The interrelationship between vocabulary acquisition theory and general SLA research

Abstract

The current state of affairs is characterised as one in which general SLA models have syntax as their core and pay less and variable attention to other linguistic levels, notably lexis. In order to improve the current situation we need involvement from both the vocabulary research community and SLA model builders. It is demonstrated how the former group readily borrows key concepts from psycholinguistics and SLA theory and rethinks them from a lexical point of view. However, such borrowing and recasting is often done in a piecemeal fashion to fit specific research issues. As for SLA model builders, some examples are discussed that are regarded as serious attempts at integrating lexis into a particular acquisition model. One is L2 reading research and vocabulary acquisition through reading, which illustrates a high degree of integration with common research goals and mutual theoretical inspiration. A second example underlines the fact that there is an obvious potential for including lexis in the ‘focus on form’ movement. It is our contention that more attention to lexis should supplement the predominantly grammatical ‘focus on form’ that is the current norm.

Teacher Cognition vis-à-vis Vocabulary Teaching

“…Broadly speaking, most of the effective SLA models are tending toward comprehension, interaction, or production, as noted in (Cumming, 1990). To summarize, there has been a gap between syntax and lexical processing and development and in order to bridge the gap and also find a balanced view toward vocabulary acquisition, model builders should try to approach it as an integrating component into other frameworks not as ancillary, or "on the side" as it were (Haastrup and Henriksen, 2001).…”

“…Fig. 2, presented by (Haastrup and Henriksen, 2001), considers all related dimensions of an appropriate psycholinguistic model to vocabulary learning. This model takes anthology of vocabulary research into consideration according to (Coady and Huckin, 1997) (Harley, 1995 Figure 2.…”

“…This model takes anthology of vocabulary research into consideration according to (Coady and Huckin, 1997) (Harley, 1995 Figure 2. Examples of models and concepts from psycholinguistics and SLA theory (Haastrup and Henriksen, 2001) In order to be more specific about three psycholinguistic stages of second language acquisition, (Levelt, 1989) suggests representation, acquisition, and processing. Consequently, introducing L1 model of vocabulary acquisition in relation to the L2 tailors our study to process and representation of vocabulary in the learner"s mind and also the teacher"s cognition.…”

“…According to psychological models of vocabulary teaching and learning (Haastrup and Henriksen, 2001), before teaching any word, all related psychological aspects of a single word should be taken into consideration (top-down and bottom-up processing, information processing, memory theory, input and interaction hypothesis and, etc). Therefore teacher"s cognition would be in full correspondence with teaching that word, and the present condition of the learners in the classroom.…”

Corrective Feedback and L2 Vocabulary Development: Prompts and Recasts in the Adult ESL Classroom

“…Interactionist research on L2 vocabulary learning Haastrup and Henriksen (2001) point out the need to bridge vocabulary acquisition research with mainstream SLA enquiry in order to move from a partial to a more comprehensive understanding of L2 vocabulary acquisition. They argue that SLA research looks mainly at grammatical variables, and if studies analyze vocabulary learning, vocabulary development is only narrowly defined.…”