Second Language Vocabulary Learning: The Role of Context versus Translations as a Function

of Proficiency
Author(s): Peter Prince
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Winter, 1996), pp. 478-493
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/329727 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 07:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Second Language Vocabulary
Learning: The Role of Context
versus Translations as a Function
of Proficiency
PETER PRINCE
Centrede Recherche
en Psychologie
Cognitive
de
Universiti Provence
29 bldRobert Schuman
13100Aix en Provence
France

A widespread viewof vocabularylearningis thatit is advisable to make the shiftawayfrom

learningwordswiththeirtranslationsand to relyon second language (L2) contextas soon
as possible. Such faithin contextlearning has not alwaysreceived experimentalsupport,
however,nor is it commonlyshared by L2 learners.An experimentin which subjects were
tested on their recall of newlylearned words was conducted to determine the relative
advantages and disadvantagesof both contextlearningand translationlearningas a func-
tion of learner proficiency.Results reveal a superiorityof translationlearning in termsof
quantity,but an inabilityon the part of weaker learnersto transfertheirknowledgeinto L2
contexts.The possible reasons for this are discussed, and it is suggested that alternative
learningstrategiesthatcombine the advantagesof the two techniques should be explored.

ONE ASPECT OF LANGUAGE LEARNING
thatin the past receivedlittleattention,but now
has become a focus of much research, is the
learningofvocabulary.Increasingly,it is consid-
ered that effectivecommunication relies less
upon the masteryof grammaticalrules than on
the possession of an adequate and appropriate
vocabulary (Vermeer,1992). The size of the vo-
cabulary needed to achieve general communi-
cation skills in English has been estimated at
5,000 words,withcritical importance being at-
tached to the learning of the most frequent
2,000 to 3,000 wordsas quicklyas possible (Na-
tion, 1993).
Within this area of study,one question that
has yetto receive any precise formof answer is
whetherthe learningof a new word best occurs
when the word is met in contextor in a "paired
associate" condition, with the word being
TheModernLanguageJournal,80, iv (1996)
0026-7902/96/478-493 $1.50/0
?1996 TheModernLanguageJournal
linked to its native language equivalent. Many
teacherswork on the assumption that however
effectivethisformof paired associate learning
(henceforward termed translation learning)
mightbe, it tendsto reduce possibilitiesforsec-
ond language (L2) autonomyby linkingwords
too exclusivelyto firstlanguage (Li) equiva-
lents; there is the added disadvantage that
learnersare likelyto suppose or look forequiva-
lence of meaning even when the contexts in
which those words are used in differentlan-
guages clearly diverge (McCarthy,1990). As a
result,most course books and teacherspresent
L2 contextualized material right from the
outset. Compelling evidence that such an ap-
proach can be of benefitas faras receptivevo-
cabulary is concerned emerges froma studyby
Saragi, Nation, and Meisler (1978), in whichthe
reading of a novel led to successfulrecognition
of 76% of newwordstested.Similarconclusions
about incidentallearningofvocabularyare pre-
sented by Nagy,Herman, and Anderson (1985).
It is to be noted, however,thatwhen it comes
to recall, much of the research conducted in

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PeterPrince
this field has failed to demonstrate any clear
advantage of learning in context over transla-
tion learning (Nation, 1982). Indeed, results
provided by Seibert (1930) indicate that learn-
ing words in pairs is consistentlymore effective
than learning them in context.Addressingthe
same question, Pickering(1982) found learning
in contextslightlymore advantageous, but not
enough for the differenceto be considered in
any wayconclusive. In theirreviewof the ques-
tion, Carterand McCarthy(1988) conclude that
"it is difficultto draw precise lines to suggest
when a move from key-wordtechniques, or
translation in pairs, or from using a mono-
lingual or bilingual dictionaryto context-based
inferentialstrategies,is best instituted"(p. 15).
They suggestthatthere are "no clearlymarked
stages of transition" in the learning process,
and that therefore "a mixture of approaches
should be adopted" (p. 15). One reason forthis
recommendationof a mixtureof approaches is
that both methods have advantages and disad-
vantages,whichwill be discussed in the conclu-
sion to the present paper.
Set against the uncertaintyhighlighted by
Carterand McCarthy(1988), the sheer abilityof
learners to assimilatelarge quantities of words
with their translationsis impressive,although
there are wide disparities between individual
learners (Webb, 1962). This abilitymay corre-
spond to, and reinforce,a preferentialstrategy
that learners adopt in the earlystages of learn-
ing and subsequently find difficultto relin-
quish (Sautermeister,1989). The obvious short-
coming of such a strategyis that it favoursthe
creation of a single "trace"'1in memoryover the
multipletraces provided by contextualencoun-
ters. Thus, although the informationmay be
well established in memory,it is not necessarily
available foruse in appropriate contexts(Wise-
man & Tulving,1976).
One difficulty in this area of research,
pointed out by Nation (1982), is thatthereis no
standarddefinitionofwhatis meantbycontext.
In its broadest sense, of course, contextmaybe
said to comprise all the perceived phenomena
that accompany the processingof a given stim-
ulus, including the physical surroundings in
which learning takes place. In this sense, a na-
tive word that serves as the basis for the learning
of a foreign word is a major element of the con-
text. Other possible contexts are pictures or L2
synonyms (R6hr, 1993). Although a comparison
between these different types of context would
undoubtedly be of interest, the present paper
concentrates on the two most widely used con-
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
479
texts, namely the L1 translation equivalent of
the word to be learned and an L2 sentence in
whichtheword to be learned appears. Thus, the
word "context"willbe used in a narrowsense to
referspecificallyto the lattercondition, as op-
posed to translationlearning in which the con-
text (in the wider sense) is provided by a single
L1 equivalent.
It is also importantto specifythe use to which
the context is put: Words presented in transla-
tion pairs are typicallythe focus of intentional
learning, whereas an unknown word seen em-
bedded in an L2 text may frequentlyreceive
only such attentionas preventsit fromimped-
ing comprehension-that is, the reader might
choose to ignore theword ifhe or she considers
thatit does not affectgeneral understandingof
the text. Hulstijn (1992) notes that the chance
of readers rememberinga word afterencoun-
tering it in a text that is read for its contentis
verysmall indeed. In the experimentdescribed
in thisarticle,the contextwas to be used specif-
icallyforthe learningof new vocabularyforthe
purposes of production.
Another element that appears to be relevant
is the degree of proficiencyof the learner.Evi-
dence provided by Kroll and Curley (1988) sug-
gests that in the initial stages of learning,new
words are stronglylinked to their L1 equiva-
lents,and a shiftoccurs afterabout 30 months
of study,such thata networkof linkswithinthe
L2 begins to become effective. The data of
Kroll and Curley come froma picture-naming
experimentin which response times in the L2
decreased when subjects had more than 30
monthsof studybehind them.The authorscon-
cluded thatsubjects had thereforeformeda di-
rectlinkbetween the L2 wordsand the underly-
ing concept, and were no longer passing byway
of theirL1 in order to name the picturein their
L2. Although the workof Kroll and Curleycon-
cerned lexical access as opposed to vocabulary
learning,it seems likelythat the patternsof ac-
cess followthose established during the learn-
ing phase; in otherwords,in the firstmonthsof
learning, L2 words are more effectively stored
in memory when they are linked to their L1
equivalents.
Gekoski (1980) has described this phenome-
non by statingthat at lower levels of L2 profi-
ciency,learners use L1 mediation in order to
translatetheir"thoughts"into the L2. Because
most of the words encountered in the initial
stages are of a concrete, imageable nature, it
maybe thatas soon as learnershave ascertained
the meaning of the word,eitherbyaccessing an
480
imagen store (Paivio & Desrochers, 1980) or
with the help of the teacher's explicit use of a
picture,theyneglect the L2 contextin order to
attach the new word formto the L1 expression
of the meaning. Thus, in effect,the learning
occurs in a translationcondition.
It should be noted, however,that although
the Kroll and Curley (1988) data corroborate
intuitionsabout vocabularylearning in the be-
ginningstage, the shiftawayfromexclusiveuse
of the translationlink afterabout 30 monthsof
studydoes not implythatlearning does not re-
main more effectivein the translation condi-
tion. There are tworeasons forthis.First,as has
alreadybeen mentioned,the studyof lexical ac-
cess does not necessarilyinformus about the
most effectiveconditions for learning. Second,
Kroll and Curleyexamined access to individual
words,whereas a context typicallycomprises a
sentence,withall the syntacticconstraintsthat
it entails. It is possible thatthe extra processing
of syntax required to understand a sentence
preventslearners from efficientlylearning vo-
cabulary in context for a period considerably
longer than 30 months. Indeed, Sautermeister
(1989) reports vocabulary learning behavior
among university,nonspecialist learners of
English, who are consistentlypresented with
new words in context,but who are not satisfied
until theyhave found an L1 equivalent to assist
their learning. This behavior is similar to that
described for beginners.
In summary,it appears thatlearningvocabu-
laryin contextis widelyperceived by the teach-
ing profession as desirable, but that students
eitheractivelyresistit, believingthe translation
condition to be superior,or fail to elaborate the
strategiesthatmightmake it possible. This does
not mean, however,thatcontextlearningis nec-
essarily ineffectivebecause it can be argued
that learners are unlikelyto adopt appropriate
strategiesunless theyare given guidance. The
question of strategiesis thus germane to the
issue of vocabulary learning, as indeed it is to
L2 learning in general (O'Malley & Chamot,
1990). Proposals for improvinglearners' ability
to use contextualclues to ascertainmeaningsof
unknownwordshave been put forwardbyR6hr
(1993) in theformof a methodicaltrainingpro-
gram. Given the rightguidance, therefore,it is
likely that even beginning learners can use
metacognitive strategies and metalinguistic
knowledge to enhance their comprehension
skillswhen a textcontains unknownwords. De-
spite the benefits of such training, however,
thereare two limitsto its effectiveness. First,as
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal80 (1996)
pointed out by Hulstijn (1992), learners fre-
quentlymake incorrectguesses about meanings
because L2 contextsdo not alwaysprovidesuffi-
cientinformationto make a correctguess possi-
ble even when a learnerhas been trainedto use
all the semantic and syntacticclues available.
Second, trainingis profitableonlywhen put to
effectiveuse. Over and above the specific tech-
niques fornoticinglinguisticclues, R6hr points
to the importance of fostering pleasure in
learners when theysearch for the meanings of
words. This is arguablythe most importantas-
pect of any language teacher's work, yet one
which,in France at least, receivesverylittleat-
tention in teacher training programs (except
those directed at teaching children as opposed
to adolescents). Unfortunately, as Krashen
(1987) remarks,most nonspecialist L2 learners
are not dedicated linguists, and when faced
with a choice between a high-effortstrategy
such as inferencingand a low-effortshortcut
such as translationlearning, theywill tend to
choose the latter.
Althoughtraininglearnersto elaborate meta-
cognitive strategies is of undeniable impor-
tance, the experiment described in this study
does not examine the effectsof such explicit
training, but concentrates instead on the
information-processing strategiesdeveloped by
learners who have followed their natural incli-
nations in vocabularylearning. In otherwords,
the subject population under scrutinyconsists
of nonspecialist learners of English who have
received only minimal training in metacogni-
tive strategiesand whose performanceis of in-
terestfor that very reason. How efficientare
such learners in guessing the meaning of un-
knownwords,and to what extentare theyable
to learn words presented in L2 sentence con-
texts?If theycontinue to show a preferencefor
translationlearning, is this indeed a handicap
when it comes to accessing theirknowledgefor
use in differentcontexts?The answersto such
questions will hopefullybe useful in making
teachers more keenly aware of the processing
strategiescommonlyadopted in inferencing,so
thateitheralternativeor complementarystrate-
gies may be proposed.
The method adopted in the experimentde-
scribed in the presentstudywas to compare per-
formance in vocabularylearning as a function
of proficiencyof the learner,condition of learn-
ing (translationvs. context),and condition of
recall (again, translationvs. context). The aim
was to assess the abilityof learners of different
levels (a) to exploit sentence context informa-
PeterPrince
tion both in learning and recall and (b) to
transferwhat theyhave learned fromone con-
text to another. The firstpoint concerns the
level of proficiencyat which an L2 textstartsto
provide a useful basis fromwhich to learn new
words. It attemptsto shed lighton the question
raised by Carter and McCarthy (1988) about
when it is beneficial to move fromone strategy
to another.The second point is also important
because effectivelearning for the purposes of
production can be said to have taken place only
when the informationstoredas a resultof learn-
ing in one contextcan be retrievedand used in
another.Presumably,teachersencourage learn-
ers to learn new words directlyin L2 sentence
contextsbecause theyfeel thatlearningnew vo-
cabularyin the restrictivecontextof translation
linksis not conducive to the retrievaland use of
thatvocabularyin the richercontextsof L2 sen-
tences. However,such a belief, although intu-
itivelyplausible, remains to be demonstrated
empirically.
One limitation of the experimental studies
conducted by Seibert (1930) and by Pickering
(1982) was that the effectof proficiencyupon
learners' performancewas not examined. Pick-
ering gives no indication of level other than to
say that the subjects were in secondary school.
Althoughthese subjects found contextlearning
no easier than translationlearning,we cannot
know if this resultwould still be obtained with
more advanced learners.
Cohen and Aphek (1980) examined the effect
of proficiencylevel in their study of Hebrew
vocabularylearningby native English speakers.
They found that their more advanced learners
displayed clearly superior performance in re-
call when the recall task involved L2 contexts.
Specifically,subjects were required to provide
the translationsof certain words,presented ei-
ther in Hebrew or in English,withina Hebrew
text. In a pure translation task, on the other
hand, no differenceappeared between the two
groups of learners. Cohen and Aphek (1980)
conclude that context only provides a useful
basis once learners have reached a level where
theyare not "over-stimulated"byan L2 context.
This explanation is plausible ifone considers
that subjects' controlled attentional resources
are limited (Shiffrin& Schneider, 1977) and
thatthe comprehensionof a text,less automatic
in a weaker learner, diminishes the resources
normallyavailable forthe recall of the word. In
theory,however,the recall task used allowed
subjects enough time to proceed serially,first
understandingthe textand then retrievingthe
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
481
translation.Alternatively, given thatthe taskre-
quired retrieving the translationsof words that
were actually presented, a possible strategy
could have been to ignore the context alto-
gether and concentrateon the recall aspect of
the task. Clearly,however,the weaker subjects
were unable to put eitherof thesestrategiesinto
effectand sufferedfromover-stimulation. The
effortrequired to understand the text appar-
ently prevented them from using strategies
available to them.
In view of the preceding remarks,it was pre-
dicted thatin the presentexperiment,advanced
learnerswould make more efficientuse of con-
text than weaker learners, both during the
study phase and during recall, but that little
differencewould emerge as regardsthe transla-
tion condition. Althoughthisresultwould con-
formboth to the intuitionsand observationsof
teachersand to the data providedbyCohen and
Aphek (1980), it is importantto analysethe pos-
sible causes as a firststep towardsestablishinga
model of the wayL2 learnerscompensate fora
lack of lexical knowledge when processing
sentences.
Cohen and Aphek (1980) did not examine
differentconditions of learning,only of recall;
however,it is to be expected that the effortre-
quired to process textwould make learningnew
wordsin an L2 contextconsiderablymore diffi-
cult than learning with translations.Although
manytypesof processingare possible in transla-
tion learning-such as using keyword tech-
niques (Pressley,Levin, Hall, Miller, & Berry,
1980; Roediger, 1980)-there is only one man-
datorystep,thatis, associatingthe L2 wordwith
a familiar,easilyretrievableword in the L1.
Learning in context, however,requires that
the subject (a) process the sentenceto gain suf-
ficientunderstandingof it, (b) use thatunder-
standing to inferthe meaning of the unknown
word, and (c) associate the meaning with the
formof the unknownword in such a waythata
representation is formed that is available for
futureuse. The thirdstep mayinvolveaccessing
the translationequivalent in the L1, thus in ef-
fect revertingto translationlearning, or form-
ing a representationthatfitsdirectlyintoan L2
network.These two processes are not mutually
exclusive and may indeed occur in parallel.
Whateverthe exact nature of the links thatare
formed,it is clear that the effortrequired for
contextlearning is greater than that for learn-
ing with translations,and such an effortmay
put a limiton the quantityof material thatcan
be learned in thisway.
482
It followsthatthe purpose of thisexperiment
was not to make an overallcomparisonbetween
context learning and translationlearning, but
to look at the two conditions in terms of
learners' performance in accessing and using
the learned material.As faras the learningitself
was concerned, therewere three reasons to ex-
pect that the translationcondition would pro-
vide better results overall. First,according to
the encoding specificity principle (Tulving,
1983; Wiseman & Tulving,1976), probabilityof
recall depends on the similaritybetween the in-
formationprovided bycontextualcues at recall
and the memorytrace formedfromcontextual
informationduringlearning.It followsthatper-
formanceshould be betterwhen subjects meet
the same conditionsin the recall phase as in the
studyphase. In this experiment,however,this
principle should affectthe differentcombina-
tions of conditionsunequally.In the translation
condition, the contextualcue (i.e., the transla-
tion equivalent) did indeed remain the same
between the studyphase and the recall phase,
but in the contextcondition,the sentencesgiven
in the recall phase were not the same as those
seen in the study phase. Clearly, therefore,
when subjects were placed in the same condi-
tion forthe studyand recall phases, the transla-
tion condition gave rise to a lightercognitive
load than the context condition because the
cue provided at recall was the same as thatseen
during study.
The change in the sentences between study
and recall constitutesa major differencefrom
the method used by Pickering (1982), who pre-
sented the same sentences during the two
phases. Althoughsuch a methodmakes the task
easier forparticipants,one drawbackis thatthe
experimentercannot be sure to whatextentthe
unknown word has been learned, or simply
been recalled because the context sentences
were identical. This distinction is important:
The abilityto learn a word in an L2, whetherit
be in context or with a translation,is only of
value if the representationthusformedcan be
transferredto other contexts.
A second difference between the present
study and the Pickering (1982) experiment is
that his sentences were presented in the sub-
jects' L1, the only L2 item being the word to be
learned. Although this provides a guarantee
that the sentences have been understood, it
does not constitutea naturalcondition of learn-
ing, and it rendersinvalidthe mechanismsnor-
mallyused in L2 reading. The extentto which
an L2 contextis a help or a hindrance in learn-
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal80 (1996)
ing new words is thereforeimpossibleto detect
with this method. For these reasons, it was
judged preferableto present sentences in the
L2, having firsttested them with a sample of
learners of the same level as the experimental
subjects in order to make sure thatall the sen-
tences were easilyunderstandable.
A furtherelementof difficulty in the context
condition concerns the time available to sub-
jects during the two phases. In the translation
condition,the timeavailable was 30 seconds per
word to be learned, and although subjects in
the contextcondition were allowed to workun-
til theyjudged that they had completed the
task, it was thoughtlikelythat the time spent
learning the unknownword, as opposed to de-
coding the sentence,would be less than in the
translationcondition.
These differences between the two condi-
tions mean that a direct comparison between
them is of less interestthan a comparison be-
tween how the two groups of learnersmake use
of the two conditions.A directcomparison be-
tween the conditions would necessitate an ex-
perimental design involvingnot only a cogni-
tive load thatwas equal in each condition, but
also two strategies that were opposed. It ap-
pears nearlyimpossible,however,to affirmthat
this opposition exists because there is nothing
to prevent subjects in the context condition
fromusing a translationstrategyas well. There-
fore, ratherthan attemptto make the context
condition in some way equal to the translation
condition, thisstudykept the two conditions as
close as possible to those that are actuallymet
and used by learners and considered the two
approaches froma developmentalstandpoint.
One final remarkconcerns another aspect of
vocabulary learning examined in this experi-
ment,namelythe findingthat such learning is
asymmetrical,with recall performance being
betterin the L2 to L1 directionthan in the L1 to
L2 direction. In other words, having learned,
for example, that the French word rideauis a
translationequivalent of the English curtain,it
would be easier for an English speaker to re-
trieve curtainfrom memorywhen given rideau
than to retrieverideauwhen given curtain.This
finding is common in the literature (Ellis &
Beaton, 1993), and itwas expected thatitwould
be replicated here.
METHOD
The experimentincluded a factorL (learning
condition), with two modalities (context and
PeterPrince
translation),and a factorR (recall condition),
also with two modalities (context and transla-
tion). In the contextlearning (CL) condition,
the L2 wordsto be learned appeared in a series
of L2 sentences, one unknown word per sen-
tence. In the translationlearning (TL) condi-
tion, subjectsreceived 44 L2 (English) wordsto
learn, accompanied bytheirL1 (French) equiv-
alents. In the context recall (CR) condition,
subjects received a series of sentencesin which
the words studied were replaced with blanks
that theywere requested to fill.The translation
recall (TR) condition involved receivinga list
of the words studied and writingtheir transla-
tions. For half of the subjects,the listwas given
in L2, and forthe otherhalf,in L1. The TR con-
dition thereforecomprised a factor D (direc-
tion of translation)whichdid not appear in the
CR condition.
The two conditions,translationand context,
were combined with the two phases, learning
and recall, in such a way that each subject car-
ried out half of the recall phase in the same
conditions as the learning phase (TL-TR and
CL-CR) and the otherhalfin a differentcondi-
tion (TL-CR and CL-TR).
As well as the factorsL (learning condition)
and R (recall condition), there was a factorG,
correspondingto the two groups of subjects of
differinglevels (24 in each group). The test
sheets given out in the recall phase were com-
posed in such a waythatthe wordsstudiedwere
counterbalanced across the two recall condi-
tions (translationand context) and, withinthe
translationrecall condition, across the two mo-
dalities of D (L1 to L2 and L2 to Li).
MATERIAL
The material was composed of 44 English
words withan average frequencyof 25 per mil-
lion (Thorndike & Lorge, 1944). Each word had
one principal translationequivalent in French,
which was clear and unequivocal. All the words
were concrete, referringeither to actions or to
objects. Apartfromthe necessityof usingwords
with one principal translation,the main crite-
rion for choosing words was that they should
have a high probabilityof being unknownto the
experimentalsubjects. This meant that certain
words had a verylow frequency(less than one
per million, for example, for squid) and there-
fore mightnot be considered useful for the av-
erage studentto learn. However,usefulnesswas
not a criterionadopted in the selection of mate-
rial, which had to conform to the constraints
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
483
imposed by the experimentaltask. It maynone-
theless be supposed that the processing strate-
gies adopted withmore frequentwords of simi-
lar imageabilityand translatabilityare akin to
those used with the presentmaterial.
PROCEDURE
In order to constitutea listofwordsunknown
to the subjects takingpart in the experiment,a
pretest was administered comprising three
phases. Subjects firstreceived a sheet with100
words in the L1 (French) to be translatedinto
the L2 (English). Fortyfour of the words were
assumed unknownto them,and the otherwords
were fillers.The sheetswere collected,and sub-
jects received another sheet with 100 English
words to be translatedinto French.The transla-
tions of the 44 preselected words appeared on
the second sheet,the otherwordsbeing a differ-
ent set of fillersfromthose used in the previous
phase. This procedure controlledfor the possi-
bility that subjects might fail to find the L2
translation of a word presented in L1, yet re-
spond correctly when the word was subse-
quently presented in L2. Finally,subjects re-
ceived a listof 44 sentencesin English in which
the wordspresumed unknownwere replaced by
a blank. Subjects were instructed to fill the
blank with a single English word, and if they
found no word that they considered suitable,
to put a Frenchword instead. This was to verify
that the sentence had indeed been understood
and that subjects had accessed the meaning of
the missingword. On a few rare occasions, a
correct English word was found in this contex-
tual condition without having been found in
the translationconditions.
Among the 44 words assumed to be un-
known,the number of words produced in one
of the conditionsof the pretestwas minimalfor
the weaker group and slightlyhigher for the
advanced group. On account of the diversityof
knowledge,however,therewas a wide range of
words thatwere knownby only one or two sub-
jects; it was thereforedecided to retain all the
words for the second part of the experiment,
but to take account of subjects' pretestknowl-
edge when analysingthe results.A fewsubjects
who knew more than 5 words out of 44 (i.e.,
11.4%of the wordspresented) were nonetheless
eliminated fromthe subject pool.
The studyphase and the recall phase took
place a week later. In order to reduce the al-
ready unlikelyprobabilitythat subjects might
encounter the words in the experimentduring
484
the week, they received homework in which
none of the experimentalwords appeared.
During the studyphase, subjectswere divided
into two groups, correspondingto the two mo-
dalities of the factorL, the learning condition.
Half of themreceived a sheetwiththe 44 words
and their translationsand were instructed to
learn them (TL condition). The other half re-
ceived the list of 44 sentences that had been
used in the pretest,but thistimewiththe target
wordsappearing in place of theblanks. Subjects
were instructedto read the sentences,to guess
the meaning of the unknown words, and to
learn them (CL condition). During this phase,
subjects were not allowed to write.
The study phase was of roughly the same
lengthfor the two groups, in otherwords 20 to
25 minutes,or about 30 seconds per word to be
learned. Thirtyseconds per word was the time
chosen by Pickering (1982), whose method was
differentin so faras the material to be learned
was projected onto a screen, so that the time
each item was attended to could be controlled.
Despite being a morerigorousexperimentalpro-
cedure, thismethodwas consideredproblematic
in thatlearnerswere unable to use the strategies
theynormallyadopt, such as formingassocia-
tions between items. The time constraintim-
posed in thepresentexperimentwas nonetheless
relaxed to allow certainsubjectsto complete,or
consider thattheyhad completed,the task.
Afterthe studyphase, whichtook place at the
beginning of a normal language class, subjects
moved on to a differentactivityfor about 40
minutes.In the course of this activity,theyen-
countered none of the 44 words theyhad stud-
ied. Then the recall phase took place, lasting
about the same time as the studyphase. Again,
the slowersubjects were given a fewextra min-
utes to complete the test. For this part of the
experiment,each subject received a sheet con-
taining 22 words to translate (TR condition)
and 22 English sentencesthatincluded a blank
to be filled with one of the targetwords (CR
condition). In the TR condition, half the sub-
jects received French words to translate into
English, the other half English words to trans-
late into French. The sentencesused in the CR
condition, differentfrom those seen in the
studyphase, had been tested previouslyon a
group of eight learnersof the same level as the
subjects belonging to the weaker group in this
experiment.In this test, learners indicated in
French the word that was missing in the sen-
tence, thus demonstrating that the contexts
presented did indeed allow them to access the
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal80 (1996)
meanings of the missingwords. In order to en-
sure thatthiswas also the case during the recall
phase of the experiment itself,subjects were
asked to fillin witha word in French the blanks
theyhad not filled in during the test. This in-
structionwas onlygivenat the end of the exper-
imentin order to preventsubjects fromresort-
ing to such a strategytoo rapidly.
SUBJECTS
Forty eight students, enrolled at the Phar-
macy Faculty of the Universityof Montpellier,
took part in the experiment on a voluntary
basis. All the subjects had been studying
Englishforbetween 5 and 8 years;Englishwas a
compulsorysubject in their universitystudies.
For the purposes of the experiment,theywere
divided into twogroups,weak and advanced, on
the basis of a placement test taken shortlybe-
fore the experiment.The testadministeredwas
theTOEFL, on whichtheweak group scored an
average of 397 and the advanced group 480.
The placement test was their firstencounter
withthe TOEFL. Subsequent testsrevealed that
both groups were able to improve their scores
substantiallyas soon as theybecame familiar
with the specificitiesof the examination. The
main skillnot testedbythe TOEFL, namelyoral
expression, was also assessed separately on a
subsection of four studentsfrom each group,
who were asked to tell a storyas depicted by a
comic stripwithoutcaptions. On a number of
criteria, ranging from ease of expression (as
measured by the number of words produced
per minute) to grammaticalaccuracy,the gap
between the two groups was equally as wide as
that suggested by the TOEFL scores. Although
both groups had studied English for roughly
the same amount of time, a questionnaire re-
vealed that the weaker group had rarelyfound
the subject motivatingor participated actively
in class. Their general L2 performance was
characterisedby a lack of confidence, a fear of
takingrisks,and a markedtendencyto revertto
theirL1 wheneverpossible.
As regards the vocabulary learning pro-
cedures previouslydeveloped by subjects, the
highlycentralizedand tightlycontrollednature
of the French educational systemmeans that
these maybe regarded as broadlysimilarforall
learners;thatis to saythatvocabularyand gram-
mar are L2 contextualizedfromthe outset,but
specific trainingin metacognitivestrategiesis
at presentsporadic or minimal.Withinthisgen-
eral framework,however, there is obviously
PeterPrince
room for individual teaching practices to vary
considerablyon the specific matterof vocabu-
lary learning and for learners themselves to
adopt a broad arrayof strategies.
RESULTS
The averages of correctanswers,by learning
condition, recall condition, and group, and ex-
pressed as a percentage of words to be learned,
appear in Table 1.
There was a main effectof group (F [1/23] =
16.57,p < .0002), wherebythe more advanced
learners had a higher rate of correct answers
than the weaker group (67.33% vs. 48.73%).
This situation prevailed whateverthe learning
condition, in context (CL) or withtranslations
(TL). There was no interactionbetween learn-
ing condition and group.
Both groups performedbetterin the TL than
in the CL condition, and this factorwas also
significant(F [1/23] = 14.35, p < .0005). This
result is hardly surprising,especially as far as
the weaker learners are concerned; forreasons
already stated in the introduction,the CL con-
dition constituteda more arduous taskthan the
TL condition, and this differencein difficulty
was also feltby the more advanced learners.
The factorR, conditionofrecall,wasalso highly
significant(F [1/23] = 35.9, p < .0001). Subjects
founditeasierto recallwordsin a translationcon-
dition than in the context condition (64.43%
485
vs.50.64%). This effectis to be interpretedin con-
junction with a interaction
significant between re-
call condition and group (F [1/23] = 53.61,p <
.0001),wherebytheweakergroup performedcon-
siderablylesswellin contextrecallthanin transla-
tion recall (32.3% vs. 65.2%), whereas the ad-
vanced group performedslightlybetter in the
contextrecall condition(69% vs. 65.7%).
A second aspect of the experimentconcerned
the possibilitythat in translationrecall, perfor-
mance would be betterfromL2 to L1 than from
L1 to L2. The resultsin termsof percentage of
material recalled are shown in Table 2.
Again, therewas a significanteffectof the fac-
tor L (F [1/23] = 28.09, p < .0001), wherebythe
translationcondition gave rise to betterperfor-
mance than the context condition (80.2% vs.
50.7%). This factor interactedwith the group
factor (F [1/23] = 4.49, p < .04), the difference
between the two learning conditions being sig-
nificantlyhigherfor the weaker group.
Contrary to expectations, the direction of
translationdid not prove to be a significantfac-
tor.Although it did not reach significance,the
difference in performance for the weaker
group, with94.6% of correctresponses for the
L2 to L1 condition as opposed to 77.1% when
translatingfromL1 to L2, is in agreementwith
previousfindings(Ellis & Beaton, 1993). It is to
be noted thatthe advanced group displayedno
such difference,theirperformancebeing simi-
lar irrespectiveof direction of translation.

TABLE 1
Percentageof CorrectResponsesbyGroup,LearningCondition,and Recall Condition,Plus Percentage
of Total CorrectResponsesbyLearningConditionand Recall Condition

TL CL M
Weak Learners TR 85.81 44.52 65.17
(Group 1) CR 32.37 32.22 32.30
M 59.09 38.37 48.73
AdvancedLearners TR 74.54 56.84 65.69
(Group 2) CR 74.03 63.92 68.97
M 74.29 60.38 67.33
TR 80.18 50.68 65.43
Total CR 53.20 48.07 50.64
M 66.69 49.38 58.03
Note.TL = translationlearning;CL = contextlearning;TR = translationrecall;CR = contextrecall.

TABLE 2
Percentageof CorrectAnswersin TranslationRecall,as a Functionof Directionof Translation
Weak Learners AdvancedLearners
(Group 1) (Group 2)
L2-L1 L1-L2 L2-L1 L1-L2
TL 94.55 77.07 TL 73.82 75.27
CL 42.76 46.28 CL 62.90 50.78
Note.TL = translationlearning;CL = contextlearning.

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
486
DISCUSSION
Given that the second aspect of the experi-
ment (i.e., the possibilitythatvocabularywould
be recalled easier when translatingfromL2 to
L1 than vice versa) did not give rise to a signifi-
cant effectof asymmetry, discussionwill be lim-
ited to the main question under consideration
(for a thorough reviewof the possible reasons
for asymmetrical performance, see Ellis &
Beaton, 1993; DE Groot, Dannenburg, & van
Hell, 1994; Keatley,Spinks, & DE Gelder, 1994;
Kroll & Stewart,1994; Snodgrass,1993).
Turning to the question of the patternsand
strategiesof learning,it emergesclearlythatthe
more advanced group performed far better
than the weaker group when the conditions
called fora transferof informationlearned. Of
the four combinations possible between the
learningconditionsand recall conditions,three
required transferof the informationlearned:
(a) TL-CR and (b) CL-TR, but also (c) CL-CR
because the sentences changed between the
studyand recall phases. In the two conditions
where sentence contexts were used for recall,
the advanced group scored 69%, as opposed to
32.3% fortheweaker group. The advantagewas
smaller in the CL-TR condition: 56.8% versus
44.5%. It is interestingto note that the weaker
group performedbetterin the sole condition in
which no transferof knowledgewas required-
where translation learning was followed by
translation recall, the scores were 85.8% and
74.5% for the weak and advanced groups,
respectively.
The discussion that follows is divided into
three broad sections. In the first section,
learners' use of translation "links"'2 is exam-
ined. The second section looks at learners' use
of context, and finally, conclusions will be
drawn regardingteaching practice.
TranslationLinks
It emerges clearlythatthe weaker group per-
formed betterwhen recall was by translation,
irrespectiveof the learning condition. This re-
veals thatstudentsin the weaker group are far
more comfortablewith the limited operations
involvedin formingand retrievinga one-to-one
correspondence than with the more complex
and less salient links formedwhen processing
sentences.It is possible thatin the CL condition,
theweaker subjectsused the contextto arriveat
the meaning of theword,whichwas then linked
to its translationequivalent.The score of 44.5%
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal80 (1996)
in theCL-TR conditionsuggeststhatsuch a strat-
egywas at least partiallyused. The poor score in
both the CR conditionsindicatesan inabilityto
operate outside the one-to-one link. Note that
performanceis also higherin the TL conditions
forthe more advancedgroup: The criticaldiffer-
ence betweenthe twogroupslies in the abilityof
theadvancedgroup to use a wordlearnedwithits
translationin an appropriateL2 context.
The inabilityof the weaker learners to trans-
fer knowledge represents a clear limit to the
usefulnessof theirotherwiseimpressiveability
to learn words with their translations.It may
indeed be plausiblysuggested that a highlyde-
veloped ability to learn words via translation
links may in some cases be detrimentalto the
establishment of the skills and strategies re-
quired to handle discourse. It mustbe kept in
mind thattheweak learnerswho participatedin
the experimentwere by no means at the begin-
ning stage of learning English,but had several
years of study behind them; it seems likely,
therefore,that they are overdependent upon
translationlinks and so have failed to develop
certain processing strategiescrucial to the ef-
fectiveuse of context.
Two remarksmaybe venturedin connection
withthisdependence on translationlinks.First,
although the processingrequired bythe experi-
mental taskinvolvedseveralaspects thatare not
easily teased apart, it maybe suggested thaton
the continuum between controlled and auto-
matic processes,the performanceof theweaker
subjects reflected a preferentialstrategythat
resultsat least in part fromautomatic process-
ing. That is to say thatlinkinga new word to its
translation equivalent is certainly the most
rapid wayof ascertainingits meaning,and until
such time as an L2 network is sufficiently
organized, it may well be automatic, notwith-
standing teachers' effortsto use picturesor L2
contextto conveymeaning. Second, the typeof
processing adopted depends to a large extent
on past habits and attitudes,thereforethe re-
sults reported here should not be taken as sug-
gestingthatweak learnersare weak becausethey
linkL2 wordsto theirtranslations;afterall, had
they received appropriate training in dealing
with context,theymightwell have performed
considerablybetter.Despite thiscaveat,it seems
likelythat persistentreliance on L1 is one of a
complex cluster of factorsthat lead to ineffec-
tive L2 learning and that this reliance stems
largelyfroma desire to understandquickly.The
results reported here suggest that the weaker
group belong to a population of learners who
PeterPrince 487

use low-effort strategiesthatlead to rapid learn- the "cost" involved in arriving at an under-
ing but are ultimately ineffective in using standingof the sentence. There are likelyto be
broader skills. In view of this, it seems impor- two causes of this cost. First, learners might
tant,as R6hr (1993) stresses,to fosterthe pleas- process textsmore slowlybecause theirL2 net-
ure of exploring L2 lexical relationshipsat the works are not as richlydeveloped as those of
earliest possible stage of learning. more advanced learners. For example, in the
weaker learner's mental lexicon, the word
The Use ofContext "cut," although a well-known,high-frequency
word,does not have as manylinkswithotherL2
Accounting for the differencebetween the words as foran advanced learner,who mayhave
two groups in the experimentrequires a theory formed links with less common words,such as
of the taskunder consideration.One important "slice," "chop," "scissors," or "shortcut." The
element of context theoryis the semantic gap basic premise here is that the richer the net-
that is created by the presence of an unknown work in which a word is integrated,the more
word. Each gap may be said to have a certain automatically the word is accessed, both in
shape, the contours of which are fixed by the meaning and in form (Keatley, Spinks, & DE
clues provided by the other words in the sen- Gelder, 1994). Thus it has been consistently
tence. Take an example fromthe experimental shown thatword recognitionis slowerin an L2
material:"Let's make dinner together,shall we? than in one's L1 (e.g., Favreau & Segalowitz,
Ifyou peel the potatoes, I'll cut themand make 1983), and, although the differencemay only
the chips." The shape of the gap is determined consist in tenthsof a second, it is increased as
mainlyby the word "potato," which,when com- task load increases.
bined with the reader's previous knowledge of Second, the weaker learner will be slower to
chip-making,servesto create a mentalmodel of use syntacticinformation.Indeed, research by
the situation (Johnson-Laird,1983). Before cor- Barnett(1986) indicatesthata poor level of syn-
rectly ascribing a meaning to the word "peel," tactic knowledge diminishes reading profi-
however,the learnermusteliminateotherpossi- ciency to the point where understandingis not
bilities by noticing, for example, that the cut- improvedeven by increased lexical knowledge.
ting involved in chip-making is already ac- One implication of this could be that when
counted for,so peeling is probably a different readers stumble over syntactic analysis, they
activityfrom cutting. The most plausible re- cannot make the necessaryinferencesto arrive
maining candidate forthe meaning of "peel" is at the meaning of an unknownword. Thus, in
"to removethe skin." In uncontrivedsentences, our example, the words "let's" and "together"
of course, the contoursof the gap are rarelyso presuppose that the situation involves more
well defined,so in practice manysentencesmay than one person, and the words "you" and "I"
be required before the featuresthat make up in the second half specifythe number as two.
the semantic domain of a word are fullyascer- The word "them" must also be understood as
tained. Indeed, it could be objected thateven in referringto "potatoes." Even where a sentence
the sentences used in the present experiment, contains no potentiallyambiguous words, our
meanings could not be guessed unequivocally: weaker subjectsmaysimplyhave been less sensi-
It is also typicalto wash potatoes beforecooking tive to these anaphoric elements, thus ham-
them, so "peel" could be construed as a syn- pered in their abilityto guess the meaning of
onym for "wash." The fact that subjects were unknown words. It should be remembered,
able to fill in the blanks with the correct L1I however,thatthe materialin the presentexperi-
word during the pretestargues against thispos- mentwas testedon learnerswhose levelwas sim-
sibility, but theymaywell have feltless confident ilar to that of the experimental subjects, who
than the strongergroup that their guess was found no difficultyin providing the correct
indeed correct.This lack of confidence maybe missingword in theirL1, and thatat the end of
caused by the elaboration of a mental model the experiment,the subjects themselveswere
thatis less precise and in which the gap created also able to provide the appropriate L1 word.
by the unknownword is correspondinglyfuzzy. Thus, it cannot be stated that the weaker sub-
Whyshould thisbe so when the sentence con- jects were preventedfrommakingcorrectinfer-
tains onlyone unknownword?The explanation ences, only that theywere slower to do so. A
offeredhere is an elaboration of what Cohen broader claim thathas been made is thatwhere
and Aphek (1980) presumably mean by the syntacticprocessing is costly,L2 reading tends
"over-stimulation" of textualprocessing,namely to be more conceptuallyguided (Ulijn, 1980).

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
488
However,postulatingqualitativedifferencesbe-
tweenL1 and L2 processingmaynot be entirely
founded (Frenck-Mestre& Pynte, 1995), and
the present analysis serves only to underline
that reading in the L2 is undeniably slower
(Mack, 1986).
Despite the fact that sentence processing is
more laborious forless proficientlearners,their
weaker performancein the presentexperiment
still calls for a fuller explanation because al-
though theyhad less time to devote to learning
thewords,it is improbable thatlack of timewas
the sole cause of the differencein performance.
Additional factorsthat could account for the
differencemust,therefore,have come into play
after the moment when subjects had guessed
the meaning of the word and should have been
engaged in learning it. The task employed in
this experimentwas not sensitiveto the finer
aspects of learningstrategy, but it maybe specu-
lated that one or more of three differentap-
proaches were used. As alreadymentioned,sub-
jects could have linked the L2 word formto its
L1 equivalent,especiallywhen theywere confi-
dent that their guess was correct. This would
lead to a certain success rate in the TR condi-
tion but would not make transferof knowledge
to other contextseasy.Alternatively, theycould
have relied on contextnotjust in order to guess
the word's meaning but also to provide the
main networksupport for the learning of its
form-using, in otherwords,the L2 networkat
their disposal in order to assimilate new word
forms.This is possible not only because the CL
condition explicitlyencouraged it, but also be-
cause the weaker learners,despite possessing a
less richlydeveloped lexicon, nonethelesshave
sufficientL2 lexical knowledgeto be able to use
it as a basis for furtherlearning. Indeed, re-
search by Frenck-Mestre and Prince (1995) sug-
gests that these learnersare able to access lexi-
cal knowledgeautomaticallyforthe purposes of
recognition, so there is no reason why they
should not be able to extend the links in their
L2 networkwhen conditions are right. Such a
resultwould in factcorrespondto whatteachers
presume and hope will happen when words are
presented in context. However,the presentex-
periment did not call for the recognition of
newlylearned word formsbut fortheirproduc-
tion, and there is reason to suppose that pro-
duction taps into specificmechanismsthatmay
not be available when a networkhas been devel-
oped mainly for recognition (Green, 1993). A
final reason thatwordswere not easilyrecalled
could simplybe thatonce subjectsfeltthatthey
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheModernLanguageJournal80 (1996)
had understood the sentence during the study
phase, they did not attend to the new word
formsenough to be able to retain them.That is,
learners failed at recall to retrieve either a
translationlink or a within-L2link,where such
a link was not established during the study
phase. They behaved as if the instructionhad
been to understandthe sentence ratherthan to
learn the unknown word. If this third inter-
pretationis correct,one implicationis thatthe
problem may well be one of attitude and
method ratherthan an inabilityto exploit con-
textual cues per se.
As one mightgatherfromthe speculativena-
ture of the preceding discussion, ascertaining
preciselywhat processing mechanisms are in-
volved in learning vocabulary from context is
difficult,given the complexityof such an activ-
ity,in whichtop-downand bottom-upprocesses
are highly interwoven. Although it must be
stressed that the interpretationsthat are given
here of these fineraspects are indeed only ten-
tative and that furtherresearch is required in
order to tease them apart, the results of the
experimentdo, in fact,appear to be unequivo-
cal as regardsthe main conclusions,namely (a)
L2 words are easily learned when presented
withtheirtranslationsand (b) thisis no guaran-
tee thattheywillbe successfullyaccessed foruse
in an L2 context.
forTeachingPractice
Implications
The final part of the discussion turns to the
question of how the findingsmight be taken
into account in teaching practice. The sugges-
tions put forwardare not, of course, to be con-
sidered as necessary corollaries of the experi-
ment itselfbecause theylie outside its scope.
They are nonethelessadvanced in the hope they
will make a useful contributionto the issue of
vocabulary learning. The picture that emerges
is one in whicha combinationoffactorsleads to
a certain difficultyin transferringknowledge
acquired in one context to another context.
This difficulty mainlyaffectslearnerswho have
been studyingfor a number of years but who
nonetheless remain ineffectivein their use of
L2. We suggest that these learnersform a spe-
cific population with at least the following
characteristics:
1. A belief that L2 words are best and most
rapidlyunderstoodbylinkingthemto L1 equiv-
alents. The presupposition adopted by these
learners here is that L2 words can in fact be
adequately linked, from a semantic point of
PeterPrince
view, in a one-to-one correspondence to L1
words.
2. An inabilityto exploit the L2 lexicon effec-
tivelyfor the purposes of production.
3. Relativelyeffortfulprocessing of L2 sen-
tences due to slower word identificationand
syntacticprocessing.
These three characteristicsdo not preclude
the existence of a fourth,namely the develop-
mentof automatic linkswithinthe L2 network,
along semantic and associative lines, for the
purposes of recognition. This fourth charac-
teristicis not in contradictionwith the third,
which concerns the recognition of word forms
as opposed to word relationships.
In lightof these comments,what conclusions
may be drawn for teaching practice? One gen-
eral pointis thatthe developmentof metacogni-
tive strategiesand attitudesis of prime impor-
tance in this domain (O'Malley & Chamot,
1990; Oxford, 1990). Notably,initial expectan-
cies as to the effortinvolvedin language learn-
ing should be probed and discussed so thatthe
pitfallsof low-effortstrategieslike translation
learning are well understood from the begin-
ning. In the absence of such discussion, some
learnersare liable to focus on the development
of rapid strategies for understanding, to the
detrimentof the more effortfulprocesses in-
volved in production. These observations cor-
roborate and extend the output hypothesisas
elaborated by Swain (1985).
Turning to the more specific question of
learningwordsin contextor withtranslations,it
is noteworthythatwhen the correcttranslation
link receives sufficient attention during the
studyphase, subjects' abilityto retrieveit is not
in doubt. The weakness lies less in the retrieval
process itselfthan in the use to which the infor-
mation is put once retrieved.In other words,
weaker subjects appear unwilling to envisage
the use of an L2 other than in a translation
situation.Here again, the problemis one of atti-
tude ratherthan of processing skill itself,indi-
cating a need to remedythe situationnot only
by practice at developing the appropriate skills
but also byworkingupon learners' perceptions
of long-termaims and of the ways the task at
hand contributesto them.
A further aspect, pointed out by Nation
(1982) and Hulstijn (1992), is that a distinction
should be drawn between reading for compre-
hension and reading as a means to increase
one's vocabulary.Althoughreading forcompre-
hension no doubt gives rise to incidental learn-
ing (Herman, Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy,
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
489
1987; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson, 1985), thus
contributingto an increase in receptivevocab-
ulary,it is probable thatthe formationof a rep-
resentationthatremains accessible forthe pur-
poses of production requires more elaborate
processing than that provided by inferencing.
One formof processingwould be to pay atten-
tion specificallyto the formof the word, both
orthographic and phonological, by, for exam-
ple, repeating it aloud (Ellis & Beaton, 1993);
another would be to associate the new word
consciously with words already known. A fur-
ther stage would involve the retrievalof newly
learned words in a varietyof production tasks
in which the clues provided draw upon all the
semantic and associative links that contribute
to the meaning of the word to be learned.
Where the aim is to master the most common
words in a language rapidly (Nation, 1993),
such an approach is especially importantbe-
cause it cannot be assumed thateven frequently
encountered words are readilyavailable forex-
pression.All thesestrategiesforlearningvocab-
ulary involveisolating the word fromthe con-
text, so that context provides the means to
identifythe meaning of the new word and not
necessarilythe means to learn it. Although a
sufficiently imageable contextmaydo thatalso,
the value of contextlies above all in its authen-
ticity,the benefitsof which are of three differ-
ent sorts.
First,assessingthemeaningofa wordin context
obliges the learnerto develop strategies,such as
anticipatingand inferencing,whichbecome in-
creasinglyprofitableas learning progressesbe-
cause theyinstillan attitudeof self-reliancethat
is the hallmarkof proficiency.Second, system-
atically meeting new words in context under-
lines the factthatwords are indeed used in dis-
course forpurposes of communication.Finally,
context provides an indication of the way the
words are used. All these factorsmaybe said to
contribute to a learner's L2 autonomy and to
facilitatethe transferof knowledgethataccom-
panies it. They also point to the fact that the
mental representationof a word's meaning de-
velops with successive encounters in different
contexts,so it mayin principle alwaysundergo
modificationas new and finersemanticdistinc-
tions are added (Monsell, 1985).
Despite the benefits of contextual presenta-
tion, it appears thateffectivelearning of words
requires a stage in which the word is in fact
isolated fromits contextand submittedto elab-
orative processing. The extent to which links
between concepts and L2 word forms can be
490 TheModernLanguageJournal80 (1996)

activated without some form of L1 activation ciallyin the earlystages; however,thiswould be

remains a matter of debate (e.g., DE Groot, more than counterbalancedby the factthatthe
Dannenburg, & van Hell, 1994; Kroll & Stewart, learner is operating to a greaterdegree within
1994), but it is probablysafe to assume thatfor the L2. At the veryleast, such a technique pro-
most words that have an obvious translation vides an approach to vocabulary learning in
equivalent,ascertainingthe meaning of a word which the dichotomy between learning with
is in manycases tantamountto activatingan L1 translationsand learningin contextis replaced
representation, regardless of whether the L1 by a conscious awareness, on the part of the
word is actually presented or not. However, learner,thatboth learning strategieshave their
given thatlearningwithtranslations,despite its disadvantages and that alternativeapproaches
efficiencyin termsof quantity,includes none of could usefullybe explored.
the benefitsjust described for contextual pre-
sentation,thereappears to be a need forlearn-
ing techniques and material that manage to NOTES
combine both efficiencyand learnerautonomy.
As Hulstijn (1992) rightlypoints out, the ques-
tion is not so much whetherlearningin context 1The word"trace"is used herein accordwiththe
is beneficial, but exactly what form it should viewthatan encounterwithanystimulusresultsin
take to be most effective. thatstimulus and theconditionsin whichit wasen-
One solution mightbe to train learners not counteredbeingstoredin memory as a "trace"that
simplyto ascertain meaning fromcontext,but
willdecayor be disrupted byothertracesifnotsubse-
to select consciously fromwithin that context quentlyreactivated (Baddeley,1990,pp. 43-50).
2 The term"link"is usedheretocovernotonlythe
the most pertinent word associated with the
word to be learned, thus creating a paired- objectivelinguisticand semanticrelationships that
existbetweenwords,but also themannerin which
associate learning condition withoutresorting such relationshipsare storedin thementallexicon.
to translations.This initiallinkbetween two L2 Concerningthelatteraspect,it is worthnotingfirst,
word formswould serve mainlyas a prop that thatoutsideof highlymeaningfulevents,memory
would help to sustain the newlylearned word traceswillneed to be activatedmanytimesfora link
formin memory,but in order for the meaning to becomefirmly established,and second,thatthe
of thatword to become more firmlyintegrated linksthusformedare notall ofthesamestrength.
in a network,it is essential that the word be
encounteredat regularintervalsand in a variety
of contextsand tasks.In order to achieve maxi- REFERENCES
mum effectiveness, such taskswould have to in-
clude some form of elaborative processing
(Schacter & Graf, 1986). If this does not hap- Baddeley,A. (1990).HumanMemory, Hove,England:
pen, the resultingrepresentationwould possi- LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
and lexical/semantic
M. A. (1986).Syntactic
Barnett,
blybe accessible forrecognitionpurposes or for
tasksinvolvingimplicitmemory,but not forex- skillin foreignlanguagereading:Importance
and interaction.TheModernLanguageJournal,70,
plicitrecall. On the part of the teacher,such an 343-349.
approach requires carefulplanning,both in se- M. (1988).Vocabulary
R., & McCarthy,
Carter, andLan-
lecting the vocabulary items that are most New York: Longman.
guageTeaching,
suited to the learners' needs, and in settingup Cohen, A. C., & Aphek,E. (1980). Retentionof
the tasks,such as the generation of synonyms, second-language overtime:Investi-
vocabulary
collocations,or whole sentences,whichwilllead gatingtherole of mnemonicassociations,
Sys-
to effectivelearning.These tasksshould also be tem,8, 221-235.
an object of occasional analysis themselves, L., & vanHell,J.G.
DEGroot,A. M. B., Dannenburg,
such that the learning process becomes trans- (1994).Forward andbackwardwordtranslation
and Language,33,
bybilinguals.JournalofMemory
parentto the learner,who ideallyshould be able 600-629.
to performsuch tasksautonomously,and more
the
Ellis,N., & Beaton,A. (1993).Factorsaffecting
automatically,as proficiencyincreases. learningofforeignlanguagevocabulary:Imag-
In view of the ease withwhich L1 representa- mediatorsand phonologicalshort-
erykeyword
tions are accessed, it is to be expected, however, termmemory,TheQuarterlyJournal
ofExperimental
that in quantitative terms any technique that 46A,3, 533-558.
Psychology,
relies only upon the L2 networkwould still be N. (1983).Automatic
Favreau,M., & Segalowitz, and
less efficientthan translation learning, espe- controlledprocessesin the first-
and second-

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PeterPrince
language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory O'Malley,J.,& Chamot, A. (1990). Learningstrategies
& Cognition, 11,565-574.
Frenck-Mestre,C., & Prince, P. W. J. (1995). Second
language autonomy.Unpublished manuscript.
Frenck-Mestre,C., & Pynte,J. (in press). Reading in
the nativeversusthe second language. Quarterly
JournalofExperimental Psychology.
Gekoski, W. L. (1980). Language acquisition context
and language organization in bilinguals.Journal
ofPsycholinguistic Research,9, 429-449.
Green, D. (1993). Towards a model of L2 comprehen-
sion and production. In R. Schreuder & B.
Weltens (Eds.), The bilinguallexicon(pp. 249-
278). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins.
Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., &
Nagy, W.E. (1987). Incidental acquisition of
word meaning. ReadingResearchQuarterly, 22,
263-284.
Hulstijn,J.H. (1992). Retentionof inferredand given
meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabu-
larylearning.In P. Arnaud & H. Bejoint (Eds.),
Vocabulary and AppliedLinguistics.(pp. 113-125). R6hr,G. (1993). Erschliessenaus demKontext.Berlin,Ger-
London: Macmillan.
Johnson-Laird,P. N. (1983). Mentalmodels. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Keatley,C. W., Spinks,J. A., & DE Gelder, B. (1994).
Asymmetricalcross-language priming effects.
Memory and Cognition, 22, 70-84.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practicein second
language acquisition. London: Prentice Hall
International
Kroll, J. E, & Curley,J. (1988). Lexical memory in
novice bilinguals: The role of concepts in re-
trieving second language words. In M. M.
Gruneberg,P. E. Morris,& R. N. Sykes (Eds.),
Practicalaspectsof memory, Vol2 (pp. 389-395).
London: John Wileyand Sons.
Kroll,J.F.,& Stewart,E. (1994). Categoryinterference
in translation and picture naming: Evidence
for asymmetricconnections between bilingual
memoryrepresentations.JournalofMemory and
Language,33, 149-174.
Mack,M. (1986).A studyof semanticand syntactic proc-
essingin monolingualsand fluentbilinguals.Jour-
nal ofPsycholinguistic
Research,15,463-489.
McCarthy,M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford,England: Ox-
ford UniversityPress.
Monsell, S. (1985). Repetition and the lexicon. In
A.W. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in thepsychologyoflan-
guage,Vol.2 (pp. 147-195). London: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Nagy,W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson,R. C. (1985).
Learning words from context. ReadingResearch
Quarterly, 20, 233-253.
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreignvo-
cabulary: A reviewof the research, RELC Jour- Thorndike E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). TheTeacher's
nal, 13,1, 14-36.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth,and
use. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), The
bilinguallexicon. (pp. 115-124). Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
491
in
secondlanguageacquisition. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge UniversityPress.
Oxford, R. (1990). Languagelearningstrategies: Whatev-
eryteachershouldknow.Rowley,MA: Newbury
House.
Paivio, A., & Desrochers, A. (1980). A dual-coding
approach to bilingual memory.CanadianJournal
ofPsychology,34, 388-399.
Pickering, M. (1982). Context-free and context-
dependent vocabulary learning: An experi-
ment. System, 10,1, 79-83.
Pressley,M., Levin,J. R., Hall. J. W., Miller,G. E., &
Berry,J. K. (1980). The keywordmethod and
foreignword acquisition.JournalofExperimental
Psychology:Human Learningand Memory, 6, 163-
173.
Roediger,H. L. (1980). The effectiveness of fourmne-
monics in orderingrecall.JournalofExperimental
Psychology:Human Learningand Memory, 6, 558-
567.
many:Langenscheidt.
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister,G. F. (1978).
Vocabularylearning and reading. System, 6, 72-
78.
Sautermeister,C. (1989). Pour une meilleure compe-
tence lexicale. In A. H. Ibrahim (Ed.), Lexiques
(pp. 121-133).Paris : HachetteC1e Internationale.
Schacter,D. L., & Graf,P. (1986). Effectsof elabora-
tive processing on implicit and explicit mem-
ory for new associations. JournalofExperimental
Psychology: Learning,Memoryand Cognition,12,
432-444.
Seibert, L. C. (1930). An experimenton the relative
efficiencyof studyingFrenchvocabularyin as-
sociated pairs versus studyingFrench vocabu-
lary in context.JournalofEducationalPsychology,
21,297-314.
Shiffrin,R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled
and automatic human informationprocessing:
II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending,
and a general theory.Psychological Review,84, 2,
127-190.
Snodgrass, J. G. (1993). Translating versus picture
naming: Similarities and differences. In R.
Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.), Thebilingual lexi-
con (pp. 83-114). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicativecompetence: Some
roles of comprehensibleinput and comprehen-
sible output in its development.In S. Gass and
C. Madden (Eds.), Inputin secondlanguageacquisi-
tion (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Word-
bookof30,000 words.New York: Bureau of Publi-
cations, Teacher's College, Columbia Univer-
sity.
Tulving,E. (1983). Elements ofEpisodicMemory.Oxford,
England: Oxford UniversityPress.
492 The Modern Language Journal 80 (1996)

Ulijn, J. (1980). Foreign language reading research:
Recent trendsand futureprojects.JournalofRe-
searchin Reading,3, 17-37.
Vermeer,A. (1992). Exploring the second language
learner lexicon. In L. Verhoeven& J. De Jong
(Eds.), Theconstruct
oflanguageproficiency.
Applica-
tionsofpsychologicalmodelsto languageassessment
(pp. 147-162). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John
Benjamins.
Webb,W. B. (1962). The effectsof prolonged learning
on learningvocabulary.JournalofVerbal Learning
and Verbal 1, 173-182.
Behavior,
Wiseman, S., & Tulving,E. (1976). Encoding specific-
ity: Relations between recall superiority and
recognition failure.JournalofExperimental Psy-
chology:HumanLearningand Memory, 2, 349-361.

APPENDIX

Material Used (c) crutches (desbMquilles)

Representative sentence contexts are given for 10 6.
items. Remaining items are given with their French
(a) That man's been drinkingforhours; look-he
translations.
has to lean against the bar to stop himselffrom
fallingover.
(a) = contextcondition, studyphase
(b) Don't against that wall! The
(b) = contextcondition, recall phase
paint isn't dry-your pullover will be ruined!
(c) = translationcondition to lean (s'appuyer)
(c)
1. 7.
(a) -Why are those eggs all broken? (a) Don't come in here without shoes! I've just
-Well, someone put the eggbox on the chair, broken a glass and I've got to sweep the floor.
and I didn't see it, and I sat on it and crushed (b) In October I have to the patio
it. every day because of all the leaves that fall
fromthe acacia.
(b) Wine is made by grapes and let- to sweep (balayer)
(c)
ting thejuice ferment.
(c) to crush (icraser) 8.
(a) -Don't spit your coffee out like that! It's
2.
The cowboy,chased by a group of ferocious disgusting!
(a) -You would too ifyou put salt in it instead of
Indians, whipped his horse to make itgo faster.
In the 19thcenturythe punishmentfordesert- sugar!
(b) A llama is a South American animal that has
across the (b)
ing the armywas to be the reputationof at people when
back fiftyor a hundred times.
it is angry.
(c) to whip (fouetter)
(c) to spit (cracher)
3.
9.
(a) When it was built, many people said that the
(a) A butcherusuallywears a whiteapron when he
Titanic could not sink,but it wentdown on its
is working,to stop blood gettingon his clothes.
veryfirstvoyage. (b) I alwayswear a big blue when
(b) Most people manage to float on thewaterbut I
I do the cooking; if I don't I get myclothes all
don't knowhow; I just to the bot-
tom. dirty.
(c) an apron (un tablier)
(c) to sink (couler)
10.
4.
(a) Let's make the dinnertogether,shall we? Ifyou
(a) The owl has the reputation of being a veryin-
peel the potatoes, I'll cut them and make the
telligentbird because it oftenlooks profoundly
chips.
pensive. (b) Before eating an orange you have to
(b) The is a nocturnal bird that
it, as the skin is not nice to eat.
feeds mostlyon mice.
(c) to peel (iplucher)
(c) an owl (un hibou)
5. Remaining items,with theirtranslations:
(a) She broke a leg skiingtwo weeks ago and now to dive (plonger) hedgehog (herisson)
she uses crutches to help her walk. lobster (homard) witch (sorcidre)
(b) are very useful because theyal- dwarf(nain) to faint (s'vanouir)
low you to move about when you have a leg in toad (crapaud) to knit (tricoter)
plaster. stilts (echasses) to stir (remuer)

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PeterPrince 493

lightning(foudre) to plough (labourer) log (Iniche) dew (rosie)

stool (tabouret) tojuggle (jongler) dusk (cripuscule) cobbles (pavis)
dove (colombe) to grind (moudre) lice (poux) ladle (louche)
to bounce (rebondir) skittles(quilles) squid (calamar) crow (corbeau)
to wrap (emballer) beaver (castor) leek (poireau) jug (pichet)
to wink (cligner) to kneel (sagenouiller) to knead (petrir) to stab (poignarder)

In Recognition of Excellence in Dissertation Research

THE MLJ IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE THE WINNER OF THE 1996 EMMA
BirkmaierAwardforDoctoral DissertationResearch in Foreign Language Education, presentedby
the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).
Sharon Wilkinson,WestVirginia University
Thesis title: "Foreign Language Conversationand the StudyAbroad Transition:A Case Study."
Directors:JeannetteBragger
Rebecca Kline
PennsylvaniaState University
ProfessorWilkinsonwas honored and awarded a $500 cash prize fromthe MLJattheACTFL Annual
Meeting in November in Philadelphia.

ACTFL Seeks Candidates for the 1997 Birkmaier

Dissertation Award
THE MODERN LANGUAGEJOURNALSEEKS CANDIDATES FOR THE ACTFL EMMA MARIE
BirkmaierAward for Doctoral Dissertation Research in Foreign Language Education. This award
was establishedin 1980 to recognize the authorof doctoral dissertationresearchin foreignlanguage
education that contributesto the advancementof the profession.
1. Dissertations are nominated either by the dissertationadvisor,another facultymember,or the
candidate.
2. The nomination mustconsistof an application form (available fromACTFL), an abstractof the
thesis,and a letterof nominationfroma facultymember.The letteris to describe the thesis,situateit
in the field, and relate the significanceof its contributionto the theoryor practice, or both, of
second or foreignlanguage learning.
3. Committeemembersrank the nominations to determinea list of finalists.
4. Finalistssubmitfull dissertationsfromwhich the award winneris selected.
For inquiries or nominations,contact:
The chair of the 1997 BirkmaierAward Committee or ACTFL
JudithLiskin-Gasparro 6 Executive Plaza
Dept. of Spanish & Portuguese Yonkers,NY 10701-6801
Universityof Iowa 914-963-8830
211 SchaefferHall FAX: 914-963-1275
Iowa City,IA
Email: judith-liskin-gasparro@uiowa.edu
The recipientwillreceivea $500 cash award,providedbythe The awardwillbe presentedat the
MLJ.
ACTFL annual meeting.

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.162 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 07:53:44 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions