Share This Article:

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

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:3184KB) PP. 676-686
DOI: 10.4236/ojml.2014.45058    4,380 Downloads   4,954 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.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

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.


[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 © 2019 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.