Opportunities to Help Young Learners

¶ … Opportunities to Help Young Learners "Know a Word"

No one is able to predict the exact moment at which young learners will acquire knowledge, but this "ah-ha" moment is familiar to most experienced teachers who recognize when the learning connection has been successfully made. These processes are particularly evident in the acquisition of vocabulary as word after word is learned and used appropriately in context and tense. Some educators, though, may not be familiar with this moment of acquisition or may not recognize what is involved in helping young learners "know a word." To help fill this gap, this paper explains and exemplifies what is involved in "knowing a word," and examines some of the ways in which teachers can help learners acquire the appropriate knowledge. A summary of the research and important findings are presented in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Many of the authorities who have weighed in on what it means to "know a word" describes words in affectionate terms such as being like "old friends" who, once acquired, stand ready to assist learners for the rest of their lives. Alas, there is far more involved in truly "knowing a word" than learning how to pronounce it and what its formal definition means. In this regard, Miller emphasizes that, "A person who knows a word knows much more than its meaning and pronunciation. The contexts in which a word can be used to express a particular meaning are a critical component of word knowledge" (1999, p. 1). For native speakers, word acquisition and application appear to be relatively intuitive processes and facilitate the vocabulary development process. After all, native speakers are immersed in an ongoing environmental dynamic that provides important contextual clues and references that can help young learners understand what a word means. For instance, Miller notes that, "The ability to exploit context in order to determine meaning and resolve potential ambiguities is not a uniquely linguistic ability, but it is dramatically illustrated in the ease with which native speakers are able to identify the intended meanings of common polysemous words" (1999, p. 1). Because words frequently have more than one meaning, and in some cases even multiple meanings that differ and overlap in subtle ways, knowing a word for second language learners can be a particularly challenging enterprise.

According to Kamil, Mosenthal and Pearson (1996), there are several aspects of word knowledge that must be taken into account when attempting to identify the processes by which young learners grow their vocabularies through word acquisition. Some of the well recognized aspects of the complexity of word knowledge identified by vocabulary researchers to date include the following:

1. Incrementality -- knowing a word is a matter of degrees, not all-or-nothing;

2. Multidimensionality -- word knowledge consists of several qualitatively different types of knowledge;

3. Polysemy -- words often have multiple meanings;

4. Interrelatedness -- one's knowledge of any given word is not independent of one's knowledge of other words; and,

5. Heterogeneity -- what it means to know a word differs substantially depending on the kind of word (Kamil et al. 1996, p. 273).

A brief description of these five aspects of word knowledge complexity is provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Complexity Aspects of Word Knowledge

Step

Description

Incrementality

Word learning is incremental -- it takes place in many steps. Children's knowledge of word meanings is often initially incomplete but, over time, gradually approximates the adult understanding. The incremental nature of word learning has sometimes been expressed in terms of a linear scale with several points. (a) never saw it before; (b) heard it but doesn't know what it means; (c) recognizes it in context as having something to do with & #8230;; (d) knows it well; and, more recently, (e) I can use this word in a sentence, as well. An incremental view of word learning helps explain how a great deal of vocabulary knowledge can be gained incidentally from context, even when individual encounters with words in context are not particularly informative.

Multidimensionality

For some purposes, it may be useful to conceptualize word knowledge in terms of a continuum ranging from "none" to "complete." However, it has long been recognized that word knowledge consists of multiple dimensions.

Polysemy

Words often have more than one meaning, and the more frequent a word is in the language, the more meanings it is likely to have. The simple fact that a word can have two or more unrelated meanings adds substantial cognitive complexity to the task of using a dictionary. Even more troublesome, at least to the theoretician, is the fact that the multiple meanings of words range from being completely unrelated to being so close that the shade of meaning separating the two may exist only in the mind of a compulsive lexicographer.

Interrelatedness

Words are often taught and tested as if they were essentially isolated units of knowledge. Clearly such practice is inconsistent with a constructivist understanding of knowledge that emphasizes the importance of linking what is learned to familiar words and concepts. How well a person knows the meaning of whale depends in part on their understanding of mammal. A person who already knows the words hot, cold, and cool has already acquired some of the components of the word warm, even if the word warm has not yet been encountered.

Heterogeneity

Another type of complexity in word knowledge is the fact that what it means to know a word depends on what kind of word one is talking about. For example, knowing function words such as the or if is quite different from knowing terms such as hypotenuse or ion. The fact that the different dimensions of word knowledge are at least partially independent of each other also means that the same word can require different types of learning from different types of students, depending on what they already know about a word.

Source: Kamil et al. 1996, p. 273

While there is a virtual consensus among vocabulary researchers that knowing the definition or definitions of a word is an essential ingredient in "knowing" it, many authorities emphasize that the word acquisition process involves far more than just knowing what a word means, but rather also requires the ability of young learners to apply this knowledge in real-world settings. For instance, Kamil and his associates emphasize that, "It is important to recognize that only a small proportion of words that students learn can be covered in explicit vocabulary instruction, and an even more basic point: that knowing a word cannot be identified with knowing a definition. That is, knowing a word means being able to do things with it" (1996, p. 273).

The mental processes that are involved in actually applying word knowledge in real-world settings, though, are far more complex than many observers might believe or understand, and educators should consider the following observation from Kamil et al. In this regard: "To recognize it in connected speech or in print, to access its meaning, to pronounce it -- and to be able to do these things within a fraction of a second. None of these processes is anything like remembering a verbal definition. In most cases, knowing a word is more like knowing how to use a tool than it is like being able to state a fact" (1996, p. 273). Indeed, the foregoing tool analogy is particularly relevant with respect to word acquisition for young learners who can apply this knowledge to the exigencies of real-world applications in all of their variety, just as people who learn how to use a screwdriver or hammer know how to use these tools in various settings. As Kamil and his associates phrase it, "Word knowledge is applied knowledge: A person who knows a word can recognize it, and use it, in novel contexts, and uses knowledge of the word, in combination with other types of knowledge, to construct a meaning for a text" (1996, p. 273).

This definition of "knowing a word" provides a useful point of departure for determining how educators can apply this information to their own second language classrooms to facilitate word acquisition and usage. For example, in any language, it is reasonable to suggest that native speakers intuitively understand the concept of a word. In fact, Carter suggests that, "Everyone knows what a word is" (1998, p. 4). There are also some features that can be used to distinguish a word. In this regard, Carter notes that, "An orthographic definition of a word is a practical common-sense definition. It says, quite simply, that a word is any sequence of letters (and a limited number of other characteristics such as hyphen and apostrophe) bounded on either side by a space or punctuation mark" (1998, p. 4).

Consequently, young learners may intuitively know what a word is, but they may not know what a particular word means without a comprehensive understanding of the nuanced shadings of its various meanings and how these affect its usage. As Carter points out, "Knowing a word involves, presumably, knowing the different meanings carried by a single form. An orthographic definition is one which is formalistic in the sense of being bound to the form of a word in a particular medium. It is not sensitive to distinctions of meaning or grammatical function. To this extent it is not complete" (1998, p. 4). Therefore, in an effort to help complete the definition, a reference to Webster's advises that a word is simply "something that is said" (1999, p. 2633).

Unfortunately, this formal definition does little to clear the muddied waters with respect to what a word is, and Carter (1998) suggests that, "It may be more accurate to define a word as the minimum meaningful unit of language. This allows us to differentiate the separate meanings contained in the word fair in so far as they can be said to be different semantic units" (p. 5). Furthermore, this definition fails to embrace the polysemous nature of many words. For example, Carter cites the following examples of how even the straightforward definition of word provided above can be confounded by such polysemous aspects of words:

1. There are single units of meaning which are conveyed by more than one word: bus conductor, train driver, school teacher, model railway. And if they are compound words do they count as one word or two?

2. There are also different boundaries of meaning generated by 'words' which can be read in more than one way. For example, police investigation is read more normally as an investigation by the police but its appearance in a recent headline fronting a police bribery case enables us to read it as an investigation of the police.

3. More problematically still, to what extent can 'meaning' be said to be transmitted by the following words: if, by, but, my, could, because, indeed, them (Carter 1998, p. 5).

These features appear to be applicable to many words in the English language, for example, but even here Carter (1998) suggests that there are some nebulous qualities of words that defy strict definition. For instance, according to Cartern, "Such items can serve to structure or otherwise organize how information is received, but on their own they are not semantic units in the sense intended above. The presence of such words in the lexicon also undermines another possible definition of a word, namely, that a word is a 'minimal free form'" (1998, p. 5).

This lack of consensus concerning what a "word" is adds to the complexity in defining what "knowing a word" involves. In recent years, a number of authorities have weighed in concerning what actually knowing a word entails, and many resort to a "laundry list" of items that characterize the word knowledge process. For instance, Cervatiuc identifies the following as being common assumptions that are associated with depth of vocabulary knowledge.

1. The native speaker of a language continues to expand his vocabulary in adulthood, whereas there is comparatively little development of syntax in adult life.

2. Knowing a word means knowing the degree of probability of encountering that word in speech or print. For many words, we also 'know' the sort of words most likely to be found associated with the word.

3. Knowing a word implies knowing the limitations imposed on the use of the word according to variations of function and situation.

4. Knowing a word means knowing the syntactic behavior associated with that word.

5. Knowing a word entails knowledge of the underlying form of a word and the derivatives that can be made from it.

6. Knowing a word entails knowledge of the network of associations between that word and the other words in the language.

7. Knowing a word means knowing the semantic value of a word.

8. Knowing a word means knowing many of the different meanings associated with the word (Cervatiuc 2007, p. 41).

By contrast, Carter (1998) suggests that knowing a word in a second or foreign language is typically characterized by the following:

1. It means knowing how to use it productively and having the ability to recall it for active use, although for some purposes only passive knowledge is necessary and some words for some users are only ever known passively.

2. It means knowing the likelihood of encountering the word in either spoken or written contexts or in both.

3. It means knowing the syntactic frames into which the word can be slotted and the underlying forms and derivations which can be made from it.

4. It means knowing the relations it contracts with other words in the language and with related words in an L1 as well.

5. It means perceiving the relative coreness of the word as well as its more marked pragmatic and discoursal functions and its style-levels.

6. It means knowing the different meanings associated with it and, often in a connected way, the range of its collocational patterns.

7. It means knowing words as part of or wholly as fixed expressions conveniently memorized to repeat -- and adapt -- as the occasion arises (p. 6).

Despite a growing body of knowledge accumulated by vocabulary researchers in recent years and a corresponding amount of attention on the part of the educational community to develop vocabulary-teaching materials, there remains a lack of overall consensus concerning what "knowing a word" involves that can be used by educators in all situations. Notwithstanding this paucity of a "one-size-fits-all" definition of "knowing a word," the following observations provide a useful framework in which educators can evaluate their own teaching methods to ensure they are achieving their intended academic outcomes in the second language classroom:

1. For most learning purposes, vocabulary needs to be taught for comprehension and for production: (a) comprehension relies on strategies which help learners to understand lexical items and to store them in memory; (b) production relies on strategies which help learners to activate their lexical store, retrieve items from memory and use them in contextually appropriate ways. Some teaching techniques are better suited for comprehension than for production, and vice versa. For example, as a teaching technique cloze procedure encourages skills of lexical comprehension, particularly with respect to reading.

2. In the early stages of learning a language a range of techniques to aid memorization is necessary. In particular, teaching techniques which foster imagistic and picturable associations across L1 and L2 can be valuable. Particular attention should be given to phonological patterns to aid retention in the lexical store. There is a need for a psycholinguistic perception of words as individual 'entities' to be reconciled with more pragmatic, social encounters with words in discourse contexts of actual use.

3. Teaching vocabulary in early language learning requires constant reference to the notion of certain words being more core than others. Word lists should be scrutinized in the light of theories of core vocabulary.