection of the
This article sets out to provide the reader with some major publications on L2 vocabulary learning and
insights into the current state of research in the area teaching that are currently available. Thereafter, the
of second language (L2) lexical acquisition and pro- article explores, on the one hand, the question of the
cessing. Anyone familiar with psycholinguistic role of form and meaning in the L2 mental lexicon as
research concerning the first language (LI) lexicon compared with the LI lexicon, and, on the other, that
will be aware of the prominence within that domain of the extent to which the LI mental lexicon and the
of attempts to shed light on the interconnections L2 mental lexicon operate separately or in an inte-
between the elements involved in the construction grated manner. In the concluding section brief con-
and functioning of the lexicon - input and output, sideration is given to some pedagogical implications
form and meaning, spoken and written representa- of the research findings that have been examined.
tions, etc. Not only are such organisational issues fas-
cinating in their own right, but they obviously have
implications for important practical problems which Contextualising preliminaries
need to be resolved in, for example, mother tongue While Meara's pleas of the 1970s and early 1980s for
teaching and language remediation. In research relat- more attention to be paid to the lexicon in L2
ing to the L2 mental lexicon the same issues arise research (see, e.g.,Meara, 1980) have in recent times
and are further complicated by questions having to received what looks like a rather fulsome response,
do with the fact that more than one language comes the state of basic research into the L2 lexicon, as
into the picture, notably, (a) the degree to which the Meara himself notes (e.g. 1992), has continued to
L2 lexicon resembles the LI lexicon in terms of the leave something to be desired, and, according to
respective roles of form and meaning, and (b) the writers such as Galisson (e.g. 1991) and Lewis (e.g.
degree to which and ways in which the L2 lexicon 1993,1997), the treatment of lexis in most language
interacts with the LI lexicon. It is precisely these lat- teaching approaches is also inadequate. How is one
ter questions which the present article seeks to to explain such a deficit, given the established fact
address, again, not only because of the intrinsic inter- that vocabulary knowledge is a crucial factor across
est which they present, but also because of the practi- the whole spectrum of L2 activities (see, e.g., Kelly,
cal problems to which they relate. 1991; Koda, 1989; Laufer, 1992; Laufer & Nation,
The article does not, therefore, aspire to exhaust- 1995; Linnarud, 1986)? One possibility is that inter-
iveness. Given the number of recent publications est in the lexicon is to some extent thwarted by the
which deal in some way or other with L2 lexical difficulty of delimiting things lexical with respect to
operations, and given the constraints of length within what has traditionally been labelled as 'grammar'.
which the article was conceived, any such aspiration It is certainly true that in theoretical linguistics
would in any case have been out of place. However, in (see, e.g., Chomsky, 1989), computational linguistics
order to contextualise the particular orientation of (see, e.g., Gross, 1991: 107; Sinclair, 1991) and psy-
the present discussion, and in order to give a direction cholinguistics (see, e.g., Cieslicka-Ratajczak, 1994)
to readers with a broader interest in vocabulary much ink has recently been spilt over the lexical
acquisition/processing, the article begins with some aspects of syntax and the syntactic aspects of lexis.
Moreover, this trend away from seeing the lexicon as
a mere repository of content words has been fully
David Singleton is a Fellow ofTrinity College Dublin, reflected in the L2 domain. From L2 research on
where he holds the position of Senior Lecturer in such diverse topics as testing (e.g. Arnaud, 1989,
Applied Linguistics at the Centre for Language and 1992),'core'vocabulary (e.g. Robinson, 1989),leam-
Communication Studies. His publications over the last ability (e.g.Xaufer, 1991a, 1993-94), error analysis
twenty years have covered topics ranging from commu- (e.g. Granger & Montfort (1993-94), pedagogical
nicative syllabus design to the history of the French lan- grammar (e.g. Little, 1994) and the age factor (e.g.
guage; however, the principal foci of his research have Martohardjono & Flynn, 1995) the consistent mes-
been the age factor in language acquisition, language sage that comes through is that the lexicon defies
transfer, and the L2 mental lexicon. easy definition and cannot readily be disentangled
from 'grammatical' knowledge.
Lang.Teach. 30,213-225. Printed in the United Kingdom © 1997 Cambridge University Press 213

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
This demarcation problem may in some measure there is nevertheless a wide consensus that this is a
be resolvable by reference to a distinction between work that should be on the shelf of every language
lexico-grammatical phenomena which are specific teacher with an interest in developing the lexical
to given languages and syntactic phenomena that dimension of his/her intructional practice.
transcend the particularities of individual systems.
Where precisely in given instances the border
between these two categories lies may be unclear, M. & COADY, J. (eds.)
H U C K I N , T . , HAYNES,
but it is always possible to 'play safe' and to treat as (1993). Second Language Reading and Vocabulary
lexical those areas which are most transparently lan- Learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
guage-particular: forms and meanings of individual The question underlying the book as a whole is
items, collocational patterns, 'local' syntax (e.g. com- whether context is useful to L2 readers in terms of
plementation of verbs), etc. On the other hand, even promoting lexical acquisition, a question to which
if one takes the line (as the present article does) that the editors' answer is not a resounding yes. Individual
in our present state of knowledge it still makes sense contributions to the collection cover such particular
thus to carve out (provisionally) an area of language aspects as lexical frequency and saliency as factors in
which can be labelled lexical, it would be unwise to acquisition, procedural and declarative lexical knowl-
assume that the lexical construct will in the end edge, LI evidence on contextual guessing, strategies
prove to be theoretically or empirically dissociable for inferring word-meaning from context, learning
from other linguistic or psycholinguistic domains. academic lexis, and dealing with false friends. A criti-
With these cautionary thoughts in mind, let us cism of the book has been that the studies it presents
now turn our attention to some of the resources that define context and guessing in divergent ways and
are available to teachers, course-designers and that these studies do not deal with extensive reading.
researchers with lexical preoccupations. There fol- Nevertheless, this is a landmark compilation, which,
lows a series of brief accounts of the content of ten though no easy read, repays close attention.
books which deal in part or in toto with L2 lexical
acquisition/processing1.
LEWIS,M. (1993). Tlte Lexical Approach: the State
o/ELTand a Way Tonvard. Hove: Language
CARTER, R. (1987). Vocabulary:Applied Linguistic Teaching Publications.
Perspectives. London: Allen & Unwin. This publication assesses the role of the lexicon in
Although this book is now ten years old, use contin- language and considers current L2 teaching materials
ues to be made of it on inservice and postgraduate and practice in the light of this assessment. It con-
courses.This is a fitting tribute to its comprehensive- cludes that most L2 syllabuses and pedagogy fail to
ness and accessibility. With regard to range of con- reflect the essentially lexical nature of language, and
tent, the volume includes copiously referenced that the situation needs to be rectified forthwith.The
chapters not only on vocabulary learning/teaching book makes rather scant mention of L2 lexical
and learners' dictionaries but also on lexical relations, acquisition research, but its broad thrust is in tune
core vocabulary, lexical patterns, lexis and discourse, with what researchers are now saying about the all-
and lexis and literary stylistics.With regard to accessi- pervasiveness of the lexicon in language and lan-
bility, while the writing is rarely exciting, it is consis- guage learning, and, on the practical front, it offers
tently clear — well within the grasp of any 'intelligent many interesting suggestions for lexis-driven class-
layperson' willing to engage with it in a serious fash- room activities.
ion.

NATION, P. (1990). Teaching and Learning SCHREUDER, R. &WELTENS, B. (eds.) (1993).

Vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
This book combines a fairly thoroughgoing review
of research into the learning and use of L2 vocabu-
lary with a treatment of the pedagogy required to
deal with different types of lexis for different types of
purpose in the classroom. In its appendices it also
contains, inter alia, two useful word-lists, some for-
mulas to facilitate the lexical analysis of texts, and an
illustrated discussion of vocabulary test design. Some
critiques of the book have been less than enthusiastic
about the account it gives of lexical research, but
1
The reader is also directed to Meara's website, which
constitutes a valuable up-to-date bibliographical source:
http://www.swan.ac.uk/cals/calsres.html
214
T\\e Bilingual Lexicon. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
A compilation of original state-of-the-art review
articles commissioned from internationally
renowned researchers, this book has deservedly been
much referred to. The areas covered include: visual
word recognition, word-type effects in lexical pro-
cessing, accessing conceptual representations, trans-
lating versus picture-naming procedures in lexical
research, vocabulary size, lexical attrition, communi-
cation strategies, modelling lexical comprehension
and production, and vocabulary teaching. The texts
of the articles, it should be noted, make few conces-
sions to the reader without some prior experience of
the relevant literature.

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
HARLEY, B. (ed.) (1995). Lexical Issues in The book begins with some contextualising review
Language Learning. Ann Arbor/Amsterdam/ articles, includes a number of reports of case studies
Philadelphia: Language Learning/John and quantitative research, offers no fewer than four
Benjamins Publishing Company. contributions on pedagogical issues, and ends with an
This volume is another compilation of articles, in attempt at a research synthesis.
this case of studies previously published in the jour-
nal Language Learning. After an editorial introduction LEWIS, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical
the book is arranged under three sectional headings: Approach:PuttingTlieory into Practice. Hove:
'Developmental Perspectives on the Bilingual Language Teaching Publications.
Lexicon', 'Psycholinguistic Factors in Vocabulary A follow-up to Lewis's 1993 book (see above), this
Learning', and 'Lexical Acquisition and Use in volume offers further arguments in favour of a lexi-
Communication Tasks'.The quality of the material is cal view of language and further suggestions as to
consistently high, but it would present some prob- how the 'lexical approach' might be applied in the
lems of accessibility for readers without a research classroom. Particular attention is paid to ways of
background in the areas in question. organising lexis, to lexis-oriented exercises, and to
the adaptation of familiar classroom activities to a
HATCH, E. & BROWN, C. (1995). Vocabulary, lexical perspective. Also included are reports on'lexi-
Semantics and Language Education. Cambridge: cal approach' classes, some reflections on neglected
Cambridge University Press. areas of content, and a discussion of teacher training.
In many respects this book overlaps with and updates As in Lewis's earlier book, references to L2 lexical
Carter's 1987 volume (see above). Like Carter's pub- acquisition research are somewhat sparse, but, again
lication, it covers much more than vocabulary learn- as in the earlier case, food for thought and useful
ing and teaching; indeed, this topic accounts for just practical suggestions are present in abundance.
one of the five parts into which the book falls, the
other four being devoted to semantics, the lexicon in
general, lexical cases and morphology, and vocabu-
lary choice and discourse use. It constitutes an excel- Form and meaning in the L2 mental
lent introduction to the field of lexicology in lexicon
general, being not only scholarly but also extremely A widely held view about the L2 mental lexicon is
lucid and readable. that it is an essentially form-driven entity, that 'while
in the native speakers mental lexicon there are strong
ANDERMAN, G. & ROGERS, M. (eds.) (1996). semantic links between the words, the connections
Words, Words, Words: the Translator and the between words in additional languages are primarily
Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual phonological' (Laufer, 1989: 17). The evidence typi-
Matters Ltd. cally cited in support of this 'phonological' concep-
Language learning/teaching is once again just one of tion of the L2 lexicon is that yielded by the Birkbeck
a number of issues dealt with in this book, a collec- Vocabulary Project word association tests (see, e.g.,
tion of seven invited papers. The topics dealt with Carter, 1987: 158ff.; Gass & Selinker, 1994: 276;
are: the translator and the language learner, the men- Harley, 1995b: 7), from which the inference often
tal lexicon, classic studies in L2 vocabulary acquisi- drawn is that the L2 mental lexicon is 'quite different
tion, prototype theory in relation to lexical from that of the native speaker' (Meara, 1984:233f.).
acquisition and translation, English words in transla- The notion that an important part of L2 knowledge
tion, neologisms and dictionaries, and computational is qualitatively distinct from its LI counterpart is
perspectives on translating and language learning. All obviously of interest to theoreticians, while the
of the articles are accessibly written, and their con- notion that form predominates in L2 lexical func-
tent is mosdy such as to be of interest to researchers tioning has self-evident implications for how we are
and teachers alike. to approach the teaching of lexis. On both counts,
therefore, the Birkbeck data warrant close examina-
COADY,J. & HUCKIN, T. (1997). Second Language tion. This section begins with just such an examina-
Vocabulary Acquisition: a Rationalefor Pedagogy. tion and then explores some other research
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. perspectives which bear on the question of form and
This new collection of articles in which Coady and meaning in the mental lexicon.
Huckin have had a hand is much broader in scope and
arguably more balanced in its approach and of wider
appeal than the Huckin, Haynes & Coady 1993 vol-
ume (see above). On this last point, although the book The Birkbeck results: a reassessment
appears in the Cambridge Applied Linguistics Series, As examples of phonologically based responses in the
much of its content would be both readily compre- Birkbeck data, Meara cites the following items elicited
hensible and of immediate value to language teachers. by the French stimulus btton ('concrete' [the building
215

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
material]) from English-speaking learners of French: more semantic responses. Her work with Swedish-
animal ('animal'), stupide ('stupid'), orchestre ('orches-speaking learners of English shows that the same shift
tra'). For Meara such responses indicate the predomi- is discernible between less proficient and more profi-
nance of phonological links in the L2 lexicon, the cient stages of L2 development (cf. also Cunningham,
source of the response being in each case a word 1990). Interestingly, Soderman does not interpret her
which is phonologically connected to the stimulus - findings as indicating that increased overall linguistic
bete (noun: 'beast', 'animal'), bite (adjective: 'stupid') proficiency causes a general change in the organisation
and bdton ('stick'), respectively. There are, however, of the L2 mental lexicon. For her, the changing dis-
some objections to this line of argumentation. tribution of response types is to be seen in relation to
For one thing, although Meara (1984: 231) knowledge of 'particular words': a specific lexical
describes the L2 stimuli used in the Birkbeck Project item will tend to trigger different kinds of response at
as 'very common' items, the cited examples of such different stages of its incorporation into an individ-
stimuli tell a different tale — including alongside be"ton ual's lexical knowledge — formal at the outset, seman-
(hardly an everyday word) items like caque ('herring- tic later — irrespective of the status of the language it
barrel'), dm Cthick' [used of grass, beard]) and imail belongs to and of the global proficiency level in that
('enamel'). Given the relative infrequency of such language of the individual concerned.
words and 'the small size of [the subjects' French] In sum, the Birkbeck data do not license the
vocabularies' (ibid.: 232), the probability is that the proposition that the L2 mental lexicon is qualitative-
responses to them reflect less a peculiarly L2 mental ly different from the LI mental lexicon in being
structure than simple ignorance. After all, LI situa- intrinsically phonological in its basis of operations;
tions in which unfamiliar lexical items are encoun- these data more readily bear a contrary interpretation
tered also give rise to responses based on any clues to — i.e., that L2 lexical processing is semantically
links with known words which the sound or look of focused wherever the meaning of a given word is
the unfamiliar items may offer. accessible, and that in many instances meaning plays a
It is important to note too that the connections role (in attempts to associate unknown words with
arrived at in the above process, while based on for- known words) even where the meaning of a word is
mal similarities, nevertheless have a clear semantic not available. Other word association test data sup-
dimension. For instance, the responses animal and stu- port this latter interpretation.
pide, elicited by the stimulus beton, undoubtedly
result, as Meara claims, from linking beton with the
formally similar item bete. However, the linkage is far Research Into L2-intemal vocabulary learning
from purely formal. Meara himself suggests that the difficulties
response animal is motivated by the meaning of bete Research into L2-internal vocabulary learning diffi-
in its substantival usage, namely, 'beast', 'animal', culties broadly supports the line taken above. For a
while the response stupide is based on the meaning of general account of this research, an excellent source
bite in its adjectival usage — 'stupid'. is Laufer (e.g. 1990a, 1991a, 1993-94).We shall here
Few of the responses reported by Meara are in fact take as our framework Laufers inventory of'intralex-
related to stimuli in phonological terms solely. ical' difficulty factors - both formal (pronounceabili-
Marechal's (1995) re-analysis of Meara's (1978) data ty, length, grammatical category, morphological
finds that of the 100 French stimuli used by Meara, complexity) and semantic (specificity of meaning,
only the 18 most difficult items elicit exclusively multiple meaning, metaphorical meaning, connota-
phonologically related answers. Similar findings tional and stylistic nuances, synonymy).
emerge from other L2 word association studies. Concerning pronounceability, L2 learners often
Thus, O'Gorman's (1996) report on the English L2 appear to avoid words that they find difficult to pro-
word association data of Cantonese-speaking inter- nounce (see Levenston, 1979), and those words which
mediate-level learners of English reveals that among they find easier to pronounce they also perceive more
these subjects' most frequent responses to the 20 accurately (see Gibson & Levin, 1975). As far as
stimuli the only stricdy phonological associate^ was acquisition is concerned, more easily pronounced L2
wealth (in response to health). Likewise, consistendy words also appear to be more readily retained (see
fewer than 4% of the associates produced by Rodgers, 1969). One notes that pronounceability is a
Anglophone students of French within the frame- factor in LI lexical acquisition also: Celce-Murcia
work of the Trinity College Dublin Modern (1978) found that her two-year-old daughter, who
Languages Research Project (see, e.g., Marechal, was simultaneously acquiring two Lls, English and
1995; Singleton, 1994) were responses based on mere French, avoided producing words in either which she
phonological similarity to stimuli. found difficult to say — e.g. preferring French citron
Soderman (1989,1993) points out that phonologi- /sito/ to English lemon, but preferring English spoon
cal associates are frequent in children's LI responses /pun/ to French miller.
to word association tests and draws attention to the On word-length, the evidence is contradictory.
LI 'shift in response type' with increasing age towards Some studies have failed to find a word-length effect
216

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
for processing L2 words (e.g. Rodgers, 1969); others realise that the most familiar meanings of words like
have found such an effect (e.g. Coles, 1982); and still since and while did not fit the context in which the
others have yielded mixed results (e.g. Phillips, 1981; items occurred, where they had the force of, respec-
Stock, 1976). A more recent study by Hulme, tively,'because'and'in spite of the fact that'.
Maughan & Brown (1991) shows a clear word- Problems arising from semantic opacity have been
length effect in verbal memorization tasks in respect investigated by, among others, Dagut & Laufer (1985)
not only of L2 words but also of Ll-like pseudo- and Kellerman (1978). Dagut & Laufer report that
words and of real LI words. the most frequendy avoided English phrasal verbs in
With regard to grammatical category, Rodgers's their L2 data were characterized by metaphorical
(1969) subjects apparently learned nouns and adjec- extension and semantic fusion — show off, put up until,
tives more easily than verbs and adverbs, and etc. Kellerman, for his part, found that Dutch learners
Phillips's (1981) subjects had fewer problems in the of English, while willing to use English translations of
early stages learning nouns than learning verbs or Dutch expressions involving the perceived core
adjectives. Laufer suggests that such findings may meanings of the constituent words, assumed (often
relate to the morphological complexity of verbs and wrongly) that literal translation was impossible where
to the confusability of certain adverbials. A further more peripheral meanings were operative.
possibility — in this case meaning-related — discussed In relation to connotational and stylistic nuances,
by Ellis & Beaton (1993,1995) is that nouns are gen- Dagut's (1977) work suggests that the L2 learner is
erally more imageable than other categories and that unlikely to feel the connotational differences between
this may be why they are more easily learned. They pairs of words such as skinny and slim or womanish and
note that the creation and exploitation of images womanly. L2 learners also experience problems with
around new words has been found to be a very effec- register nuances in series of synonymous expressions
tive technique in vocabulary learning (see also, e.g. like about, around, more or less, approximately (cf.
Brown & Perry, 1991). It is worth recalling in this Halliday.McIntosh & Strevens, 1964:88).
connection that in LI acquisition, the phase of very Finally on the topic of semantic difficulty factors,
rapid vocabulary expansion, the so-called 'vocabulary we come to the question of synonymy. Linnarud
explosion' phase, 'is characterized by a rapid acquisi- (1983) and Laufer (1991b) find a marked difference
tion of one particular type of word: names for between native and non-native writers of the same
objects' (McShane, 1991:146). age, the non-native writers producing many more
As for morphological complexity, one can cite the repetitions than the natives. Laufer infers (e.g. 1993-
problems that L2 learners frequently have with 94: 109) that once an L2 learner has acquired one
inflectional paradigms (see, e.g., Stock, 1976) and the form to express a given concept, acquiring more
indications (see, e.g., Benoussan & Laufer, 1984; labels for the same meaning seems like a waste of
Laufer & Benoussan, 1982) that L2 learners often effort. If this is true, then the case of synonymy is
misinterpret combinations of morphemes by virtue comparable to that of specificity of meaning, involv-
of assimilating them to similar combinations — e.g. ing not so much a learning problem as a labour-
equating outline with out of line. Morphological diffi- saving strategy.
culty is also a factor in LI acquisition. For example, What emerges from this discussion is that intralex-
in a study of the acquisition of LI (Dutch) word ical difficulty factors patently have to do with mean-
derivation rules by subjects aged 7-17, Smedts (1988) ing as well as form. Moreover, the formal difficulty
found that the 7-year-olds were able to demonstrate factors that affect L2 lexical acquisition affect LI lex-
knowledge of, on average, just 14% of the deriva- ical acquisition too. Accordingly, there is no evidence
tional relationships tested and that even the 17-year- from this quarter that the operations of L2 mental
olds knew, on average, no more than 66%. lexicon differ in kind from LI lexical operations in
Turning now to semantic difficulty factors, on the terms of the role of form.
question of specificity of meaning, Blum &
Levenston (1978) found that L2 learners of Hebrew
tended to use superordinate, i.e., more general, terms Phonological memory research
where natives tended to use hyponyms, i.e., more
The role of meaning in dealing with L2 lexis is, para-
specific terms — preferring, for example, the Hebrew
doxically, underlined by recent work showing the
equivalent of put to the equivalent of impose. One importance of being able to form accurate short-
wonders, however, whether what is at issue here is term memory representations of phonological form.
not the deployment of a strategy aimed at maximiz- Some of the relevant studies include:
ing the surrender value of lexical learning effort
rather than intralexical problematicity as such (cf. • Baddeley et d/.'s (1988) investigation of an Italian-
Laufer, 1993-94:106f.). speaker with a deficient short-term phonological
Difficulties associated with multiple meaning were memory, who succeeded in learning pairs of
studied by Benoussan & Laufer (1984). Their sub- meaningful words in her LI but largely failed to
jects, Hebrew-speaking learners of English, failed to acquire new vocabulary in an L2 (Russian);
217

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
• Papagno et alls (1991) study, which found that
impeding the construction of short-term phono-
logical representations (by preventing subjects from
silently repeating to themselves the lexical items
they were asked to memorize) failed to disrupt the
learning of LI paired associates but did disrupt the
learning of L2 vocabulary — except in cases where
subjects were able to make semantic associations
between the L2 items and words in their LI;
• Service's research (see Service, 1992; Service &
Kohonen, 1995) into the learning of English as
an L2 by Finnish children, which showed that
capacity to imitate English-like pseudowords in
tests administered before the course was a better
predictor of the level of English subsequently
attained than performance on a task involving
the matching of LI syntactic-semantic pairs;
• Service's further examination (see Service, 1993-
94; Service & Craik, 1993) of the relationship
between working-memory phonological repre-
sentations and L2 vocabulary learning in a group
of English-speaking adults, which again found a
significant correlation between repetition ac-
curacy and the memorization of novel items.
At first glance, the above research findings might
seem to support the notion that the L2 mental lexi-
con differs from the LI lexicon in being phonologi-
cally driven. On closer inspection, however, the
evidence points to a different conclusion. One notes,
for example, that experiments carried out in an LI
context also indicate a critical role for short-term
phonological store. Thus, for example, Gathercole &
Baddeley (1989) found that a phonological memory
score based on a pseudoword repetition test correlat-
ed significantly with an LI vocabulary score at age 4
and with subsequent LI lexical proficiency levels (see
also Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990).
Furthermore, the above L2 studies show the
semantic factor to be also present even in the very
early stages of dealing with a new item. For example,
Service (1993-94; Service & Craik, 1993) found that
her subjects' capacity to learn novel words signifi-
cantly correlated not only with repetition accuracy
for foreign words but also with success in learning
pairs of familiar LI words, an exercise taken to be
largely meaning-based. From this she infers that L2
vocabulary learning depends on the creation of both
phonological and semantic representations. Papagno
et at. (1991) come to similar conclusions on the basis
of their observation of their subjects' exploitation,
where possible, of semantic associations between L2
and LI forms.
Research into use of context in lexical
processing and learning
Use of context in has been a longstanding preoccu-
pation (see, e.g., Meara, 1996) of L2 lexical studies,
2i8
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015
some focusing on context-effects in the guessing of
word meaning, others looking at reference to con-
text in lexical problem solving, and still others exam-
ining how inferring word meaning in context
impacts on lexical acquisition. A typical example of
the first is that conducted by Ittzes (1991), who
showed L2 learners of English to be more successful
at guessing the sense of words in context than of
words in isolation.
With regard to the role of context in lexical prob-
lem solving, this has been explored by the C-test-
based studies conducted within the framework of the
Trinity College Dublin Modern Languages Research
Project (see, e.g., Singleton, 1993-94a, 1994, 1996;
Singleton & Little, 1991, 1992). The C-test sets the
task of restoring to wholeness a text every second
word of which (after a contextualizing lead-in pas-
sage) has had its second half deleted. Since testees
cannot alter the order of elements of the mutilated
text, the knowledge probed by the test is for the most
part clearly lexical in nature — knowledge of'content
words', 'grammatical words', word-structure, colloca-
bility, etc. (for a contrary view see Chapelle 1994 -
answered in Singleton, forthcoming [a]; Singleton &
Singleton, 1997).The consistent pattern of Dublin C-
test results has been for a substantial proportion (usu-
ally a majority) of the responses offered by subjects to
be well-formed and appropriate — which has been
interpreted as indicative that the L2 lexical processing
involved was based on a reading of the context.
Moreover, even among the unacceptable responses,
the overwhelming majority, though formally deviant,
also have had a clear semantic relationship to the con-
text. Introspective data gathered from the subjects in
question confirm the prevalence of reference to con-
textual meaning in the C-test-taking process.
Concerning the role of context in L2 lexical
acquisition, important reference points include the
work of Haastrup (e.g. 1991), Huckin (e.g. Huckin &
Bloch, 1993), Krashen (e.g. Dupuy & Krashen, 1993;
Krashen, 1989), Nation (e.g. 1982, 1993) Paribakht
& Wesche (e.g. 1997), and Schouten-van Parreren
(e.g. 1989; 1992). Experimental research carried out
by Hulstijn (e.g. 1992; 1993-94) suggests (i) that the
relevance of an unknown L2 word to the informa-
tional needs of the learner is a determinant of the
amount of attention given to that word, (ii) that the
phenomenon of acquiring L2 words 'incidentally'
from context is real but limited, and (iii) that in a sit-
uation of reading for comprehension, making an
effort to derive the meaning of unknown L2 words
from contextual and formal clues improves such
words' chances of being retained. These findings
imply a continual interaction between lexical item,
objectives and contextual meaning and thus suggest
that incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition, like other
varieties of lexical acquisition, is characterized
by both formal and semantic processing. Similar
conclusions can be drawn from Ellis, Tanaka &
IP address: 138.251.14.35
 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
Yamazaki's (1995) study of L2 vocabulary acquisition support Cook's (1992,1993) notion of'holistic multi-
in contexts of oral interaction. competence', i.e., the integration of language compe-
tence, including lexical competence, across languages.
Evidence cited by Cook includes the following:
Integration/separation between the L1
and the L2 mental lexicon • reaction time to a word in one language is related
to the frequency of its cognate in another known
We come now to the question of whether the L2 language (Caramazza & Brones, 1979);
mental lexicon is integrated with or separate from • morphemic similarities between two known
the LI mental lexicon. Once again, this question has languages influence translation performance
both a theoretical and a practical dimension. On the (CristofFanini, Kirsner & Milech, 1986);
theoretical front, it is obviously of interest to psy- • when processing an interlingual homograph,
cholinguists to know whether or not their models of bilinguals access its meanings in both their lan-
lexical operations have to envisage a distinct lexicon guages rather than just the meaning specific to
for each language known by an individual and the language being used (Beauvillain & Grainger,
whether or not they need to incorporate connec- 1987);
tions between the LI and the L2 lexicon if these are
indeed separate. On the practical front, language On the other hand, evidence in the opposite
teachers are also concerned by answers to questions direction comes from instances of language loss
about L1/L2 integration/separation in the lexical caused by brain damage in bilinguals/multilinguals
domain as in other domains, since one of their major where the lost languages are recovered separately. For
preoccupations since time immemorial has been the example, Grosjean (1982: 260) reports the case of a
question of how to assess the extent of LI influence native speaker of Swiss German who first recovered
on L2 acquisition and performance, how to regard French, a language he had learned as an adult, and
such influence, and how to react to it. subsequently recovered High German, but never
One argument against integration derives from the recovered his LI, Swiss German.Whitaker (1978:27)
idea that language is acquired and processed by a ded- reports a similar instance, that of an English classics
icated language module. At least some advocates of scholar who recovered Greek, Latin, French and
the language module idea (e.g. Emmorey & Fromkin, English (his LI) in that order.
1988) consider a substantial part of the functioning of De Groot (1993,1995) treads a path between the
the LI mental lexicon to be intramodular, and at least separatist and the integrationist positions. Reviewing
some (e.g. Bley-Vroman, 1989) hold that L2 knowl- a wide range of experimental findings, she reads the
edge acquired beyond the childhood years is evidence as pointing to a mixed representational sys-
extramodular. Taken together, these two positions tem, where concrete words and words perceived as
imply that, in the case of post-pubertal L2 learner, LI cognates across the two languages are stored in a
and L2 lexical operations proceed separately. 'compound' manner, whereas abstract words and
The processing implications of cross-language dif- noncognates in the respective languages are stored in
ferences also favour 'separatism'. The indications are a 'co-ordinate' manner. The reference here is to
that an individual faced with the task of working out Weinreich's (1953) different categories of bilingual-
the morphological structure of unfamiliar words will ism — subordinative, compound and co-ordinate. In
refer to the phonological composition of more subordinative bilingualism, according to Weinreich,
familiar items and then analogize (see Bybee, 1988; L2 word forms are connected to LI meanings via
Stemberger & MacWhinney, 1988). Since the lan- primary connections to LI forms; in compound
guages known to such an individual may have highly bilingualism the LI and L2 forms are connected at
divergent phonological systems, the implication is the meaning level; and in co-ordinate bilingualism
that the search on which such analogizing tactics separate systems of form-meaning connections exist
depend runs through the lexicon of each language for each language. For Weinreich, these different
separately. types of bilingualism are associated with different
With regard to arguments in favour of integration, kinds of learning experience. However, Weinreich
these tend to come from the (overlapping) areas of also recognizes (1953:10) that a person's or a group's
bilingualism research, research into crosslinguistic bilingualism need not be of a single type.
influence, and research into communication strate- Kirsner, Lalor & Hird (1993) also propose a mixed
gies. These arguments, and some balancing counter- system of representations. They suggest (1993: 228)
arguments from the areas in question are considered that cognates may be 'represented and stored as vari-
below. ants of the first language vocabulary'.Their proposal is
that such a subordinative structure, which some
research seems to indicate as characterizing lower lev-
Bilingualism research els of bilingual proficiency (see below), is a continu-
Many of the findings of bilingualism research (for ing feature of bilingual lexical organisation in respect
a representative sample see Harris, 1992) seem to of cognate items at other levels of proficiency too.
219

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
Other researchers have referred to the phenome-
non of code-switching in arguing for a model of the
bilingual lexicon which steers clear of separatist or
integrationist extremes. For example, De Bot and
Schreuder (1993) see code-switching as providing
evidence against the idea that one of a bilingual's lan-
guages is 'switched on' and the other'switched off' in
a given situation, and evidence in favour of the
notion that both languages are continuously activat-
ed, though each to a different level (c£. Green, 1986,
1993; Paradis, 1981). Examples they give of code-
switching from their data include:
(Dutch/English)
dat water dat liep direct from het dek in die grote
regenbakken
'that water ran directly from the roof into those big
water vessel [s]' (p. 208)
(Dutch/French)
Tu es un tofcopain
'You are a nice guy' (p. 209)
They note (1993:212) that in activation models sep-
aration between languages is not absolute, allowing
for the possibility that 'words from the non-intended
language may always slip in'.
A final relevant issue in this context is the lexical
development of bilinguals over time. One much-cited
model of bilingual lexical development, that ofvblterra
& Taeschner (Taeschner, 1983; Volterra & Taeschner,
1978), claims that bilingual children start out with a
single lexical system which has just one entry (from
one language or the other) for each meaning acquired.
A corollary of this claim is that an ability to differenti-
ate between languages — and thus a separation of the
respective lexicons — appears only around age two.
Quay (1995) disputes Volterra & Taeschner's
hypothesis. She re-analyses Taeschner's (1983) data and
finds that they actually contain considerable numbers
of cross-language equivalents. In her own study of an
English/Spanish bilingual subject, Manuela, she finds
persuasive counter-evidence to Volterra & Taeschner's
proposals: at age 1;5.15, 36% of Manuela's English
vocabulary was matched by equivalents in her Spanish,
and 40% of her Spanish vocabulary had equivalents in
her English (cf. also Zurer Pearson, Fernandez &
Oiler, 1995). The notion of a developmental dimen-
sion in bilingual lexical organisation should not, how-
ever, be entirely ruled out.De Groot (1995) points to a
number of studies which indicate a proficiency effect
on bilingual lexical organisation, subordinative struc-
ture being associated with low proficiency and com-
pound structure with high proficiency.
Research into the role of crosslinguistic
influence
Research has shown (see, e.g., Laufer, 1990a; 1990b;
1993-94; Benoussan & Laufer, 1984) that learners
220
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015
constantly seek to make connections between new
words they encounter in their target language and
words in languages they already know, even when
the languages concerned are unrelated. Such con-
nections have both a formal and a semantic dimen-
sion. Indeed, it appears that conflicts often arise
between crosslinguistic semantic-associative process-
es and form-oriented processes. For example,
Giacobbe's (1993-94) Spanish-speaking female sub-
ject acquiring French naturalistically, faced with the
French word cuisine ('kitchen'), on the one hand
seemed to associate it with the Spanish word for
'kitchen' — cotina -, producing forms like [kosin] and
[kosi], and on the other hand attempted to replicate
the French form faithfully, producing forms like
[kusin] and [kwisin] (see also Giacobbe &
Cammarota, 1986). Such evidence of crosslinguistic
influence at the lexical level obviously calls into
doubt any notion of a complete separation between
the L2 and LI lexicons. There follow some further
examples of research findings bearing on crosslin-
guistic aspects of lexical operations, as well as a caveat
regarding the interpretation of crosslinguistic data.
One research approach which has yielded plentiful
crosslinguistic evidence is error analysis. For exam-
ple, Grauberg's (1971) analysis of the written errors
in German made by first-year university students of
German reveals that, of the 102 lexical errors isolat-
ed, 50% had a crosslinguistic dimension, 35 being
based on faulty perceptions of equivalence between
English and German, and 16 consisting in the com-
plete transfer of English expressions. Similar findings
emerge from my own study of crosslinguistic influ-
ence on the semantico-grammatical aspects of the
French interlanguage of an English-speaking learner
of French (Singleton, 1987). The kinds of errors
noted by Grauberg are discernible in these latter data
too, the difference being that - probably because of
the subject's perception that one of his L2s, Spanish,
was closer to French than was English (cf., e.g.
Kellerman, 1977,1979,1983; Ringbom, 1987) - this
L2 was actually more prominent as a source of trans-
fer than the LI. In addition, the data contain numer-
ous examples of coinages based on English and/or
Spanish lexical forms (e.g. [tipi'kal] for typique (cf.
English typicat); [sa'sil] for simple (cf. Spanish senciUo —
'simple').
At least some kinds of productive transfer error
can be explained in terms of the encoding of newly
encountered elements using the model of known
items in another language (cf. Singleton, 1987).
Clearly, such an explanation rests on the assumption
that the lexicons of languages other than that being
used for communicative purposes are continuously
available for consultation. Alternatively, one can
invoke the notion of'borrowing' (cf., e.g. Corder,
1978, 1983; Kellerman, 1977, 1979, 1983; Krashen,
1981:67) — a strategy involving not only the 'online'
consultation of a lexicon or lexicons other than that
IP address: 138.251.14.35
 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
of the language in which communication is taking
place (cf. Singleton, forthcoming [b]), but also the
use of knowledge from another lexicon in order to
'camouflage' the alienness of the borrowed items.
Crosslinguistic issues also arise in relation to the
deliberate learning of vocabulary. A recent study by
Stoffer (1996) illustrates this point. Stoffer used a
self-report instrument to assess the use of vocabulary
learning strategies by a large sample of American
university students of various foreign languages.
Nine factors emerged from a factor analysis of the
data, of which, in terms of frequency, the over-
whelmingly dominant category overall was
'Strategies Used to Create Mental Linkages', the
highest scoring of the strategies included under this
heading being that of linking L2 words to LI words.
Clearly, the creation of such linkages would not be
possible if lexicon of the LI were not available for
consultation and comparison during the processing
of L2 items.
On the other hand, evidence of crosslinguistic
influence is not so plentiful as to support the idea of
full integration between the LI and the L2 lexicon
either. One recalls Duskova's (1969: 19) comment
that many L2 errors 'seem to have little, if any, con-
nection with the mother tongue'. Indeed, a number
of studies of that vintage suggested that no more
than about a third of the L2 productive errors of the
subjects in question were crosslinguistically induced
(see, e.g., Singleton, 1981:4f.).
Research into communication strategies
Communication strategies have been much
researched over the past twenty years (see, e.g.,
Bialystok, 1990; Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Kellerman,
1991; Palmberg, 1979; Poulisse, 1990, 1993;Tarone,
1977,1980;Varadi, 1980).Two aspects of this research
bear on the lexical integration/separation question.
The first relates to the content of the previous sub-
section: communication strategies often make use of
lexical knowledge derived from languages other than
that in which communication is taking place. The
second is the similarity which emerges between
communication strategies used in L2 and those used
in LI.
Concerning the former aspect, every treatment of
L2 communication strategies recognizes the deploy-
ment in diverse ways of knowledge of languages
other than that in which communication is taking
place. Thus, for example,'conscious transfer'- cover-
ing 'literal translation' and 'language switch' - is one
of the categories of strategy identified by Tarone
(1977); Kellerman (1991: 150) sees resorting to
another language as one of the 'two fundamental
ways' in which his 'code strategy' operates (the other
being the exploitation of L2 productive processes);
and Poulisse (1993) refers to recourse to LI as well as
L2 items in her 'Substitution Strategy' and to the
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015
application of LI as well as L2 morphological and
phonological encoding procedures in her
'Substitution Plus' strategy (see also Ridley 1997;
Ridley & Singleton, 1995a, 1995b; Singleton, 1997).
Obviously, in order for such strategies to be applied,
there must be the possibility of interaction between
the mental lexicons associated with the languages
involved.
With regard to resemblances between strategies
exhibited by L2 users and those applied by LI users,
Kellerman (e.g. 1991) and Bialystok (e.g. 1990) have
insisted that '[strategic] behaviour is surprisingly
commonplace amongst native speakers' (Kellerman,
1991:153). Kellerman (ibid.: be. tit.) cites in this con-
nection LI situations 'where one member of a pair of
speakers is an expert and the other a novice and the
novice needs to have some term explained or to find
out what something is called'. He also summarizes
(ibid.: 157f.) a wide range of research which indicates
that referential strategies and the ways in which
speakers structure definitions are substantially the
same whether an LI or an L2 is being used. In the
present context, the relevance of such evidence lies
in what it says about processing overlap between the
LI and the L2 lexicon. If it is the case that strategic
language use is essentially common ground between
LI and L2 processing, this constitutes yet another
argument in favour of the view that the LI mental
lexicon and the L2 mental lexicon are connected.
Concluding summary and some
pedagogical implications
What seems to emerge from the foregoing discussion
is that:
a) the L2 mental lexicon is not qualitatively different
from the LI mental lexicon in terms of the
respective roles played by form and meaning; in
* both L2 and LI formal processing has a very sig-
nificant part to play in dealing with an unfamiliar
expression, but it is accompanied by semantic
processing wherever conditions allow, and the
role of semantic processing grows in importance
as the integration of the new item progresses;
b) the LI and the L2 lexicon are neither completely
disconnected from each other nor totally inte-
grated with each other, the precise relationship
between a given L2 entry and a given LI entry in
the mental lexicon probably depending on such
factors as how the words have been acquired,
how well they are known, and to what extent
formal arid/or semantic similarity is perceived
between them.
With regard to pedagogical implications, one can
point to a number of elements in the research find-
ings reviewed which would appear to bear on the
teaching of vocabulary. To begin with, it is now
evident that there is a question-mark over the extent
221
IP address: 138.251.14.35
 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
to which it is in fact possible to conceive of lexis as
separate from other aspects of language. The infer-
ence must be that the teaching of given lexical items
needs to address not only individual forms and con-
cepts but also - at the very least - 'local' syntax and
collocational environments.
Another obvious inference from this survey is that
both formal and semantic aspects of words need to be
given attention in the teaching/learning process. As it
stands, this is an unhelpful truism. However, some of
the details suggested by the research may be rather
more useful. For example, concerning form, one mes-
sage seems to be that establishing an accurate internal
representation of a word's formal attributes is especial-
ly important in the early stages of dealing with a new
item. One possible pedagogical reading of this finding
is that the natural tendency to rehearse new words
should be reinforced in classroom activities, and that —
at a metacognitive level — teachers should attempt to
inculcate in learners the strategy of repetition of new
lexical forms, wherever they are encountered.
As far as meaning is concerned, the availability of a
mental image emerges as a possible aid in thefixingof
words in memory. Again, teachers can put knowledge
of this finding to good effect both directly in class in
activities around particular words and less directly by
encouraging the practice of visualization in all cir-
cumstances. In addition, the evidence on intralexical
difficulty suggests that lexically focused instruction
and classroom tasks might usefully concentrate on
explorations of polysemy, stylistic connotation and
semantic relations (synonymy, hyponymy, etc.).
It will come as no surprise to teachers that
research confirms the reality of incidental vocabulary
acquisition. In teaching circles it has always been
assumed that learners 'pick up' words from their gen-
eral experience of interacting in the target language
in the absence of any specific instruction. It may,
however, be less common knowledge that the effica-
cy of such acquisition is enhanced when an active
approach is taken towards the use of context and
other clues in dealing with unfamiliar items. Once
more, there would seem to be good grounds for
intervening at a metacognitive level. Training learn-
ers in the art of exploiting contextual information,
knowledge of related forms, etc. in encounters with
new words coupled with a simple piece of advice
like 'Try to work out what the word means before
going to the dictionary' could yield substantial bene-
fits in terms of numbers of words acquired and the
durability of lexical gains.
Finally, a thought or two about crosslinguistic
influence. It is apparent from much of the research
discussed above that the crosslinguistic factor will
inevitably be present in the learning and use of L2
lexis.This is something that teachers and learners sim-
ply have to come to terms with. Nor is it necessarily
unqualifiedly bad news. On the contrary, where relat-
ed languages are concerned, the crosslinguistic factor
222
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015
can greatly enhance accessibility in receptive mode
(thus rendering the L2 input more comprehensible
and acquirable than would otherwise have been the
case), and even in productive mode carefully managed
borrowing can be an extremely effective way of
expanding limited L2 resources. One response to the
crosslinguistic dimension, therefore, would be to
'make friends with' it by adopting a 'language aware-
ness' approach and exploring areas where strategic
transfer between given languages will and will not
work. Another would be simply to take comfort in
the indications that as proficiency increases L2 lexical
dependency on LI seems to diminish. In any case, the
temptation to react to crosslinguistic influence by
attempting systematically to extirpate it almost cer-
tainly needs to be resisted.
References
ANDERMAN, G. & ROGERS, M. (eds.) (1996). Words, words, uvrds:
the translator and the language learner. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
ARNAUD, P. (1989).Vocabulary and grammar: a multitrait-multi-
method investigation. AILA Revieiv/Revue de VAILA 6,
56-65.
ARNAUD, P. (1992). Objective lexical and grammatical character-
istics of L2 written compositions and the validity of separate
component tests. In P. Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 133-45.
ARNAUD, P. & BEJOINT, H. (eds.) (1992). Vocabulary and applied
linguistics. Houndmills: Macmillan.
BADDELEY, A., PAPAGNO, C. & VALLAR, G. (1988). When long-
term learning depends on short-term storage. Journal of
Memory and Language, 2 7 , 5 8 6 - 9 5 .
BEAUVILLAIN, C. & GRAINGER, J. (1987). Accessing interlexical
homographs: some limitations of a language-selective access.
Journal of Memory and Language, 26,658-72.
BENOUSSAN, M. & LAUFER, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in con-
text in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Research in
Reading,!, 15-32.
BlALYSTOK, E. (1990). Communication strategies: a psychological
analysis of second-language use. Oxford: Blackwell.
BLEY-VROMAN, R. (1989). What is the logical nature of foreign
language learning? In S. Gass & J. Schachter (eds.), Linguistic
perspectives on second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 41-68.
BLUM, S. & LEVENSTON, E. (1978). Universals in lexical simplifi-
cation. Language Learning, 28,399-416.
BROWN,T. & PERRY, E (1991). A comparison of three learning
strategies for ESL vocabulary acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,
25,655-70.
BYDEE, J. (1988). Morphology as lexical organisation. In M.
Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.), 119-41.
CARAMAZZA, A. & BRONES, I. (1979). Lexical access in bilin-
guals. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13,212-14.
CARTER, R . (1987). Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives.
London:Allen & Unwin.
CELCE-MURCIA, M. (1978). The simultaneous acquisition of
English and French in a two-year-old child. In E. Hatch (ed.),
Second language acquisition: a book of readings. Rowley MA:
Newbury House, 38-53.
CHAPELLE, C. (1994). Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabu-
lary research? Second Language Research, 10,157-87.
CHOMSKY, N. (1989). Some notes on economy of derivation and
representation. MITWorking Papers in Linguistics, 10,43—74.
QESLICKA-RATAJCZAK.A. (1994).The mental lexicon in second
language learning. StudiaAnglica Posnaniensia,29,105—17.
IP address: 138.251.14.35
 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
COADY, J. & HUCKIN, T. (1997). Second language vocabulary deficits in language-disordered children: is there a causal con-
acquisition: a rationale for pedagogy- Cambridge: Cambridge nection? Journal ofMemory and Language, 29,336-60.
University Press. GlACODBE, J. (1993-94). Construction des formes lexicales et
COLES, M. (1982). Word perception,frst language script and learners ofactivite cognitive dans l'acquisition du francais langue sec-
English as a second language. M.A. dissertation. University of onde.In D. Singleton (ed.) (1993-94b), 29-54.
London, Birkbeck College. GlACOBDEj. & CAMMAROTA M.-A. (1986). Learners' hypotheses
COOK, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language for the acquisition of lexis. Studies in Second Language
Learning, 42,551-91. Acquisition, 8,327-42.
COOK.V. (1993). Wholistic multicompetence — jeu d'esprit or GIDSON, E. & LEVIN, H. (1975). On the perception of words: an
paradigm shift. In B. Kettemann & W Wieden (eds.) Current application of some basic concepts. In E. Gibson & H. Levin
issues in European second language acquisition.Tubingen: Narr,3-8. (eds.), Tlie psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
CORDER, S. P. (1978). Language-learner language. In J. Richards GRANGER, S. & MONTFORT, G. (1993-94). La description de la
(ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: issues competence
and lexicale en langue etrangere: perspectives
approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. methodologiques. In D. Singleton (ed.) (1993-94b), 55-75.
CORDER, S. P. (1983). A role for the mother tongue. In S. Gass & GRAUBERG.W. (1971). An error analysis in German of first-year
L.Selinker (eds.). 85-97. university students. In G. Perren &J.Trim (eds), Applications of
CRJSTOFFANINI, P., KIRSNER, K. & MILECH, D. (1986). Bilingual linguistics: selected papers of the Second International Congress of
lexical representation: the status of Spanish-English cognates. Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 38 A, 367-93. 257-63.
CUNNINGHAM, L. (1990). L2 wcabulary: a study of the uvrd associa-GREEN, D. (1986). Control, activation and resource: a framework
tion respotises of beginning learners of Irish. M.Phil, dissertation.and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and
University of Dublin. Language, 27,210-23.
DAGUT, M. (1977). Incongruencies in lexical 'gridding' - and GREEN, D. (1993). Towards a model of L2 comprehension and
application of contrastive semantic analysis to language teach- production. In R. Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 249-77.
ing. IRAL, 15,221-29. GROSJEAN, F. (1982). Life with two languages: an introduction to
DAGUT, M. & LAUFER, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs by bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
English learners, speakers of Hebrew - case for contrastive GROSS, M. (1991). Lexique et syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistique, 23,
analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7,73-9. 107-32.
DE BOT, K. & SCHREUDER, R. (1993). Word production and the HAASTRUP, K. (1991). Lexical inferendng procedures or talking about
bilingual lexicon. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (eds.), uvrds. Tubingen: Narr.
191-214. HALLIDAY, M., MCINTOSH, A. & STREVENS, P. (1964). Vie linguis-
DE GROOT.A. (1993). Word-type effects in bilingual processing tic sciences and language teaching. London: Longman.
tasks: support for a mixed-representational system. In R. HAMMOND, M. & NOONAN, M. (eds.) (1988). TJieoretical mor-
Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 27-51. phology. London: Academic Press
DE GROOT.A. (1995). Determinants of bilingual lexicosemantic HARLEY, B. (ed.) (1995a). Lexical issues in language learning. Ann
organisation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8,151-80. Arbor/Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Language Learning/John
DUPUY.B. & KRASHEN, S. (1993). Incidental vocabulary acquisi- Benjamins Publishing Company.
tion in French as a second language. Applied Language Learning, HARLEY, B. (1995b). Introduction: lexical issues in language
4,55-63. learning. In B. Harley (ed.) (1995a), 1-28.
DUSKOVA, L. (1969). On sources of errors in foreign language HARRIS, R. J. (ed.) (1992). Cognith-e processing in bilinguals.
learning. IRAL, 7,11-36. Amsterdam: North Holland.
ELLIS, N. & BEATON, A. (1993). Factors affecting the learning of HATCH, E. & BROWN, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics and language
foreign language vocabulary: imagery keyword mediators and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
phonological short-term memory. Quarterly Journal of HUCKIN.T. & BLOCH.J. (1993). Strategies for inferring word
Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 4 6A, meanings in context: a cognitive model. In T. Huckin, M.
533-58. Haynes &J.Coady (eds.), 153-78.
ELLIS, N. & BEATON, A. (1995). Psycholinguistic determinants of HUCKIN, T., HAYNES, M. & COADY, J. (eds.) (1993). Second lan-
foreign language vocabulary learning. In B. Harley (ed.) guage reading and vocabulary learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
(1995a), 107-65. HULME, C , MAUGHAN, S. & BROWN, G. (1991). Memory for
ELLIS, R.,TANAKA,Y. &YAMAZAKI, A. (1995). Classroom interac- familiar and unfamiliar words: evidence for a long-term mem-
tion, comprehension! and the acquisition of L2 word mean- ory contribution to short-term memory span. Journal of
ings. In B. Harley (ed.) (1995a), 187-228. Memory and Language, 30,685—701.
EMMOREY, K. & FROMKIN.V. (1988). The mental lexicon. In HULSTIJN,J.(1992). Retention of inferred and given word mean-
F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Volume III.ings: experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P.
Language: psychological and biological aspects. Cambridge:Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 113-25.
Cambridge University Press, 124-49. HULSTIJN, J. (1993-94). L'acquisition incidente du lexique en
FAERCH, C. & KASPER, G. (eds.) (1983). Strategies in interlanguage langue etrangere: ses avantages et ses limites. In D. Singleton
communication. London: Longman. (ed.) (1993-94b), 77-96.
GALISSON, R. (1991). De la langue a la culture par les mots. Paris:ITTZES, K. (1991). Lexical guessing in isolation and context.
CLE international. Journal of Reading, 34,360-66.
GASS, S. & SELINKER, L. (eds.) (1983). Language transfer in languageKELLERMAN.E. (1977).Towards a characterization of the strategy
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies
GASS, S. & SELINKER, L. (1994). The lexicon. Chapter 10 of S. Bullctin,2,5S-U5.
Gass & L. Selinker, Second language acquisition: an introductory KELLERMAN, E. (1V78). Giving learners a break: native language
course. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 270-94. intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability.
GATHERCOLE, S. & BADDELEY, A. (1989). Evaluation of the role Working Papers in Bilingualism, 15,309-15.
of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in KELLERMAN, E. (1979).Transfer and non-transfer: where are we
children: a longitudinal study.Journal of Memory and Language, now? Studies in Second Language Acquisition,!, 37-57.
28,200-13. KELLERMAN, E. (1983). Now you see it, now you don't. In S.
GATHERCOLE, S. & BADDELEY, A. (1990). Phonological memory Gass & L. Selinker (eds.), 112-34.

223

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
KELLERMAN, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second lan- MEARA, P. (1978). Learners' word associations in French.
guage research: a critique, a revision, and some (non-) implica- Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3,192-211.
tions for the classroom. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. MEARA, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: a neglected aspect of
Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds.), Foreign second language learning. Language Teaching and Linguistics Abstracts,
language pedagogy research: a commemorative volume for Clans 13,221-46.
Faerch. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 142-61. MEARA, P. (1984). The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A.
KELLY, P. (1991). Lexical ignorance: the main obstacle to listening Davies, C. Criper & A. P. R. Howatt (eds.), Interlanguage.
comprehension with advanced foreign language learners. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 225-35.
IRAL, 29,135-49. MEARA, P. (1992). Vocabulary in a second language: Vol. 3.
KiRSNER, K., LALOR, E. & HiRD, K. (1993). The bilingual lexi- Reading in a Foreign Language,9,76\—S37.
con: exercise, meaning and morphology. In R. Schreuder & B. MEARA, P. (1996).The classical research in L2 vocabulary acquisi-
Weltens (eds.), 215-48. tion. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (eds.), 27-40.
KODA, K. (1989). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowl- NATION, P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: a
edge on the development of L2 reading proficiency. Foreign review of the research. RELCJournal, 13,14-36.
Language Annals, 22,529-40. NATION, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA:
KRASHEN, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language Heinle & Heinle.
learning. Oxford: Pergamon. NATION, P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth and use. In R.
KRASHEN, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 115-34.
reading: additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern O'GORMAN.E. (1996). An investigation of the mental lexicon of
LanguageJournal, 73,440-64. second language learners. Teanga: Tlie Irish Yearbook ofApplied
LAUFER, B. (1989). A factor of difficulty in vocabulary learning: Linguistics, 16,15-31.
deceptive transparency. AILA Review/Revue de I'AILA 6, PALMBERG, R. (1979). Investigating communication strategies.
10-20. In R. Palmberg (ed.), Perception and production of English: papers
LAUFER, B. (1990a). Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: on interlanguage. Abo: Abo Akademi, Department of English,
some teaching implications, Foreign Language Annals, 23, 45-75.
147-55. PAPAGNO, C , VALENTINE, T. & BADDELEY, A. (1991).
LAUFER, B. (1990b).Words you know: how they affect the words Phonological short-term memory and foreign-language
you learn. In J. Fisiak (ed.), Further insights into contrastive lin- vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 30,
guistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins, 573—93. 331-47.
LAUFER, B. (1991a). Why are some words more difficult than PARADIS, M. (1981). Neurolinguistic organisation of a bilingual's
others? Some intralexical factors which affect the learning of two languages. In J. Copeland & P. Davis (eds.), Tlie Seventh
words. IRAL, 28,293-307. LACUS Forum. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press, 486-94.
LAUFER, B. (1991b).The development of lexis in the production PARIDAKHT.T. S., & WESCHE, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhance-
of advanced L2 learners. Tlte Modern Language Journal, 75, ment activities and reading for meaning in second language
440-48. vocabulary. In J. Coady &T. Huckin (eds.), 174-200.
LAUFER, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading PHILLIPS.T. (1981). Difficulties in foreign language vocabulary learning
comprehension? In P.Arnaud & H.Bejoint (eds.), 126-32. and a study ofsome of thefactors thought to be influential. M.A. dis-
LAUFER, B. (1993-94). Appropriation du vocabulaire: mots sertation. University of London, Birkbeck College.
faciles, mots difficiles, mots impossibles. In D. Singleton (ed.) POULISSE, N. (1990). Tlie use of compensatory strategies by Dutch
(1993-94b),97-113. learners ofEnglish. Enschede: Sneldruck.
LAUFER, B. & BENOUSSAN, M. (1982). Meaning is in the eye of POULISSE, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical compensa-
the beholder. English Teaching Forum, 20,10-14. tion strategies. In R. Schreuder & B.Weltens (eds.), 157-89.
LAUFER, B. & NATION, P. (1995).Vocabulary size and use: lexical QUAY, S. (1995). The bilingual lexicon: implications for studies
richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, of language choice.Journal of Child Language, 22,369-87.
307-22. RIDLEY, J. (1997). Reflection and strategies in foreign language-
LEVENSTON, E. (1979). Second language acquisition: issues and learning. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
problems. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4,147-60. RIDLEY,J. & SINGLETON, D. (1995a). Strategic L2 lexical innova-
LEWIS, M. (1993). Tlie lexical approach: the state qfELT and a way tion: case study of a university-level ab initio learner of
forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. German. Second Language Research, 11,137-48.
LEWIS, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: putting theory RIDLEY, J. & SINGLETON, D. (1995b). Contrastivity and individ-
into practice. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. ual learner contrasts. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, 24,
LlNNARUD, M. (1983). On lexis: the Swedish learner and the 123-37.
native learner compared. In K. Sajavaara & J. Lehtonen (eds.), RINGBOM, H. (1987). Tlie role of thefirst language in foreign language
Cross-language analysis and second language acquisition 2. learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla, 249-62. ROBINSON, P. (1989). Procedural vocabulary and language learn-
LlNNARUD, M. (1986). Lexis in composition. Lund: Lund Studies in ing.Journal of Pragmatics, 13,523-46.
English. RODGERS, T. (1969). On measuring vocabulary difficulty: an
LITTLE, D. (1994). Words and their properties: arguments for a analysis of item variables in learning Russian-English vocabu-
lexical approach to pedagogical grammar. In T. Odlin (ed.), lary pairs. IRAL, 7,327-43.
Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge SCHOUTEN-VAN PARREREN, C. (1989). Vocabulary learning
University Press, 99-122. through reading: which conditions should be met when pre-
MARECHAL, C. (1995). Vie bilingual lexicon: study of French and senting words in texts? AILA Review/Revue de I'AILA, 6,
English word association responses ofadvaticed learners of French. 75-85.
M.
Phil, dissertation. University of Dublin. SCHOUTEN-VAN PARREREN, C. (1992). Individual differences in
MARTOHARDJONO, G. & FLYNN, S. (1995). Is there an age factor vocabulary acquisition: a qualitative experiment in the first
for Universal Grammar? In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (eds.), phase of secondary education. In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint
Tlie age factor in second language acquisition: a critical look at (eds.),
the 94-101.
Critical Period. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 135—53. SCHREUDER R. & WELTENS B. (eds.) (1993). Tlie bilingual lexicon.
MCSHANE.J. (1991). Cognitive development: an information processing Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
approach. Oxford: Blackwell. SERVICE, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory and foreign-

224

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35

 State of the art: Learning and processing L2 vocabulary
language learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, (eds.), Acquisition et ettseignement/apprentissage des langues.
45 A, 21-50. Grenoble: LIDILEM, 395-402.
SERVICE, E. (1993-94). Contribution des codes memoriels a l'ap- SINGLETON, D. & SINGLETON, E. (1997). The C-test and L2
prentissage lexical. In D. Singleton (ed.) (1993-94b), 147-60. acquisition/processing research. In J. Coleman (ed.), University
SERVICE, E. & CRAIK, E (1993). Differences between young and language testing and the C-test. Portsmouth: University of
older adults in learning a foreign language. Journal of Memory Portsmouth (Occasional Papers in Linguistics), 150-78.
and Language, 32,608-23. SMEDTS, W. (1988). De beheersing van de nederlandse woor-
SERVICE, E. & KOHONEN, V. (1995). Is the relation between vorming tussen 7 en 17. In F.Van Besien (ed.), First language
phonological memory and foreign language learning account- acquisition. Antwerp: Association Beige de Linguistique
ed for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, Appliquee/Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen (ABLA Papers
155-72. No. 12), 103-27.
SINCLAIR.J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: OxfordSODERMAN, T. (1989). Word associations of foreign language
University Press. learners and native speakers - a shift in response type and its
SINGLETON, D. (1981). Language transfer: a review of some recentrelevance for a theory of lexical development. Scandinavian
research. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Working Papers on Bilingualism, 8, 114—21.
Communication Studies (CLCS Occasional Paper 1). S6DERMAN, T. (1993). Word associations of foreign language
SINGLETON, D. (1987). Mother and other tongue influence on learners and native speakers: the phenomenon of a shift in
learner French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9,327-46. response type and its relevance for lexical development. In H.
SINGLETON, D. (1993-94a). Introduction: le role de la forme et Ringbom (ed.), Near-native proficiency in English. Abo: Abo
du sens dans le lexique mental en L2. In D. Singleton (ed.) Akademi, English Department Publications, 91-182.
(1993-94b),3-27. STEMDERGERJ. & MACWHINNEY.B. (1988). Are inflected forms
SINGLETON, D. (ed.) (1993-94b). L'acquisition du lexique d'une stored in the lexicon? In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.),
langue itranghe. Paris: ENCRAGES (Issue 3 of Acquisition et 101-16.
Interaction en Langue Etranghe). STOCK, R. (1976). Somefactors affecting the acquisition of foreign lan-
SINGLETON, D. (1994). Learning L2 lexis: a matter of form? In G. guage lexicon in the classroom. Ph.D thesis. University of Illinois.
STOFFER,
Bartelt (ed.), Tlie dynamics of language processes: essays in honor of I. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies as related to
Hans W Dechert.Tiibingen: Narr, 45-57. individual difference variables. Paper presented at the Thirtieth
SINGLETON, D. (1996). Formal aspects of the L2 mental lexicon: TESOL Convention, Chicago.
some evidence from university-level learners of French. In K. TAESCHNER, T. (1983). Tlie sun is feminine: a study on language
Sajavaara & C. Fairfeather (eds.), Approaches to second language acquisition in bilingual children. Berlin: Springer.
acquisition. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla (Jyvaskyla' Cross-TARONE, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in
Language Studies, 17), 79-85. interlanguage. In H. Brown, C.Yorio & R. Crymes (eds.), On
SINGLETON, D. (1997). Crosslinguistic aspects of the mental lexi- TESOL 77. Washington, D.C. :TESOL, 194-203..
con. In R. Hickey & S. Puppel (eds.), Language history and lan- TARONE, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk,
guage modelling. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Company, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30,417-31.
1641-52. VARADI.T. (1980). Strategies of target language learner commu-
SINGLETON, D. (forthcoming [a]). Exploring the second language nication message adjustment. IRAL, 18,59-71.
mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VOLTERRA, V. & TAESCHNER, T. (1978). The acquisition and
SINGLETON, D. (forthcoming [b]). Cross-lexical consultation: out development of language by bilingual children.Joi/r/Kj/ of Child
of the horse's mouth. To appear in Revista Canaria de Estudios Language, 5,311-26.
Ingleses,32-33. WEINREICH, U. (1953). Languages in contact. New York: Linguistic
SINGLETON, D. & LITTLE, D. (1991). The second language lexi- Circle of NewYork.
con: some evidence from university-level learners of French WHITAKER, H. (1978). Bilingualism: a neurolinguistics perspec-
and German. Second Language Research,!',61—82. tive. In W. Ritchie (ed.), Second language acquisition research:
SINGLETON, D. & LITTLE, D. (1992). Le lexique mental de l'ap- issues and implications. New York: Academic Press, 21-32.
prenant d'une langue etrangere: quelques apercus apportes par ZURER PEARSON, B., FERNANDEZ, S. & OLLER, D. (1995).
le TCD Modern Languages Research Project. In R. Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants:
Bouchard, J. Billiez, J.-M. Colletta.V. de Nucheze & A. Millet "tone language or two? Journal of Child Language, 22,345-68.

225

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 02 Apr 2015 IP address: 138.251.14.35