Faculteit Letteren & Wijsbegeerte
Joyca Goethals
Words worth learning are not easily
learnt. An investigation in the literature
on L2 vocabulary acquisition with
advanced learners.
Masterproef voorgedragen tot het behalen van de graad van
Master in het Vertalen
2014
Promotor Prof. Dr. June Eyckmans
Vakgroep Vertalen Tolken Communicatie
Acknowledgements
It has been a struggle, yet an enlightening one. This investigation has motivated and inspired me
to continue learning French and English, as I have gained insight into what it actually means to
know words and how L2 vocabulary knowledge can be acquired. I am satisfied with the result of
my research efforts and am proud of the progress that I have made.
I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Dr. June Eyckmans, whose guidance and feedback
enabled me to complete this work successfully.
I owe my deepest gratitude to the love of my life, Thibaut Van Acker, for his unconditional love,
support and understanding throughout this journey.
I am grateful to my parents, for giving me opportunities that they never had themselves.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the city of Ghent and everyone who has made the
past few years of studying at the University of Ghent such an amazing, enriching and
unforgettable experience.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Vocabulary acquisition ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Vocabulary knowledge ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2 The process of L2 vocabulary acquisition .................................................................................. 7
2.3 Learning types ............................................................................................................................ 8
3. Advanced learners and their vocabulary knowledge .................................................................. 9
3.1 Common European Framework of Reference for Langues (CEFR) ....................................... 10
3.2 Vocabulary size vs. vocabulary depth ...................................................................................... 11
3.3 Active vocabulary threshold..................................................................................................... 14
4. Vocabulary acquisition with advanced learners ....................................................................... 14
4.1 Autonomous learning ............................................................................................................... 15
4.2 In-depth vocabulary knowledge ............................................................................................... 19
4.2.1 Associative meanings ......................................................................................................... 19
4.2.2 Word associations .............................................................................................................. 22
4.2.2.1 Collocations ........................................................................................................................ 24
4.2.3 Figurative expressions ........................................................................................................ 27
4.2.3.1 Idioms ................................................................................................................................. 28
4.2.3.2 Metaphors ........................................................................................................................... 31
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 33
6. References ................................................................................................................................ 37
1
1
INTRODUCTION
This paper is a status quaestionis that concentrates on vocabulary acquisition with advanced
second language (L2) learners. My interest for this topic stems from my own experience as a
Flemish student of French and English. It strikes me that, in my fourth year of language studies at
university level, I often encounter situations in which I fail to express myself in an accurate and
idiomatic way and that a lack of vocabulary knowledge is at the root of this. Yet, I am expected
to graduate soon with an advanced level of second language proficiency. When I noticed that
some of my fellow students experience the same, I started wondering about vocabulary
knowledge and vocabulary acquisition at an advanced level of L2 proficiency. For any L2 learner
to increase their vocabulary knowledge, they should first determine their vocabulary needs.
Accordingly, this paper aims to outline what the advanced L2 learner has to learn and how he can
learn it in order to extend his vocabulary knowledge. Before introducing the outline of my study,
I should note that throughout this paper, second language is used in its broadest sense as a coverterm for any language that one learns in addition to their mother tongue. No distinction is made
between a foreign language and a second language (narrower sense) because I want to provide
information and suggestions that pertain to advanced learners of any language that is not their
first language (L1).
In chapter one, I will present some key concepts of L2 vocabulary acquisition that should be kept
in mind throughout this paper. Several scholars have attempted to frame what it means to know a
word, or what is actually involved in knowing a word. Despite the diversity in their approaches,
the dichotomy of active (productive) and passive (receptive) vocabulary is generally
acknowledged. Nevertheless, passive and active vocabulary are not opposites but can be placed
on a continuum: passive vocabulary knowledge is acquired first and can become activated. Not
only does this imply that vocabulary acquisition is an incremental process, but it also means that
L2 vocabulary acquisition is not only concerned with learning new words. The language learner
can improve his vocabulary knowledge in a quantitative and qualitative direction: by learning
new words or by developing in-depth knowledge of familiar words. Unfortunately, one’s
vocabulary knowledge does not extend overnight. It has been demonstrated that L2 vocabulary
acquisition is contingent upon several factors which influence how well words are memorized. In
light of this, I will discuss the main idea of the Levels of Processing-concept and the Involvement
2
Load Hypothesis, which are both concerned with factors that influence vocabulary retention.
Lastly, I turn to the different approaches that learners can adopt to develop vocabulary
knowledge: implicit, explicit, incidental and intentional learning. After a concise discussion of
each learning type, I will consider which approach would generate the best results.
Before I move on to discuss vocabulary acquisition with advanced L2 learners, I will attempt to
determine the advanced learner’s vocabulary needs. What aspects of vocabulary knowledge
should be dealt with by the advanced L2 learner? This preliminary question will be answered in
chapter two, which provides a profile of the advanced L2 learner concerning vocabulary
knowledge. Though the CEFR is commonly accepted as a tool to determine proficiency levels, it
does not specifically describe the required vocabulary size or depth of the advanced L2 learner.
Neither does it provide information on what aspects of vocabulary knowledge the advanced L2
learner struggles with. To this end, McCarthy (2007) attempts to outline by which aspects of
vocabulary knowledge the advanced L2 learner is defined and how he can become even more
proficient. It appears that advanced learners should focus on acquiring in-depth vocabulary
knowledge rather than enlarging their vocabulary size: especially mastery of connotations,
collocations, idioms and metaphors appear to cause L2 learners problems, even at the advanced
level, and should therefore be mastered by the advanced L2 learner if he wishes to achieve
native-like proficiency. Furthermore, advanced L2 vocabulary acquisition will be related to the
skill of autonomous learning. Subsequent to drawing up a profile of the advanced L2 learner’s
vocabulary knowledge, I will present an obstacle that may hinder vocabulary acquisition with
advanced learners. The active vocabulary threshold hypothesis claims that advanced L2 learners
may reach a threshold in vocabulary acquisition. The source of this problem will be uncovered, as
well as how such a threshold can be avoided.
Chapter three treats the main research question of this paper: “How can advanced L2 learners
increase their vocabulary knowedge?”. To answer this question, I will elaborate on the advanced
learner’s needs that were determined in chapter two, i.e. the skill of autonomous learning and
mastery of several complex aspects of in-depth vocabulary knowledge, which will be treated in
separate sections. Each section exhibits the same structure which defines what is to be learnt,
points out why the advanced L2 learner should learn it and suggests how to do so. First up for
3
discussion is learner autonomy. After highlighting the skill of autonomous learning and providing
guidelines for developing learner autonomy, I wish to discuss the potential of autonomous
vocabulary learning with the help of mobile devices. After all, if ICT stands for Information and
Communication Technology and words are essential in communication, technological devices
may well be effectively applied in L2 vocabulary acquisition. In light of this, I will point out the
potential of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) and examine the effectiveness of SMSbased learning and L2-oriented smartphone applications. Then, I turn to the problematic aspects
of vocabulary knowledge that belong to the advanced L2 course, i.e. connotations, collocations,
idioms and metaphors.
I will begin with connotations and semantic prosodies. Connotations and semantic prosodies are
both covered by the term associative meanings and are sometimes even used synonymously. I
will look at their differences and relate them to semantic association and semantic preference.
Next, I turn to word associations which are essential in the development of the L2 mental lexicon
since these are the connections that we make between words. Word associations can be
categorized as either syntagmatic, paradigmatic or clang associations. If word associations are
linked to proficiency levels, then syntagmatic associations, such as collocations, would indicate
advanced L2 proficiency. Since collocations appear to cause language learners a lot of
difficulties, I will elaborate on this type of word association. As for terminology, collocations will
be distinguished from other word combinations. I will examine what makes it so difficult to
memorize collocations and to produce them correctly. Considering how collocations can be
learnt, I will first introduce the process of chunking and point out its importance in the acquisition
of multiword units. Subsequently, I will discuss the potential of chunking activities and other
learning approaches. Additionally, I will suggest which collocations the advanced L2 learner
should concentrate on. Several criterion need to be taken into account when selecting the
collocations that deserve the advanced L2 learner’s explicit attention.
Lastly, the advanced L2 learner should become more familiar with figurative speech. Figurative
expressions concern idioms and metaphors. Since metaphors can occur in idioms as well as
freely, I will treat idioms and metaphors separately. To begin with, a definition of idioms is
provided, followed by an elaborate discussion of the problematic nature of idioms and how to
tackle them. The how-component in this section will also search for the most effective way to
4
select idioms for classroom activities and how the advanced L2 learner should approach them.
The last aspect of in-depth knowledge that will be treated in this paper, is metaphors. In my
discussion of metaphors, I will explain the notion of conceptual fluency and how it is linked to
knowledge of L2 metaphors.
Without underestimating the importance of assessment in the process of learning a second
language, I have decided not to include vocabulary testing in this paper. A discussion of how
language teachers can test their students’ vocabulary knowledge is therefore beyond the scope of
this paper. This status quaestionis can be interesting for both language teachers and learners as it
provides insight into L2 vocabulary acquisition but it is primarily written for L2 advanced
learners. My main objective is to help advanced L2 learners understand how they can increase
their vocabulary knowledge. I hope to make them aware of what they need to learn and to help
them learn effectively.
2
VOCABULARY ACQUISITION
This chapter looks into the key concepts of L2 vocabulary acquisition. Although some
researchers would refute that the terms acquisition and learning are synonyms, they will occur
interchangeably throughout this paper. Acquiring and learning vocabulary are both concerned
with gaining vocabulary knowledge, and that is basically what this chapter aims to look into. The
first aspect of vocabulary acquisition that I will discuss is vocabulary knowledge by examining
different properties of vocabulary knowledge and what it means to know a word. Next, different
types of learning will be presented and compared.
2.1.
Vocabulary knowledge
This paragraph presents three frameworks that have been established in order to frame what is
involved in knowing a word. Richards (1967) was the first ever to provide a vocabulary
knowledge framework, which he built on the following eight assumptions:
1)
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.
Knowing a word implies knowing the limitations imposed on the use of the word according
to variations of function and situation.
5
3)
4)
Knowing a word means knowing the syntactic behaviour associated with that word.
Knowing a word entails knowledge of the underlying form of word and the derivatives that
can be made from it.
5) Knowing a word entails knowledge of the network of associations between that word and
the other words in language (sic.)
6) Knowing a word means knowing the semantic value of the word.
7) Knowing a word means knowing many of the different meanings associated with the word.
(Richards, 1967, p. 83)
This descriptive approach laid the basis for further research on the subject of determining what it
means to know a word. However pronunciation, spelling and collocation are neglected in
Richards’ framework. Nation (2001) developed a more comprehensive framework based on
eighteen questions, classified into three categories (form, meaning and use), each of them divided
into three categories and containing both receptive and productive aspects of vocabulary
knowledge (figure 1). The most straightforward way to explain the receptive-productive
dichotomy is that receptive knowledge implies the ability to recognize a word when it is heard or
read and productive knowledge is concerned with the correct use of a word in writing and
speaking tasks. Nation (2001) also uses the terms active and passive knowledge as synonyms for
respectively productive and receptive knowledge, which reflects how both types of vocabulary
knowledge are used. It should be noted that receptive and productive knowledge are not
opposites, but can be placed on a continuum. It is generally believed that receptive vocabulary
knowledge is learnt first and can be activated, or in other words, can become productive
vocabulary knowledge (Laufer, 1998). Many researchers, such as Laufer (ibid.) have found that
learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge is larger than their productive vocabulary knowledge
which is due to the fact that receptive vocabulary knowledge is more easily acquired (Nation,
2001). Consequently, vocabulary acquisition does not only entail the expansion of vocabulary
knowledge, but also the activation of words the learner already knows passively.
6
Figure 1. What is involved in knowing a word? (Nation, 2001, p. 27)
The receptive-productive distinction is also found in Qian’s (2002) framework, though presented
as one of four dimensions of vocabulary knowledge which are intrinsically connected:
1) Vocabulary size, which refers to the number of words of which a learner has at least some
superficial knowledge of meaning;
2) Depth of vocabulary knowledge; which includes all lexical characteristics, such as phonemic,
graphemic, morphemic, syntactic, semantic, collocational, and phraseological properties, as
well as frequency and register;
3) Lexical organization, which refers to the storage, connection, and representation of words in
the mental lexicon of a learner; and
4) Automaticity of receptive-productive knowledge, which refers to all the fundamental
processes through which access to word knowledge is achieved for both receptive and
productive purposes, including phonological and orthographic encoding and decoding, access
to structural and semantic features from the mental lexicon, lexical-semantic integration and
representation and morphological parsing and composing.
(Qian, 2002, p. 516)
7
The third dimension in Qian’s (2002) framework contains new terminology of which the
meaning needs to be explained: lexical organization and mental lexicon. A language speaker’s
mental lexicon can be compared to some kind of dictionary which contains all of his vocabulary
knowledge (McCarthy, 1990). With that in mind, lexical organization can be seen as the
management of this knowledge. In the context of L2 vocabulary acquisition, encountering new
lexical information involves making new connections inside the mental lexicon.
2.2 The process of L2 vocabulary acquisition
This paragraph looks into the development of a language learner’s vocabulary knowledge. It is
generally accepted that vocabulary acquisition is an incremental process, which means that a
language learner cannot acquire complete knowledge of each aspect of a new word all at once
(Schmitt, 2004). The learner’s vocabulary knowledge expands over time in both a quantitative
and qualitative direction. In other words, the number of words learners know will increase, as
well as their in-depth knowledge of the various aspects of the words in their mental lexicon.
Moreover, the incremental nature of vocabulary acquisition implies that a single encounter with a
new word does not guarantee storage of that word in the learner’s mental lexicon. Research has
demonstrated that when an unfamiliar word is repeatedly encountered, it is more likely to be
memorized (Eckerth & Tavakoli, 2012). Hence, frequency of word exposure has an influence on
L2 vocabulary acquisition. Moreover, it is generally accepted that “retention of new information
depends on the amount and the quality of attention that individuals pay to various aspects of
words” (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001, p. 541). This means that vocabulary retention is enhanced when
the learner pays careful attention to the various properties of an unfamiliar word. In 1972, Craik
and Lockhart were the first to launch this idea in their Levels of Processing-concept. Based on
this principle, scholars suggest that tasks that require deeper levels of processing new words,
which demand more careful attention, would produce better retention results.
A more recent theory that is also related to vocabulary retention, was proposed by Laufer and
Hulstijn (2001). Their Involvement Load Hypothesis states that, in addition to frequency of word
exposure, vocabulary retention is contingent upon three factors: need, search and evaluation.
Each factor is concerned with the learner’s involvement in the process of acquiring vocabulary
knowledge. The first, need, is a motivational factor. The learner’s motivation, or need, is the
strongest when it stems from himself, e.g. when a learner wants to find the appropriate word to
8
convey a certain message. Search, on the other hand, refers to the amount of effort the learner
puts into finding out the meaning of unknown words in a task. The third factor, evaluation, is
concerned with the learner’s assessment of which word suits best in a certain context. Each of
these three aspects can be induced by tasks. Tasks with higher degrees of need, search and
evaluation generate more learner involvement, which results in better retention. Laufer and
Hulstijn (ibid.) introduced the term involvement load to refer to “the combination of the presence
or absence of the involvement factors Need, Search and Evaluation” (ibid., p. 15).Tasks that
induce high involvement load, and thereby require the learner to pay careful attention, are thus
more effective to acquire L2 vocabulary.
2.3 Learning types
This paragraph highlights how vocabulary can be learnt. I will discuss two learning type
dichotomies that are both distinguished by whether or not the learner is aware of the learning
process but are not equivalent. The first is implicit-explicit learning. Implicit learning is defined
as “acquisition of knowledge about the underlying structure of a complex stimulus environment
by a process which takes place naturally, simply and without conscious operation”, as opposed to
explicit learning which is defined as “a more conscious operation where the individual makes
and tests hypotheses in search for structure” (Ellis, 1994, cited in Rieder, 2003, p. 25). This
learning type dichotomy is used in various research areas to describe how information is
processed. The next learning type dichotomy, that of incidental and intentional learning,
exclusively refers to how vocabulary is learnt. Incidental learning is “the learning of vocabulary
as a by-product of any activity not geared towards vocabulary learning” (Rieder, 2003, p. 25).
Generally, this means that no mention is being made of a possible retention test after an
information-processing task (Hulstijn, 2001). Vocabulary can be acquired incidentally by, for
example, watching television or by extensive reading. Especially the relation between extensive
reading and L2 vocabulary acquisition has received a lot of attention in linguistic research.
Extensive reading means “reading as much as possible, for the purpose of pleasure or
information rather than learning particular language features, and is usually self-selected”
(Schmitt & Al-Homoud, 2009, p. 1). Research has demonstrated that L2 learners benefit from
extensive reading since it increases their reading comprehension ability, reading speed, it entails
vocabulary acquisition and positive attitudes towards reading (Schmitt & Al-Homoud, ibid.).
9
Studying abroad also enhances incidental vocabulary acquisition. Intentional vocabulary learning
on the other hand refers to activities designed to acquire vocabulary knowledge and can be
defined as “any activity geared at committing lexical information to memory” (Laufer and
Hulstijn, ibid., p. 554). Vocabulary can be acquired intentionally in a classroom setting through
various learning tasks or by intensive reading. Intensive reading, as opposed to extensive reading,
involves rather short texts in which language features are deliberately studied (Nation, 2001).
After briefly discussing the notions of incidental and intentional learning, the question arises
which learning type serves best to acquire vocabulary knowledge. Research investigating L2
vocabulary acquisition has demonstrated that incidental learning tasks lead to less vocabulary
gains than intentional learning tasks do. Furthermore, it would be more time-consuming to
acquire vocabulary knowledge incidentally than intentionally (Webb, 2005). However, this is in
contrast with the results of more recent research conducted by Schmitt & Al-Homoud (2009).
They compared extensive to intensive reading and found that both approaches produced similar
vocabulary gains. In L2 acquisition over all, extensive reading would be as good as, or even
better than, intensive reading (Schmitt & Al-Homoud, ibid.). Instead of favouring one learning
type over another, Nation (2001) designed a framework for language course activities in which
intentional and incidental learning are combined. The framework is built on four strands:
meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning and fluency
development. Meaning-focused input involves reading and listening, thus using the language
receptively. Vocabulary acquisition through meaning-focused input occurs mainly incidentally.
The meaning-focused output strand refers to using the language productively by speaking and
writing. Language-focused learning is synonymous with intentional learning and fluency
development concerns increasing learner’s fluency in reading, listening, speaking and writing.
According to Nation (2001), a well-balanced course implies that learners spend an equal amount
of time on each of these four strands in order to cover both receptive and productive vocabulary
knowledge.
3
ADVANCED LEARNERS AND THEIR VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE
This chapter wants to draw up a profile of the advanced L2 learner and attempts to ascertain his
vocabulary needs. First, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
10
is introduced as a means to determine learners’ proficiency levels. I will briefly analyse the set of
linguistic competences that the CEFR attributes to learners at the advanced level of language
proficiency (C1) and how lexical competence is integrated in this framework. Next, I will link the
advanced L2 proficiency level with vocabulary knowledge in terms of vocabulary size and
vocabulary depth. By doing so, I aim to uncover the vocabulary needs of the advanced L2
learner.
3.1 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
In Europe, the CEFR is commonly used to identify language learners’ proficiency levels. The
CEFR discerns three main levels (A, B, C), each of which has two subdivisions (A1, A2, B1, B2,
C1, C2) and is characterized by a set of linguistic competences.
Figure 2. Common Reference Levels (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 23)
This paper’s focus is on level C1, which represents “an advanced level of competence suitable for
more complex work and study task” (Council of Europe, ibid., p. 23). According to the general
description of the Common Reference Levels, a C1 language learner is expected to be capable of
the following:
Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognize implicit meaning.
Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for
expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for social, academic and
professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex
subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive
devices. (Council of Europe, ibid., p. 24)
11
In this functional description of advanced language proficiency, lexical competence is integrated
in each aspect of proficiency that is put forward. For example, in order to understand a wide
range of demanding, longer texts, and recognize implicit meaning, sufficient vocabulary
knowledge is required. This also applies to fluently and spontaneously expressing oneself, to
flexibly and effectively using the language in diverse contexts and to producing text in a
proficient manner (as described above). To me, this appears rather vague. The CEFR lacks to
describe the vocabulary knowledge or lexical competence that defines the advanced language
learner. This criticism is also expressed by Meral Öztürk (2003) after she thoroughly analysed the
construct of lexical competence in the CEFR. She concluded that “a clearer delimitation of the
stages of mastery is called for“ (Meral Öztürk, ibid., p. 11). Since the focus of this paper is on
vocabulary acquisition at the advanced level of L2 proficiency, I will attempt to provide insight
into the advanced learner’s vocabulary knowledge. In the next section, two dimensions of lexical
competence are taken into account to draw up a profile of the advanced L2 learner: vocabulary
size and vocabulary depth. It has been demonstrated that these two aspects of vocabulary
knowledge are correlated with language proficiency (Zareva et al., 2005) and therefore serve as a
reliable predictor of L2 proficiency levels.
3.2 Vocabulary size vs. vocabulary depth
Vocabulary size or vocabulary breadth refers to the number of words of which the learner has at
least some superficial knowledge of meaning (Qian, 2002). Many research has been done to
determine how many words L2 learners need to know. First, the amount of words in the native
speaker’s mental lexicon should be estimated, since it is after all the ultimate goal of the L2
learner to achieve native-like proficiency. Several researchers agree that educated native speakers
of English know around 20,000 word families1 (Nation, 2001). Yet, this vast number is not aimed
for in L2 acquisition. The number of words that the L2 learner should aim for, is determined by a
lexical threshold, i.e. the minimum vocabulary that is necessary for “adequate”2
1
When counting words, we can count tokens (every word, counted each time it occurs), types (every word, but only
counted once, even if it occurs several times), lemmas and word families. A lemma consists of a headword and some
of its inflected and reduced (n’t) forms. A word family consists of a headword, its inflected forms, and its closely
related derived forms. (Nation, 2001)
2
“The term ‘adequate’ or ‘reasonable’ comprehension has no clear definition since it may refer to
different levels of comprehension in different contexts[…]” (Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovsk, 2010, p. 16)
12
reading comprehension. Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski (2010) set the optimal lexical threshold
at the knowledge of 8,000 word families which results in 98% text coverage. Nevertheless, not
just any 8,000 randomly selected words should be presented to language students. The selection
of words should be made according to their usefulness, which can be measured by their
frequency of occurrence. The most useful words are the ones that are the most frequently
encountered and should be dealt with first, as they cover a large proportion of written and spoken
text. This category is called high-frequency vocabulary. Nation (2001) sets the limit of highfrequency vocabulary at the first 2,000 most frequent words, whereas Cobb (2007, cited in
Schmitt & Schmitt, 2012) suggests that the first 3,000 most frequent word families would
represent the best basic lexicon for learners of English. Cobb’s estimate is supported by Schmitt
& Schmitt (ibid.), who reviewed the scope of high-frequency and low-frequency vocabulary and
suggest new boundaries for each. They advocate the 3,000 figure as upper limit for the highfrequency band and propose that low frequency vocabulary should begin at the 9,000+ frequency
level rather than the traditional 10,000+. At what figure the boundaries are fixed is significant in
L2 vocabulary acquisition because the selection of vocabulary that needs to be studied is often
based on frequency levels. For instance, the words that are categorized in the 3,000 most frequent
word list should be learnt first and are appropriate for beginners’ classes. Schmitt & Schmitt
(2012) stress that mid-frequency vocabulary (between the 3,000 en 9,000 frequency level) is also
valuable and that it should not be left to the random exposure of language learners. One would
assume then, that low-frequency vocabulary should be dealt with in advanced language courses.
Especially considering the assumption that a higher lexical proficiency results in the use of less
frequent words (Meara & Bell, 2001). However, Nation (1990) and McCarthy (2007) argue that
low-frequency vocabulary does not deserve classroom attention considering the low text
coverage that it produces. They suggest that low-frequency vocabulary should be left to the
learners to deal with themselves.
Whereas vocabulary size focuses on the breadth of one’s vocabulary, vocabulary depth involves
how well words are known. Vocabulary depth comprises various lexical features such as
phonemic, graphemic, morphemic, syntactic, semantic, collocational and phraseological
properties (Qian, 2002). Some researchers believe that at an advanced level of L2 proficiency, the
learners should rather focus on gaining in-depth vocabulary knowledge than on expanding his
13
vocabulary size. In his article “Assessing Development of Advanced Proficiency Through Learner
Corpora”, McCarthy (2007) offers a thorough description of what characterizes advanced
learners and what lexical information they should focus on to expand their vocabulary
knowledge. McCarthy (ibid.) claims that advanced learner vocabulary acquisition involves the
discovery of less frequent, extended and metaphorical senses of words, and the expansion of
word associations in the L2 leaner’s mental lexicon. Especially word associations in word
combinations such as collocations and idioms deserve the advanced learner’s explicit attention.
Furthermore, mastery of word connotations and semantic prosody also defines advanced L2
proficiency according to McCarthy (ibid.). When I looked into the existing literature on L2
vocabulary acquisition, I found that numerous scholars agree on the complex and problematic
nature of connotations, semantic prosodies, metaphors and fixed expressions such as collocations
and idioms. Language learners keep making mistakes that are caused by a lack of such in-depth
knowledge, even at a more advanced level of L2 proficiency. Hence, I presume that the lexical
needs of the advanced L2 learner consist in mastering the more challenging aspects of in-depth
vocabulary knowledge.
Nevertheless, the advanced learner should not only be defined by his mastery of complex and
problematic aspects of vocabulary knowledge, but also by his ability to learn independently.
McCarthy (ibid.) explains that learning vocabulary is an open-ended task which cannot be
completed in a typical institutional program. For a learner to acquire advanced vocabulary
knowledge, he will need a set of skills and strategies that enable him to learn independently.
Ultimately, McCarthy (ibid.) concludes:
The advanced learner will not be defined only by his/her vocabulary size or absolute
coverage of all syntactic patterns vis-à-vis native speakers, but rather more by his/her
ability to develop depth of knowledge and the tools and strategies to pursue vocabulary
learning independently. (p. 4)
3.3 Active vocabulary threshold
The advanced learner’s vocabulary acquisition may be hindered by an obstacle that is particular
to his high proficiency. In 1991, Laufer introduced the active vocabulary threshold hypothesis.
The phenomenon is explained as follows:
14
[…] even though our passive vocabulary develops throughout our lifetime, long after the
grammar of a language has been acquired, our productive lexicon will grow only until it
reaches the average level of the group in which we are required to function.
(Laufer, 1991, p. 445).
In other words, once L2 learners feel as if their active vocabulary no longer needs enrichment,
their active vocabulary knowledge will stop developing. A learner’s needs are thus key in L2
vocabulary acquisition. If language students don’t feel the need to expand their vocabulary
knowledge themselves, Laufer (ibid.) suggests that is up to the teacher to trigger necessity in the
language classroom. More recently, Laufer & Hulstijn (2001) corroborated the influence of
learners’ needs on how well words are memorized. In their Involvement Load Hypothesis, need
is considered as a motivational factor which can be induced by tasks in classroom activities.
4
VOCABULARY ACQUISITION WITH ADVANCED LEARNERS
This chapter aims to answer the main research question of this paper: how can advanced L2
learners increase their vocabulary knowledge? If one’s vocabulary knowledge can increase in
both a quantitative and qualitative direction, then language learners should probably try to
increase both their vocabulary size and their vocabulary depth. However, this does not pertain to
the advanced L2 learner. Considering vocabulary size, the advanced learner would have to focus
on low-frequency vocabulary, the usefulness of which is doubted by Nation (1990) and
McCarthy (2007). They both refute that low-frequency vocabulary would deserve classroom
attention and therefore suggest that the advanced L2 learner processes low-frequency vocabulary
on his own, as an autonomous learner. Since learner autonomy is recognized as a key feature of
the advanced language learner by McCarthy (ibid.) and is praised as an effective way to learn
vocabulary (Nation, 1998), I will first present the skill of autonomous learning. Next, I will look
at the aspects of in-depth vocabulary knowledge that were determined in the previous chapter as
the advanced L2 learner’s vocabulary needs, i.e. connotations and semantic prosodies,
collocations, idioms and metaphors. Each aspect of in-depth vocabulary knowledge will be
discussed in separate sections, which consists of three major components: what, why and how.
The first component provides a definition of the topic of discussion, the second points out what
makes it so difficult or valuable at an advanced level of L2 proficiency and the last suggests how
15
it should be approached. A similar structure will be found in the first section on autonomous
learning.
4.1 Autonomous learning
a) What?
The term ‘learner autonomy’ was coined by Henri Holec in the context of language learning and
can be defined as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”(Holec, 1981, p. 3) Despite
the diverse interpretations and specifications that other researchers have provided, they all boil
down to Holec’s basic definition. It should be noted that autonomous learning is applicable to
other areas in education as well and might be confused with other, similar but not equivalent,
terms such as self-instruction, self-direction or self-autonomy. These terms differ from
autonomous learning in that their meaning is not as comprehensive. For instance, self-instruction
can be defined as “learning without a teacher” (Little, 1991, cited in Tran, 2010, p. 20).
Although learning without a teacher is a component of autonomous learning, it takes more than
that to be an autonomous learner. That is why Tran (ibid.) claims that potentially confusing terms
such as self-instruction basically describe different efforts that help a learner in becoming
autonomous and therefore play a role in autonomous learning, but are not equivalent to it.
What does it take then to be an autonomous learner? According to Nation (1998), learner
autonomy relies on three pillars: awareness, capability and attitude. The first, awareness, refers to
self-reflection and understanding what to learn and how to learn it. Capability on the other hand,
refers to the knowledge and skills that enable a learner to learn autonomously in a particular area
of study. The last pillar, attitude, is a motivational factor. Nation (ibid.) uses attitude to refer to
the learners’ desire to take control and become responsible for their own learning. Little (2006)
equally recognizes the influence of motivation in learner autonomy and claim that “[autonomy] is
nourished by, and in turn, nourishes our intrinsic motivation” (p. 2).
Although autonomous learners are required to be able to learn independently, autonomous
learning can also take place in a classroom setting. Nation (ibid.) explains as follows:
It is possible to be an autonomous learner in a strongly teacher-led class, by deciding what
should be given the greatest attention and effort, what should be looked at again outside class,
16
how the material presented should be mentally processed, and how interaction with the
teacher in the class and others should be carried out. (p. 9)
b) Why?
According to Scharle & Szabó (2000), passively being present in class does not suffice for a
language learner to successfully learn. In agreement with the Involvement Load Hypothesis, she
claims that students need to be actively involved in their learning process and that successful
language learning requires a responsible learner attitude, which is characteristic of the
autonomous L2 learner. Similarly, Little (2006) claim that autonomous learning guarantees
successful acquisition of knowledge, and that success strengthens learners’ motivation. If learner
autonomy is such a valuable asset in L2 learning entirely, then autonomous learning should also
be implemented in L2 vocabulary acquisition in particular. Considering proficiency levels,
learner autonomy is not limited to the advanced level of L2 proficiency. However, I believe that
autonomous learning is especially valuable for the advanced L2 learner, based on my assumption
that many advanced L2 learners are adults and do not take language classes anymore. Even if
they do, these classes are probably adult courses which take place after work-hours and only
occupy a few hours per week. Advanced L2 learners who want to continue improving their
vocabulary knowledge, either in terms of vocabulary size or depth, need to be able to learn on
their own. Moreover, McCarthy (2007) claims that the advanced L2 learner can be defined by his
or her ability to acquire vocabulary knowledge independently.
c) How?
Learner autonomy, however, is not inborn but can be acquired “by ‘natural’ means or (as most
often happens) by formal learning, i.e. in a systematic, deliberate way” (Holec, 1981, p. 3).
Hence, teachers play an important role in a learner’s process in becoming a self-regulated
learner: it is the teacher’s task to foster learner autonomy. Brajcich (2000) has determined twelve
guidelines for teachers to promote autonomous learning:
1. Encourage students to be interdependent and to work collectively. The less students depend
on their teacher, the more autonomy is being developed.
2. Ask students to keep a diary of their learning experiences. Through practice, students may
become more aware of their learning preferences and start to think of new ways of becoming
more independent learners.
17
3. Explain teacher/student roles from the outset. Asking students to give their opinions on the
issue of roles could be beneficial.
4. Progress gradually from interdependence to independence. Give the students time to adjust to
new learning strategies and do not expect too much too soon.
5. Give the students projects to do outside the classroom. Such projects may increase
motivation.
6. Give the students non-lesson classroom duties to perform (taking roll, writing instructions,
notices, etc. on the board for the teacher)
7. Have the students design lessons or materials to be used in class.
8. Instruct students on how to use the university's resource centers.
9. Emphasize the importance of peer-editing, corrections, and follow-up questioning in the
classroom.
10. Encourage the students to use only English in class.
11. Stress fluency rather than accuracy.
12. However, do allow the students to use reference books, including dictionaries in class.
(Brajcich, 2000, cited in Tran, 2010, p. 36-37)
These, however, are only practical guidelines to enhance autonomy. Many strategies have been
developed to foster autonomy in language learning, but a lot less attention has been devoted to
autonomous L2 vocabulary acquisition (Tran, ibid.). Nation published an article in which he
examined the kind of knowledge and skill a vocabulary learner needs to become autonomous,
how that knowledge can be acquired and how autonomy can be developed. He established eight
principles of autonomous vocabulary learning:
1) Learners should know what vocabulary to learn, what to learn about it, how to learn it, how
to put it to good use and how to see how well it has been learned and used.
2) Learners should continue to increase their vocabulary size and enrich the words they already
know.
3) Learners should use words frequency and personal need to determine what vocabulary should
be learned.
4) Learners should be aware of what is involved in knowing a word and should be able to find
that information about particular words.
5) Learners should be familiar with the generalisable language systems that lie behind
vocabulary use.
6) Learners should know how to make the most effective use of direct, decontextualised
learning procedures.
7) Vocabulary learning needs to operate across the four strands of meaning-focused input,
language-focused learning, meaning-focused output and fluency development.
8) Learners need to be aware of, and excited by, their progress in vocabulary learning.
(Nation, 1998, p. 9-18)
18
Recently, Boers & Lindstromberg (2012) observed that the extent to which learners can become
self-regulated depends on the quality of the tools (e.g. collocation dictionaries, concordance data)
they are provided with, as well as the learners’ willingness and ability to use them. In light of
this, I wish to discuss two contemporary tools that enable L2 learners to learn vocabulary
autonomously and that increase the learner’s motivation: SMS and smartphone applications.
These can be applied in the context of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL). MALL is a
component of mobile learning, also called m-learning, which refers to learning projects that
apply mobile hardware technologies, i.e. a mobile phone (Hayati et al., 2013). The benefits of
MALL can be summarized as follows: MALL gives language learners easy access to language
learning materials and allows rapid development of speaking, listening, reading and writing
skills. Moreover, it encourages learners to be more motivated, autonomous and socially
interactive (Kim & Kwon, 2012). I will first discuss how SMS can be helpful to acquire
vocabulary knowledge. Hayati et al. (ibid.) launched a study that compared the effectiveness of
SMS-based idiom learning with the effectiveness of contextual learning and self-study. The
students that were instructed via SMS daily received four short messages, each containing one
English idiom along with its idiomatic English meaning. The messages also contained sample
sentences in which the idioms were used. The contextual learning group, on the other hand, were
not given any definitions, but were encouraged in a classroom setting to extract idiomatic
meanings from the context in which the idioms appear. As to the self-study group, the students
received a pamphlet with all the idioms they had to learn at their own pace, without attending
classroom activities. The results of the study revealed that SMS-based learning was the most
effective instruction mode of all three, ranking contextual learning second and self-study last.
The students that were instructed idioms via SMS did not only learn more but were also more
motivated. This may be due to the fact that the learners felt freed from fixed and monotonous
routines that come with classroom activities (Hayati et al., ibid.). SMS is therefore also reffered
to as Student Motivating System and Self-learning Mobile System (Hayati et al., 2013).
Taking into account the effectiveness of SMS-based vocabulary learning, I expect that a
smartphone application (app) which provides daily information on L2 idioms and collocations
might be equally beneficial. In fact, smartphone applications can reach a wider audience since no
cellphone numbers need to be exchanged. Anyone can have access to daily information on L2
idioms and collocations, provided that they have downloaded the app. My expectations were
19
confirmed when I read Kim & Kwon’s (2012) article, which examined the effectiveness of 87
smartphone applications that aim to improve various language skills of students of English as a
second language. Kim & Kwon (ibid). observed that a majority of the existing MALL apps are
concerned with vocabulary acquisition and that their benefits are similar to those of SMS-based
learning: language learning apps provide a personal and learner-centered learning opportunity
and are ubiquitously accessible. However, smartphone apps do not only function as a resource of
information, but can also provide language learning activities, e.g. games (Kim & Kwon, ibid.).
This means that smartphone apps offer a wider range of learning opportunities than SMS.
However, Kim & Kwon (ibid). noticed some weaknesses in the existing MALL apps. The critical
limitation of smartphone applications is related to cost: smartphones are quite costly and,
according to Kim & Kwon (ibid.), only few of the MALL apps are free. Furthermore, they
criticize the design of most smartphone apps. The apps would not effectively assist personalized
learning and would lack to provide socially interactive tasks. Similarly, Hayati et al. (ibid.) noted
that the value of student-teacher interaction and collaboration amongst students in a classroom
setting should not be refuted. Both of the studies discussed in this paragraph demonstrate the
potential of MALL, but neither one of them wants to make language classes entirely mobile
centered. Given the potential of MALL, I assume that it would best be implemented
complementary to conventional learning activities.
4.2 In-depth vocabulary knowledge
4.2.1 Associative meanings
This section treats associative meanings, which is a cover-term for connotations and semantic
prosody. The term associative meaning is introduced by Gabrovšek and defined as “[a meaning]
existing over and above the customary denotation” (Gabrovšek, 2007, p. 9). As for a discussion
of terminology, connotations and semantic prosodies will be treated separately. The subsequent
learning suggestions on the other hand, pertain to both types of associative meanings.
a) What?
A fairly straight-forward definition of connotation can be found in Gabrovšek (ibid.): “the
‘additional’ meaning of single-word items, identifiable as their semantic property, whether or not
considered in a given context” (p. 24). For example, the adjective fat has an insulting
connotation, whereas overweight is rather neutral. Semantic prosody, on the other hand, is also
20
concerned with semantic properties but is harder to define. According to Gabrovšek (ibid.),
semantic prosody refers to the attitudinal meaning that words can have when they occur in
association with each other. Such an attitudinal meaning is mostly either positive or negative and
reflects the speaker or writer’s attitude towards a certain situation (Louw, 2000, cited in
Gabrovšek, ibid.). However, various scholars believe that single-word items also have semantic
prosodies. Gabrovšek (ibid.) proposes to define semantic prosody as follows: “the phenomenon
of words combining not just with chosen other words, but with chosen meanings, thus displaying
their semantic prosodies that appear to be mostly positive or negative” (Gabrovšek, ibid., p. 11).
An example of negative semantic prosody can be found in doomed for failure, whereas positive
semantic prosody is present in destined for a successful career (Gabrovšek, ibid., p. 13). Hence,
semantic prosody is concerned with frequently co-occurring words that demonstrate an attitudinal
meaning or connotation. However, semantic prosody is not equivalent to semantic association
and semantic preference. The latter two both refer to the frequent co-occurrence of a word with a
semantic set, i.e. a group or class of words of semantically related items. Yet, the semantic
relation between these items does not necessarily reflect a favorable or unfavorable attitude. To
demonstrate this, Hoey (2003) sums up potential semantic associations of the word consequence:
a. logic: unavoidable, inevitable, inexorable, inescapable, ineluctable, direct, ultimate, longterm, immediate
b. (un)expectedness: likely, possible, probable, natural, unintended, odd, strange, planned-for
c. negative evaluation: awful, dire, appalling, sad
d. significance: serious, important, dramatic, enduring, prominent.
(Hoey, 2003, cited in Gabrovšek, 2007, p. 22)
b) Why?
Whereas connotations of single-word items can be taught to students of lower proficiency levels,
McCarthy (2007) and Gabrovšek (2007) agree that knowledge of semantic prosody is a
component of advanced L2 competence. In addition, I personally believe that semantic
preference should also be dealt with by the advanced L2 learner. The advanced L2 learner should
not only be aware of the positive or negative connotation that some word combinations express,
but also be familiar with other semantic relations between lexical items that frequently co-occur.
Therefore, in my further discussion the term semantic prosody will refer to the affective meaning
21
that words can have when they co-occur3. Considering the value of a command of connotations
and semantic prosody, it should not be underestimated. Since connotations and semantic prosody
are shades of contextual meaning, a well-developed knowledge of these semantic properties can
help learners in judging the appropriateness of words in a given context (Zhao, 2004; Ghuo et al.,
2011). A lack of such, in contrast, is then likely to result in the production of unidiomatic or even
incorrect language. The problem is that students are often unaware of the phenomenon of
semantic prosody and/or fail to notice semantic prosodies (Zhang, 2009; Guo et al., 2011). To
avoid mistakes related to semantic prosody, effective instruction and adequate learning tools
should be at hand.
c) How?
As to learning suggestions, it is acknowledged by various scholars that semantic prosody
deserves explicit classroom attention (Gabrovšek, ibid.; Guo et al., ibid.). Zhang (2009) proposes
that the preliminary step in instructing semantic prosody should be to help the learners
understand the notion of semantic prosody. If different scholars interpret the terminology
differently, I expect this to result in misunderstandings among learners. So first and foremost, a
comprehensive and clear definition should be agreed upon. The next step is to integrate semantic
prosody in vocabulary learning activities. For language learners to familiarize with the notion of
semantic prosody, Zhang (2009) proposes to include the feature of semantic prosody in L2
textbooks and bilingual dictionaries. Considering learning approaches, Xiao & McEnery (2006)
conducted a study on semantic prosodies in relation with collocations and near-synonyms, which
revealed that teachers should be cautious with the use of synonyms to explain semantic prosody.
By using synonyms, the student’s attention would be drawn to meaning rather than to usage. This
is contrary to the ultimate goal of instructing L2 advanced learners on semantic prosody is to
improve their judgement of which word can be used appropriately in a given context. Therefore,
Xiao and McEnery (ibid.) propose to teach semantic prosody in relation to context. Moreover, the
appropriateness of a word with a given connotation is dependent on specific social and cultural
contexts, according to Zhao (2004). To make students aware of L1-L2 social and cultural
differences that are present in connotations, contrastive instruction is recommended (Zhao, ibid.;
3
Gabrovšek (2007) noticed that semantic prosody and semantic preference are sometimes used synonymously.
22
Xiao & McEnery, ibid.). Authentic materials therefore provide the necessary cultural and social
context of the target language (Zhao, ibid.).
4.2.2 Word associations
If associative meanings are additional meanings that words may have when they are associated
with each other, I should also present the associations that language learners can make and point
out that the creation of new connections between words in the mental lexicon is a component of
acquiring in-depth vocabulary knowledge.
a) What?
When students are given a word association task, they are presented with a prompt word and are
required to respond with the first word that comes to their mind. It is assumed that such an
automatic response reflects the strongest connection between the stimulus word and the words in
the subject’s mental lexicon. Wolter (2001) identifies three main types of word associations:
syntagmatic, paradigmatic and clang associations. A paradigmatic response is one that has the
same grammatical function as the prompt word and can replace it. There are four different types
of paradigmatic associations: coordinates, superordinates, subordinates and synonyms.
Syntagmatic responses on the other hand have a collocational or sequential relationship with the
prompt word and do not belong to the same word class. Clang responses are phonological
associations, which means that the words are similar-sounding but are semantically unrelated
(Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, 2013).
b) Why?
After elucidating what word associations are, I will discuss how they are related to lexical
development and language proficiency. Since word associations are the connections between
words in our mental lexicon, close examination of the type of word associations a subject makes
enables us to gain insight into his or her lexical organization (Cui, 2009). Some test formats have
been developed in order to assess learner’s in-depth vocabulary knowledge by means of word
association tasks, which would imply that word associations can serve as indicators of lexical
competence. However, research on the relationship between word associations and language
proficiency has produced inconsistent results, with some studies denying and others confirming
23
that word associations in another language are linked to proficiency (Khazaeenezhad &
Alibabaee, ibid.). Wolter (2002) attempted to develop a word association test to assess language
proficiency, based on the expectation that the L2 mental lexicon of learners of higher proficiency
would consist of better developed semantic networks, but he failed to prove this. Despite his
findings, Wolter (ibid.) remains convinced of the link between word associations and language
proficiency. A more recent study conducted by Dergisi (2010, cited in Khazaeenezhad &
Alibabaee, ibid.) tends to confirm this. He found that advanced students use superordinates and
subordinates (paradigmatic associations) more than students of lower proficiency. This may be
due to the fact that advanced learners connect the words in their minds more easily because their
network of associations is better developed (Dergisi, ibid.). These findings are in line with a
principle that is called the syntagmatic-paradigmatic shift4: as students’ proficiency level
increases, they will produce more paradigmatic responses and less syntagmatic and clang
associations (Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, ibid.). This idea was accepted for decades until
Wolter (2001) refuted it. He claims that word associations shift from “semantically meaningless
responses” to “semantically meaningfull responses” as language proficiency increases (Wolter,
ibid., p. 63). This implies that as L2 learners become more proficient, they will produce fewer
clang responses and more syntactic and paradigmatic responses. Moreover, syntagmatic
connections would be the most complex to generate, according to Wolter (2006, cited in
Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, ibid.). He compared the lexicon of native speakers with that of nonnative speakers and uncovered that they differ the most in terms of syntagmatic connections. If
syntagmatic connections, such as collocations, present the main difference between the mental
lexicon of the native speaker and that of the non-native speaker, perhaps we can assume that a
well-developed knowledge of syntagmatic associations would indicate advanced learner
proficiency. Furthermore, Nation (2001) claims that collocational knowledge does not only
contribute to the development and the lexical organization of the L2 mental lexicon, but is also
required to produce fluent and appropriate (native-like) language. Given the value of collocations
in L2 competence and its link with language proficiency, I will look deeper into collocations and
how they can be learnt.
4
This idea originates in L1 acquisition and is based on research into word associations of native speaker children,
who produced more paradigmatic responses and fewer syntagmatic and clang responses as they grew older
(Khazaeenezhad & Alibabaee, 2013).
24
4.2.2.1 Collocations
a) What?
The term collocation has been defined in various ways by many researchers. According to
Martyńska (2004), the lack of an exhaustive and uniform definition or categorization of
collocations is the reason why collocations are likely to be the most problematic and errorgenerating area of L2 vocabulary acquisition. Nation (2001) proposes a general, simple definition
which is concerned with frequency of occurrence and native-like selection. He considers
collocations as groups of words which frequently co-occur and are to some extent semantically
unpredictable. Some collocations are semantically unpredictable in that the meaning of the group
is not obvious from the meaning of the words in the group (e.g. by the way). As to the construct
of a collocation, it consists of a node word and the words that surround it are called collocates.
The collocates together form a span (Martyńska, ibid.). Many types of collocations have been
identified and distinguished. Benson et al. (1986, cited in Farrokh, 2012) categorize them either
as lexical collocations or grammatical collocations, which can be specified to different subtypes.
Lexical collocations can consist of nouns, adjectives, verbs or adverbs. Grammatical collocations
on the other hand, are made up of a dominant word (a verb, noun or adjective) and a preposition
or grammatical structure, such as an infinitive or a clause (Farrokh, ibid.). To further elaborate on
these different types of collocations would be beyond the scope of this study. However,
collocations should be distinguished from other word combinations. Based on a notion of
restricted sense, Nesselhauf (2003) distinguishes between three major classes of word
combinations: free combinations, collocations and idioms. The term restricted sense is used to
refer to the particular meaning of a word when it occurs in a word group and cannot be used
freely in other phrases. For example, the sense of the verb take in take a picture is restricted,
since you cannot say take a movie* (Nesselhauf, ibid.). The distinction between free
combinations, collocations and idioms is outlined as follows:


Free combinations (e.g. want a car):
The senses in which the verb and the noun are used are both unrestricted, so they can
be freely combined according to these senses.
Collocations (e.g. take a picture):
The sense in which the noun is used is unrestricted, but the sense of the verb is
restricted, so that the verb in the sense in which it is used can only be combined with
certain nouns (take a picture/photograph; but e.g. *take a film/movie.)
25

Idioms (e.g. sweeten the pill):
Both the verb and the noun are used in a restricted sense, so substitution is either not
possible at all or not only possible to an extremely limited degree.
(Nesselhauf, 2003, p. 4)
b) Why?
In the context of learning multiword units such as collocations, I should first explain the notion of
chunking. Chunking refers to how language input is stored in the learner’s mental lexicon:
language users typically store meaningful groupings of items, called chunks (Nation, 2001). The
size of the chunks that are acquired, depends on the language user’s proficiency level, e.g. for an
Arabic speaker who begins to learn English, the smallest units will be the parts or strokes that
form letters (Nation, ibid.). More proficient learners, on the other hand, can handle larger chunks
such as multiword units, also known as formulaic sequences. Formulaic sequences are
standardized multiword phrases, such as collocations and idioms (Boers et al., 2006). Recently,
Boers et al. (ibid.) pointed out that a command of L2 formulaic sequences is beneficial for several
aspects of a learner’s linguistic competence and that the use of formulaic sequences would help
language learners come across as fluent speakers.
However, learning and retaining collocations appears to be particularly problematic. Nesselhauf
(2003) conducted a research on the difficulties that advanced learners of English have with
collocations and studied what factors might influence the production of collocations. Her study
revealed no major influence on behalf of the degrees of restriction. If anything, less restricted
collocations appear to be the most problematic for the learner. This may be related to the
principle of chunking: highly restricted collocations consist of verbs that co-occur with only few
nouns, which are more likely to be memorized as a unit and to be retrieved as such. Less
restricted collocations, on the other hand, may be creatively combined by the learner (Nesselhauf,
ibid.). Such creativity is probably based on guessing or on the learner’s instinct, which may result
in mistakes. Furthermore, strong evidence was found for the influence of L1 in L2 collocation
mistakes. This was recently corroborated by Laufer & Waldman (2011), who found that most of
the recurrent collocation errors are interlingual.
Similar to Nesselhauf, Webb & Kagimoto (2010) also investigated the difficulty of learning
collocations, but with a different focus. They examined how and to what degree the number of
collocates, the position of the node word and synonymy affect learning. The position of the node
26
word was not found to cause difficulty. Synonymy on the other hand, would have a negative
effect on learning. In 1963, it was already suggested that unrelated word pairs are more easily
acquired than, for example, synonyms (Higa, 1963, cited in Webb & Kagimoto, ibid.). Therefore,
it would be ineffective to learn sets of related node words. The memorization of collocations
would also be influenced by the number of collocates, but not necessarily in a bad way. Webb &
Kagimoto (ibid.) found that it is more effective to learn a number of collocates for a single node
word than to learn the same number of collocations for different node words. Both of the
previously mentioned studies treated difficulties that are encountered with collocations, but have
some limitations. The study conducted by Nesselhauf (2003) only considers the difficulties that
advanced learners of English experience with verb-noun combinations, whereas Webb and
Kagimoto (2010) investigated the influence of three collocation-related factors. Very recently,
Farrokh (2012) wrote a comprehensive article on what has been researched and found on the
topic of learning collocations. She summarizes that the main sources of collocation errors are
analogy, overgeneralization, paraphrase, interlingual transfer, intralingual transfer, shortage or
lack of collocational knowledge and ignorance of rule restrictions. All of these imply that
incorrect word combinations are produced on the basis of certain patterns and structures the L2
learner knows (either from L1 or L2).
c) How?
After demonstrating that collocations are a problematic aspect of in-depth vocabulary knowledge,
I turn to how collocations can be learnt. Considering its link with language proficiency, perhaps it
may be interesting to encourage chunking. This was recently looked into by Stengers et al. (2010),
who investigated if raising students’ awareness of chunks actually fosters chunk-uptake. The
results of their study suggest that chunk acquisition is not generated by teacher-led noticing
activities only. In other words, noticing chunks does not guarantee memorization. Similarly,
Nesselhauf (2003) suggests to teach collocations explicitly rather than to make learners aware of
the phenomenon of collocations. Furthermore, when verb-noun collocations are presented, the
focus should be on the verb. The verb’s sense is restricted and therefore causes the difficulty,
according to Nesselhauf (ibid.). Concerning the selection of collocations for classroom activities,
several criterion need to be taken into account. The first is concerned with usefulness: “they should
be both undoubtedly acceptable and frequent in a neutral register and any special register that is
27
of use to the learner” (Nesselhauf, ibid., p. 238). For example, a student in Business School
requires knowledge of collocations that are related to economic concepts. Another criterion to be
taken into account is the degree of restriction. Nesselhauf (ibid.) suggests to devote classroom time
on less restricted collocations, which appear particularly problematic for the learner. The third
criterion involves congruency, which refers to the similarities between collocations in the learners’
first and second language. For example: ein Haus bauen – to build a house are considered
congruent, whereas sich kümmern um – take care of are considered non-congruent. The latter would
cause the most learning problems (Nesselhauf, ibid.; Webb & Kagimoto, 2010). To deal with such
L1-L2 differences, contrastive instruction is recommended. The effectiveness of contrastive
instruction was corroborated by Laufer and Girsai (2008), who revealed that contrastive formfocused5 instruction produces better results than non-contrastive activities. The form-focused
feature in their study consisted in a translation task. Discrimination tasks are also found to be
effective to learn collocations. Boers et al. (2013) uncovered that discrimination tasks, in which the
learner is asked to look for items that manifest a certain trait, lead to better retention of the items
that were singled out. It is assumed that such a discrimination task causes learners to pay more
attention to the items that they were asked to identify than to other items. Support for this
assumption can be found in the Levels-of-Processing theory and the Involvement Load Hypothesis.
4.2.3 Figurative expressions
This section looks into idioms and metaphors. Both of them are figurative expressions and should
be tackled by the advanced L2 learner (Council of Europe, 2001; McCarthy, 2007). Some fixed
idiomatic expressions rely on metaphors, whereas metaphors can also occur freely, e.g. in poetry,
slogans, jokes, etc. Therefore, I will discuss their peculiarities separately, as well as how they can
best be acquired.
5
Two types of form-focused instruction (FFI) exist: the first is Focus on Form (FonF), which concentrates on linguistic
elements during a communicative activity. Focus on FormS (FonFs), on the other hand, approaches target items out of
an authentic, communicative context. (Laufer, 2006)
28
4.2.3.1 Idioms
a) What?
For a definition of idioms, I refer to Nesselhauf’s (2003) distinction between free word
combinations, collocations and idioms, which is based on a principle of restricted sense. She
classifies idioms as verb-noun combinations in which both the verb and the noun are used in a
restricted sense. This implies that the verb and the noun cannot be used freely in the particular
sense they have when they co-occur (Nesselhauf, ibid.). In other words, it means that the overall
meaning of an idiomatic expression is not derivable from the literal meaning of its constituent
parts. This can create confusion and lead to mistakes.
b) Why?
Firstly, the use of idioms can help language learners come across as fluent speakers (Boers et al.,
2006). Moreover, the advanced L2 learner should try to overcome potential communication
difficulties by acquiring a command of idiomatic expressions. The problematic nature of idioms
is outlined in Cornell’s (1999) article “Idioms: an approach to identifying major pitfalls for
learners”, in which he mainly concentrates on advanced learners of German. Cornell (ibid.)
highlights the factors that influence the comprehension and production of idioms and, in
consequence, might hinder communication. The first he presents, is learner competence. Each
learner has his or her individual way of coping with L2 vocabulary acquisition and, inherently,
with idioms. The next factor in his article is interlingual, thus referring to L1-L2 parallels and
differences. Cornell (ibid.) notes that similarities can have a positive effect, as they can lead to
correct passive interpretation. However, an idiom’s correct passive interpretation does not
guarantee its correct active production. Considering congruency, Cornell (ibid.) believes that
false friends6 might pose the biggest problem. In his article, he gives the example of Aus der Haut
fahren, which denotes loss of temper. It can be correctly translated by to hit the roof but could be
mistaken with to jump out of one’s skin. The latter looks more like the German idiom but actually
has a different meaning that implies a sense of shock and surprise. Such false friends can give
rise to confusion and ultimately lead to mistakes. Another potential source of errors is related to
syntax: if a learner decodes the syntactic structure of a word combination according to the normal
syntactic rules of a language, he or she might miss the idiomatic sense of the word combination.
6
False friends are words that are ostensibly similar but have different meanings (Cornell, 1999).
29
This implies that learners might be unaware of facing an idiom and, as a result, will not memorize
the word combination as such. Next, Cornell (ibid.) refers to the lexico-semantic dimension of
idioms as a major factor of influence, since it is directly related to the central difficulty of idioms:
the tendency to mislead learners in terms of meaning. Cornell (ibid.) claims that this problem
occurs with familiar vocabulary rather than with idioms containing low-frequency words,
assuming that the regular meaning of familiar vocabulary directly comes to the learner’s mind.
Again, the learner is then unaware that he is facing an unknown idiom, which causes him to miss
the contextual and idiomatic meaning of the expression (Cornell, ibid.; Martinez & Murphy,
2011). Lastly, Cornell (ibid.) discusses what he calls covert idioms. Some idioms are more
misleading than others. Covert idioms are the idioms that carry the most potential for causing
difficulties. They would exhibit some or all of the following features:
1) the existence of a competing literal meaning which can be easily derived from the surface
structure of the idiom (and which may or may not actually be used in other contexts) and
which can appear plausible to the learner;
2) the presence of grammatical words (such as es, das, the pronominal adverbs d(a)ran, damit,
etc.) which may wrongly be considered to have a clear anaphoric or cataphoric textual
function;
3) an absence of low-frequency lexical items, since these will normally be unfamiliar to learners
anyway and lead them to consult reference works (indeed, some idioms contain lexical items
found nowhere except in that idiom, as in etwas auf dem Kerholz haben, etwas aus dem Effef
können, fröhliche Urständ feiern, jemanden beim Schlafittchen nehmen);
4) an absence of concrete vocabulary, especially concrete vocabulary associated with semantic
areas unlikely to be relevant to the sort of subject matter the learner expects to be confronted
with. (Cornell, 1999, p. 13-14)
Similar to Cornell (1999), Laufer (2000) recognizes L1-L2 similarities as a potential source of
difficulty in a study on the avoidance of idioms by advanced learners. The term avoidance is used
to refer to the strategy that language learners pursue to overcome a communication difficulty
(Laufer, ibid.). Avoidance can thus be considered as an indicator of difficulty experienced by the
language learner. Laufer ‘s (ibid.) study revealed that idioms were not avoided as a category, but
some idioms were avoided whereas others were not. She claims that the avoidance of an idiom
depends on the degree of L1-L2 similarities. If there is partial similarity between L1 and L2
idioms or if an L1 idiom does not have an L2 idiomatic equivalent, the idiom is considered to be
problematic and is likely to be avoided (Laufer, ibid.).
30
c) How?
Indeed, the problematic nature of idioms cannot be denied. Moreover, Cornell (ibid.) notes that
knowledge of idioms differentiates native speakers from second language learners. Hence,
“[idioms] should not be left to chance and the random exposure of advanced learners to the
language” (Cornell, ibid., p. 16). This means that explicit learning is recommended. As to
classroom activities, teachers cannot present all the idioms in a language, so they need to make a
selection. This selection should not be based on frequency, says Cornell (ibid.). He believes that
the instinct of the experienced teacher is probably worth more than frequency counts. Therefore,
he suggests that the selection of idioms for classroom activities should be based on the personal
choice of the experienced teacher. Besides selecting idioms and presenting them in class, it is the
teacher’s task to make language learners aware of idioms. The effectiveness of awareness-raising
activities to enhance idiom retention was more recently examined by Boers (2000). Boers (ibid.)
claims that idioms can be associated with general metaphoric themes. For example, the idiomatic
expression to get to the roots of a thorny problem is related to the metaphoric theme
GARDENING (Boers, ibid., p. 565). It is suggested that grouping idioms according to
metaphoric themes and presenting them to students in that way, will raise students’ metaphor
awareness. The results of Boers’ (ibid.) research demonstrated that enhanced metaphor awareness
ultimately results in improved retention of figurative expressions.
The fact that certain idioms can be grouped according to metaphoric themes, implies that their
meaning is not arbitrarily. This is a fairly new idea in the research on L2 acquisition, since it was
long taken for granted that figurative expressions contain no reliable clues and that learners could
only infer their meaning from contextual clues (Boers et al., 2007). It is now believed that the
figurative, idiomatic meaning of idioms can be motivated along various lines. Besides presenting
idioms according to the metaphorical theme they express, idioms can also be presented with a
touch of etymology. Boers (2001) demonstrated that figurative idioms were better remembered
when they were associated with their original, literal usage. The technique of raising students’
awareness of the origin or literal usage of the figurative idioms they are presented with, has been
entitled etymological elaboration (Boers et al., 2004) and was found to enhance both retention
and comprehension of the figurative meaning of idioms (Boers et al., 2007).
31
4.2.3.2 Metaphors
a) What?
A metaphors expresses “one entity in terms of another (apparently unrelated) entity” (Littlemore
& Low, 2006, p. 5). Two types of metaphors can be distinguished: linguistic metaphors and
conceptual metaphors. Basically, the words in a conceptual metaphor are often of little interest,
whereas in a linguistic metaphor, the words themselves matter. What is important in a conceptual
metaphor, is the relationship(s) between two concepts or entities. This distinction is provided by
Littlemore and Low (2006) and explained with the following example: ‘THEORIES ARE
STRUCTURES’, with ‘structures’ as the source domain7 and ‘theories’ the target domain. This
is a conceptual metaphors that presents the common “A is B”-structure. The same idea can
conventionally be realized by a linguistic metaphor such as “The theory needs more support”
(Littlemore & Low, ibid.).
b) Why?
The advanced L2 learner should be familiar with L2 metaphors since they are omnipresent across
all aspects of communicative competence: grammatical competence, textual competence,
illocutionary competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence (Littlemore &
Low, ibid.). Hence, language learners will benefit from a well-developed knowledge of
metaphors. However, a prerequisite fund of L2 vocabulary knowledge would be essential to
comprehend and memorize metaphors. Metaphors may be too difficult to deal with for beginner
and intermediate learners, because their comprehension is likely to be impeded by lack of lexical
resources (Boers, ibid.). That is why metaphors are considered a component of advanced L2
vocabulary acquisition.
c) How?
The past decade, metaphors have received significant attention in research on L2 acquisition, which
has provided insight into how this aspect of in-depth vocabulary knowledge can be acquired.
Firstly, passive knowledge of metaphors can be acquired by raising the student’s metaphor
awareness. This was researched by Boers (2000), who demonstrated that enhanced metaphor
awareness improves L2 students’ retention of figurative expressions. Different tasks can help
7
In Boers (2000), source domain is synonymous with metaphoric theme.
32
students become more aware of metaphors. One way is to draw students’ attention to their own
figurative speech, says Boers (ibid.). If students are asked to provide definitions of, for example,
friendship and love, they will automatically resort to figurative speech. If students recognize the
metaphoric themes in their own definitions, they will understand that metaphors are very common
in everyday language (Boers, ibid.). Furthermore, students should understand the logic of
metaphors, in order to use them appropriately. Boers (ibid.) says that teachers can help students
understand metaphors by explaining the imagery they are based on. These suggestions are also
found in Littlemore & Low (ibid.): “helping learners to identify and understand their own
metaphoric thinking processes, and exercise a degree of control over them, is likely to facilitate
both L2 learning and use” (p. 273). Despite the benefits of enhanced metaphor awareness,
recognition and comprehension of metaphoric themes in a given language do not guarantee the
correct production of figurative language in the target language (Boers, ibid.).
Active knowledge of L2 metaphors thus requires a different approach. This is provided by
Hashemian & Nezhad (2007), who link conceptual fluency (CF) to metaphorical competence
(MC). I will begin with explaining these two terms. Metaphorical competence refers to “the ability
to comprehend and use metaphors in a given language as used in natural discourse”. A language
learner’s metaphorical competence thus involves his or her passive and active knowledge of
metaphors. This can be linked to conceptual knowledge, which “allows us to make assumptions
about connections between words” (Wolter, 2006, p. 744) in a certain language. Conceptual
fluency is then:
[…] the ability to use and comprehend the conceptual concepts of a given language. To be
conceptually fluent in a language is to know how that language reflects or encodes its
concepts on the basis of metaphorical structuring. (Hashemian & Nezhad, 2007, p. 42).
According to Hashemian & Nezhad (ibid.), metaphorical competence is a very important part of
conceptual fluency. They point out that L2-discourse often lacks metaphors and conceptual
fluency, which is essentially the result of L1-L2 cultural differences. L2 learners tend to think in
terms of their L1 conceptual system, and use L2 words and structures to convey the L1 concept
they have in mind. If their L1 concepts are not similar to the concepts in the target language/culture,
this will lead to conceptual incongruences. In order to prevent such incongruences, language
33
learners need to improve their metaphorical competence and conceptual fluency. Hashemian &
Nezhad (ibid.) investigated whether or not this can be achieved in a classroom setting. The results
of their study are confirmative: it would be possible to develop metaphorical competence and
conceptual fluency in a classroom setting. In consequence, L2 learners should be explicitly taught
about the conceptual system and the metaphorical themes of the target language. Furthermore,
(Hashemian & Nezhad, ibid.) claim that teachers should encourage L2 students to produce
figurative language themselves.
5
CONCLUSION
The answer to my main research question “How can advanced L2 learners increase their
vocabulary knowledge?” cannot be framed in one sentence. First and foremost, the advanced L2
learner should feel the need to increase his vocabulary knowledge. If that is not the case, the
learner is likely to be hindered by an active vocabulary threshold due to a lack of motivation. To
overcome this obstacle, I suggest to trigger the advanced learner’s necessity, or motivation, by
pointing out what they should learn and explaining why they should learn it.
I assume that awareness and comprehension of their vocabulary needs will enable advanced L2
learners to set realistic goals and will help them to learn efficiently. In this paper, I have
established that the vocabulary needs of the advanced L2 learner consist in mastering the more
challenging aspects of in-depth vocabulary knowledge. The advanced learner should focus on
acquiring a well-developed knowledge of connotations and semantic prosody, collocations,
idioms and metaphors rather than expanding vocabulary size. During my investigation in the
literature concerning the aforementioned aspects of in-depth vocabulary knowledge, I observed
several incongruences in terms of terminology. For instance, confusion might arise when some
scholars use connotation and semantic prosody synonymously, whereas others argue that these
two terms are not equivalent. If it is not entirely clear to language learners what they should be
dealing with, one cannot expect their learning efforts to be successful. That is why I want to
stress the importance of defining the advanced learner’s vocabulary needs in a clear and
unambiguous way. The preliminary step to acquiring vocabulary knowledge is thus to understand
what has to be acquired.
34
Next, I believe that advanced L2 learners’ intrinsic motivation can be induced by pointing out
why it is important for them to master these aspects of vocabulary knowledge. This claim is
based on my own experience as a L2 learner. During my years of studying French and English, I
was unaware of the fact that a lack of knowledge of, e.g. idiomatic expressions, would result in a
communication breakdown. I blindly accepted that idioms were part of the course material that I
had to study, so I studied them, without understanding how valuable and beneficial it is to master
such in-depth vocabulary knowledge. My primary goal has always been to pass exams rather than
to become a more proficient L2 user. If need, or motivation, can be induced, it should not only be
task-induced. The advanced L2 learner should understand how advantageous it is to have a
command of connotations, semantic prosodies, collocations, idioms and metaphors. When a
language learner thoroughly understands what is to be learnt and why that is so, I believe his
learning efforts are more likely to be successful.
Furthermore, I believe that uncovering potential sources of errors, or what one might call traps,
can help learners learn more efficiently. For example, if the advanced L2 learner is aware of the
trap of L1-L2 differences and similarities in collocations, he can adapt a learning approach that
concentrates on this. As to collocations, the difficulties that L2 learners experience are mostly
interlingual, but can also be intralingual. In other words, learners tend to produce incorrect word
combinations based on structures and patterns that come to their mind, which they know from
their L1 or L2. Similar results were found considering the problematic nature of connotations,
semantic prosodies and idioms. However, language learners do not only struggle with the
production of idioms, but also tend to miss the idiomatic meaning of an idiom when they
encounter one. This is due to the fact that the idiomatic meaning of an expression is not obviously
derived from the literal meaning of its constituent words. When L2 learners recognize words and
structures they are familiar with, they immediately think of the literal meaning of the words and
miss the idiomatic sense of the word combination. Similarly, associative meanings such as
connotations and semantic prosodies are likely to be missed. Lastly, the problematic nature of
metaphors is also related to the context in which they appear. Since metaphors display concepts
that are proper to a given culture and society, L1-L2 conceptual differences are a source of
potential mistakes.
35
What pedagogic suggestions are concerned, awareness-raising activities would be effective to
acquire passive knowledge of connotations and semantic prosodies, collocations, idioms and
metaphors. This, however, would not suffice to acquire active knowledge of these aspects of indepth vocabulary. A different approach is therefore required which should focus on overcoming
potential mistakes. For instance, a contrastive approach is recommended to highlight L1-L2
differences in connotations, semantic prosodies, collocations, idioms and metaphors. Especially
in the case of associative meanings and metaphors, interlingual differences can be related to
social and cultural differences between the learners’ L1 and L2. That is why connotations,
semantic prosodies and metaphors should be presented in context, preferably by means of
authentic material. As to collocations, it is recommended to pursue positive discrimination tasks,
which oblige language learners to pay careful attention to items that exhibit a certain trait. The
collocations that deserve the advanced L2 learner’s attention should be selected taking into
account three criteria: usefulness, degree of restriction and congruency. The first criterion is
concerned with the advanced L2 learners’ needs, e.g. a lawyer should be familiar with
collocations that refer to judicial matters. Concerning degree of restriction and congruency, less
restricted and non-congruent collocations would cause the most difficulties and should therefore
be targeted by the advanced L2 learner. Idioms, on the other hand, can be grouped according to
metaphorical themes and should be presented in that way. Besides enhancing the advanced L2
learner’s metaphor awareness, this approach would result in better retention of idioms. Another
recommendable approach is called etymological elaboration and consists in the presentation of
idioms in association with their original, literal usage.
Last but not least, the advanced L2 learner should understand that he is responsible for his own
success in learning and that effort is required to achieve one’s goals. A responsible attitude
towards learning vocabulary and the ability to set realistic goals for oneself, are preliminary
requirements for successful L2 vocabulary acquisition and are features of the autonomous
learner. Furthermore, learner autonomy implies that the learner has knowledge of how to achieve
his goals. If it leads to the successful acquisition of knowledge and, in addition, has a motivating
effect on the L2 learner, the skill of autonomous learning should enable advanced L2 learners to
increase their vocabulary knowledge. Learner autonomy can be enhanced in a classroom setting
with the help of a teacher or by means of MALL-tools, such as SMS and smartphone
36
applications. The effectiveness of the latter in L2 vocabulary acquisition has been demonstrated,
as well as the wide variety of learning opportunities they offer. Despite the many strengths of
these MALL-tools, smartphone applications are quite costly and neither SMS nor smartphone
apps provide socially interactive tasks. That is why it is suggested to make use of MALL-tools
complementary to conventional learning activities.
In conclusion, I expect that the information I have provided in this paper can help L2 advanced
learners become autonomous vocabulary learners, motivate them and, ultimately, enable them to
successfully increase their vocabulary knowledge. Nevertheless, since semantic prosody is a
fairly new concept in the research on L2 acquisition, there is still room for further research on
how language learners can learn semantic prosodies in the most effective way. I also suggest that
new free or low-cost apps should be developed which provide socially interactive tasks to learn
L2 vocabulary.
37
6. REFERENCES
Al-Homoud, F., & Schmitt, N. (2009). Extensive reading in a challenging environment: A
comparison of extensive and intensive reading approaches in Saudi Arabia. Language
Teaching Research, 13(4), 383-401.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English.
Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Boers, F. (2000). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied linguistics, 21(4), 553571.
Boers, F. (2001). Remembering figurative idioms by hypothesising about their origins. Prospect
16: 35–43.
Boers, F., Demecheleer, M. and Eyckmans, J. (2004). Etymological elaboration as a strategy for
learning idioms. In Bogaards, P. and Laufer, B., editors, Vocabulary in a second
language: selection, acquisition and testing, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John
Benjamins, 53–78.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic
sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language
Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Stengers, H. (2007). Presenting figurative idioms with a touch of
etymology: more than mere mnemonics?. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 43-62.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., & Lindstromberg, S. (2013). The effect of a discrimination task on L2
learners' recall of collocations and compounds. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics.
Brajcich, J. (2000). Encouraging Learner Autonomy in Your Classes. The Language Teacher
Online, March, 2000. Retrieved February 26, 2014 from
http://jalt-publications.org/old_tlt/articles/2000/03/brajcich
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning &
Technology 11.3, 38–63.
Cornell, A. (1999). Idioms: an approach to identifying major pitfalls for learners.IRALInternational Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 37(1), 1-22.
Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved
April 18, 2014 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Cui, Y. (2009). The Development of Lexical Organization in Chinese EFL learners at Tertiary
Level. Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition & Teaching (SLAT), 16,
57-73. Retrieved April 18, 2014 from
http://slat.arizona.edu/sites/slat/files/page/awp16cui.pdf
Dergisi, A. (2010). Playing with words: A study on word association responses. The Journal of
International Social Research, 10 (3), 364-365.
Eckerth, J., & Tavakoli, P. (2012). The effects of word exposure frequency and elaboration of
word processing on incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition through reading. Language
Teaching Research, 16(2), 227-252.
Ellis, N. C. (Ed.) (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press
38
Farrokh, P. (2012). Raising Awareness of Collocation in ESL/EFL Classrooms. Journal of
Studies in Education, 2(3).
Gabrovšek, D. (2007). Connotation, Semantic Prosody, Syntagmatic Meaning: Three Levels of
Associative Meaning? Retrieved March 10, 2014 from
http://www.sdas.edus.si/Elope/PDF/ElopeVol4Gabrovsek.pdf
Guo, X. et al. (2011). Acquisition of conscious and unconscious knowledge of semantic
prosody. Consciousness and cognition, 20(2), 417-425.
Hashemian, M., & Nezhad, M. R. T. (2007). The development of conceptual fluency &
metaphorical competence in L2 Learners. Linguistik online, 30(1/06), 42.
Hayati, A., Jalilifar, A., & Mashhadi, A. (2013). Using short message service (SMS) to teach
English idioms to EFL students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 66-81.
Higa, M. 1963. Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2: 170–5.
Hoey, M. (2003) What’s in a word?.English Teaching Professional, (27), 5.
Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First published
1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe)
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second-language vocabulary learning: A
reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity
Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load
hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language learning, 51(3), 539-558.
Khazaeenezhad, B., & Alibabaee, A. (2013). Investigating the Role of L2 Language Proficiency
in Word Association Behavior of L2 Learners: A Case of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory &
Practice in Language Studies, 3(1).
Kim, H., & Kwon, Y. (2012). Exploring smartphone applications for effective Mobile-Assisted
Language Learning. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 31-57.
Laufer, B. (1991). The development of L2 lexis in the expression of the advanced learner. The
Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 440-448.
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies:
Effects of languagelearning context. Language learning, 48(3), 365-391.
Laufer, B. (2000). Avoidance of idioms in a second language: The effect of L1‐L2 degree of
similarity. Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 186-196.
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on formS in second-language vocabulary
learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149-166.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary
learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29(4), 694716.
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text
coverage, learners' vocabulary size and reading comprehension.Reading in a Foreign
Language, 22(1).
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb‐Noun Collocations in Second Language Writing: A
Corpus Analysis of Learners’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647-672.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy. 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik
Little, D. (2006) Learner autonomy: drawing together the threads of self-assessment, goal-setting
and reflection. [3 pp.]. Retrieved February 16, 2014 from
http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/ELP_TT/results/DM_layout/00_10/06/06%20Supplementary
%20text.pdf
39
Littlemore, J., & Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language learning, and
communicative language ability. Applied linguistics, 27(2), 268-294.
Louw, B. (2000). Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. Words in
Context. A tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement. Birmingham: University of
Birmingham, Cédérom.
Martyńska, M. (2004). Do English language learners know collocations. Investigationes
linguisticae, 11, 1-7.
Martinez, R., & Murphy, V. A. (2011). Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language
reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 267-290.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCarthy, M.(2007) Assessing Development of Advanced Proficiency Through Learner
Corpora. [5 pp.]. Retrieved February 4, 2014 from
http://calper.la.psu.edu/downloads/pdfs/CALPER_ALP_Corpus.pdf
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOl Quarterly, 77-89.
Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P-Lex: A Simple and Effective Way of Describing the lexical
Characteristics of Short L2 Tests. Prospect, 16(3), 5-19.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Newbury House, New York.
Nation, I.S.P. (1998) Helping learners take control of their vocabulary learning. GRETA, 6, 1: 918. Retrieved February 16, 20014 from
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/publications/paul-nation/1998-AutonomyGRETA.pdf
Nation, I.S.P. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some
implications for teaching. Applied linguistics, 24(2), 223-242.
Öztürk, M. (2003) Lexical competence in the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages. [19 pp.]. Retrieved March 2, 2014 from
https://www.academia.edu/1517678/Ozturk_M._2003_September_._Lexical_Competence
_in_the_Common_European_Framework_of_Reference_for_Languages_._Paper_present
ed_at_I._International_Symposium_Common_European_Framework_and_Foreign_Lang
uage_Education_in_Turkey_Bursa
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic
reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language learning, 52(3), 513-536.
Rieder, A. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning in incidental vocabulary acquisition. Vien:
EUROSLA.
Scharle, A., & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Schmitt, N. (2004). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2012). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2
vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 1-20.
Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2010). Does “chunking” foster chunkuptake? In S. De Knop, F. Boers, & A. De Rycker (Eds.), Fostering language teaching
efficiency through cognitive linguistics (99–117). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tran, T. H. G. (2010) Developing Learner Autonomy in Vocabulary Learning for First-year
Mainstream Students at ED, ULIS, VNU. Retrieved February 26, 2014 from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32025854/Developing-Learner-Autonomy-in-VocabularyLearning-for-First-year-Mainstream-Students-at-ED-ULIS-VNU-Tran-Thi-Huong-GiangQH-1-E
40
Xiao, R. & McEnercy, T. (2006) Collocation, Semantic Prosody and Near Synonymy: A CrossLinguistic Perspective. Applied Linguistics 27 (1): 103-129.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and
writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(01), 33-52.
Webb, S., & Kagimoto, E. (2011). Learning Collocations: Do the Number of Collocates, Position
of the Node Word, and Synonymy Affect Learning?.Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 259-276.
Wolter, B. (2001) Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon: a depth of individual word
knowledge model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(1): 41-69.
Wolter, B. (2002) Assessing proficiency through word associations: is there still hope? System,
30(3): 315-329.
Wolter, B. (2006). Lexical network structures and L2 vocabulary acquisition: The role of L1
lexical/conceptual knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 741-747.
Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., & Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship between lexical
competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 27(04), 567-595.
Zhang, W. (2009). Semantic prosody and ESL/EFL vocabulary pedagogy. TESL Canada
Journal, 26 (2), 1-12
Zhao, J. (2004). ESL students’ awareness of cultural connotations of words. Arizona Working
Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT), 11, 37-55. Retrieved April
14, 2014 from http://slat.arizona.edu/sites/slat/files/page/awp11zhao.pdf