Core and Networking in L2 Lexical Teaching in an Input-Poor Context

DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2014.45058   PDF   HTML   XML   4,551 Downloads   5,192 Views   Citations


This paper discusses problems in developing L2 lexical competence in an input-poor environment, and suggests what we can do so as to minimize the negative effects of those problems on L2 lexical learning. As an unavoidable problem, we discussed a learner strategy unequivocally used by Japanese students when learning the meaning of a new word. To enhance L2 lexical learning, we suggested that lexical core, combined with the notion of network building, has a lot of pedagogical potential. With two cases (the preposition on, and the basic verbs of communication), we demonstrated how the core schema of a lexical item(s) becomes a common thread that weaves both intra-lexical and inter-lexical networks.

Share and Cite:

Sato, M. and Tanaka, S. (2014) Core and Networking in L2 Lexical Teaching in an Input-Poor Context. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 4, 676-686. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2014.45058.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Alanen, R. (1995). Input Enhancement and Rule Presentation in Second Language Acquisition. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 259-302). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
[2] Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and Form. London: Longman.
[3] Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[4] Brown, H. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd ed.). London: Pearson Education ESL.
[5] Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback: An Empirical Study of the Learning of Linguistic Generalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
[6] Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The Development of Polysemy and Frequency Use in English Second Language Speakers. Language Learning, 60, 573-605.
[7] DeKeyser, R. (2003). Explicit and Implicit Learning. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.
[8] Ellis, N. (1993). Rule and Instances in Foreign Language Learning: Interactions of Explicit and Implicit Knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 5, 289-318.
[9] Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[10] Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[11] Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[12] Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[13] Meara, P. (2009). Connected Words: Word Associations and Second Language Lexical Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
[14] Miller, G., & Johnson-Laird, P. (1976). Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[15] Miller, G. (1978). Semantic Relations among Words. In H. Halle, J. Bresnan, & G. Miller (Eds.), Linguistic Theory & Psychological Reality (pp. 60-118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[16] Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
[17] Norvig, P., & Lakoff, G. (1987). Taking: A Study in Lexical Network Theory. Proceedings of the 13th Berkeley Linguistics Society Annual Meeting, 195-206.
[18] Read, J. (2004). Plumbing the Depths: How Should the Construct of Vocabulary Knowledge Be Defined. In P. Bogaards, & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a Second Language (pp. 209-227). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
[19] Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[20] Richards, J. C. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Robinson, P. (1997). Generalizability and Automaticity of Second Language Learning under Implicit, Incidental, Enhanced, and Instructed Conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 223-247.
[22] Rosa, E. E., & O’Neill, M. (1999). Explicitness, Intake, and the Issue of Awareness: Another Piece to the Puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511-556.
[23] Ruhl, C. (1989). On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. New York: State University of New York Press.
[24] Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive Evidence vs. Explicit Rule Presentation and Explicit Negative Feedback: A Computer-Assisted Study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
[25] Sato, Y., & Batty, A. (2012). A Study of Learners’ Intuitions behind the Use of Utterance Verbs in English. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1, 29-36.
[26] Savignon, S. (2000). Communicative Language Teaching. In M. Byram (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 125-129). London: Routledge.
[27] Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness Raising and the Second-Language Learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.
[28] Sprouse, R. (2010). The Invisibility of SLA Theory in Mainstream Creole Linguistics. Second Language Research, 26, 261-277.
[29] Tanaka, S., & Abe, H. (1985). Conditions on Interlingual Transfer. In P. Larson, E. Judd, & D. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL ’84: A Brave New World for TESOL (pp. 101-120). Washington DC: TESOL.
[30] Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.