Spanish Vocabulary Learning in Meaning-Oriented Instruction 1138295906, 9781138295902

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of figures and tables
Notes on contributors
Meaning and vocabulary: two key elements in Spanish language teaching
1 Identifying target Spanish vocabulary: issues of regional variation
1. Introduction
2. Vocabulary acquisition
3. Pedagogical implications of lexical variation
3.1. Frequency and context of use
3.2. Learner needs
3.3. Formality
4. Communicative language teaching and task-based learning
5. Sample lessons
5.1. Lexical lessons
5.2. Discursive-pragmatic lexical lesson
6. Conclusions
7. Bibliography
2 Input, tasks, and processing specificity in Spanish vocabulary learning
1. Introduction
2. Theory and research on lexical input processing
2.1. What is the TOPRA model and what does it predict?
2.2. What is the most effective type of input?
2.3. What are the most effective types of tasks?
3. The IBI approach
3.1. IBI principles
3.2. IBI checklist
4. Integration within MOI
4.1. Intentional vocabulary learning as focus on meaning
4.2. Increased exposure to words while focusing on meaning
5. Sample lesson
5.1. Sample IBI lesson
5.2. Completion of seven-item checklist for the sample lesson
6. Conclusions
7. Bibliography
3 Incidental learning of L2 Spanish vocabulary
1. Introduction
2. Theory and research
2.1. Input hypothesis
2.2. Output hypothesis
2.3. Interaction hypothesis
2.4. The Involvement Load Hypothesis
2.5. The TOPRA model
2.6. Summary
3. Methods and techniques: activities for incidental vocabulary acquisition
3.1. Reading
3.2. Writing
3.3. Other activities
4. Incidental vocabulary acquisition within Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI)
4.1. Communicative language teaching
4.2. Task-based instruction
4.3. Content-based instruction
4.4. Toward more effective MOI
5. Sample activities for L2 Spanish
6. Conclusions
7. Bibliography
4 Acquisition of idiomatic language in L2 Spanish
1. Introduction
2. Theory and research
3. Methods and techniques
3.1. Justification for a focus on idioms
4. Integration within Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI)
4.1. The benefits of recognizing the literal underpinnings of idioms
4.2. Why learners need assistance in establishing connections between idiomatic meanings and their literal underpinnings
5. Sample activities
5.1. Selecting, organizing, and systematizing the linguistic material
5.2. Applying a constructivist approach
6. Conclusions
7. Bibliography
5 Lexicographic perspectives and L2 Spanish vocabulary
1. Introduction
2. Theory and research
2.1. How has the SFL/SSL dictionary been used in general?
2.2. How can the dictionary be better used in a Spanish class?
2.3. What is the meaning of the Spanish learners’ dictionary?
2.4. What are the characteristics of Spanish learners’ dictionaries?
2.5. How do Spanish learners gain access to the dictionary?
2.6. Are existing Spanish dictionaries designed for learners adequate?
2.7. What possible solutions are there to reverse the lack of adequate online dictionaries?
3. Methods and techniques
4. Integration within MOI
4.1. Should dictionaries be used within MOI?
4.2. How can dictionaries be used effectively within MOI?
5. Sample activities
5.1. Activities to familiarize the students with the text
5.2. Activities involving dictionaries
6. Conclusions
7. Bibliography
6 Quality of lexicosemantic representations in L2 Spanish
1. Introduction
2. Theory and research
2.1. Cognates and cognate facilitation: Definitions and empirical evidence
2.2. Psycholinguistic perspective
2.3. Second language processing perspective
3. Methods and techniques
4. Integration within MOI
5. Sample activity
6. Conclusions
7. Bibliography
7 Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge
1. Introduction
2. Theory and research
2.1. Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge
2.2. Some measures of vocabulary knowledge
3. Methods and techniques
3.1. Proficiency guidelines used in vocabulary testing
3.2. Classroom-based assessment
3.3. Eight recommendations
4. Integration within MOI
4.1. The inextricability of vocabulary and grammar
4.2. Comparing proficiency with learner corpora
5. Sample activity
6. Conclusions
7. Bibliography
8 New vocabulary levels tests for L2 Spanish
1. Introduction
2. Theory and research
3. Methods and techniques
4. Integration within MOI
5. Conclusions
6. Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

SPANISH VOCABULARY LEARNING IN MEANINGORIENTED INSTRUCTION

Spanish Vocabulary Learning in Meaning-Oriented Instruction is the first comprehensive overview of current research and instructional practices into Spanish vocabulary acquisition through the lens of Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI). Key features: •

a breadth of topics including language variation, input, tasks and processing specificity, incidental learning, idiomatic language, lexicographic perspectives, lexicosemantic representation, vocabulary testing, and receptive and productive vocabulary; • a combination of theory and practical guidance highlighting pedagogical best practices in the teaching of vocabulary; • guidance on the difficulties teachers face when teaching vocabulary in the classroom; • clear explanations with plenty of examples and useful references; • tasks and activities that help teachers move from a traditional curricular approach to a more innovative and engaging one focused on communicating, completing tasks, and learning content. Written by an international cohort of scholars in a succinct and accessible manner, Spanish Vocabulary Learning in Meaning-Oriented Instruction is an essential resource for teachers of Spanish at all levels. It is also an excellent reference book for researchers and both undergraduate and graduate students interested in Spanish vocabulary acquisition. Joe Barcroft is Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition and Affiliate Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis (USA). Javier Muñoz-Basols is Senior Lecturer in Spanish at the University of Oxford (UK) and President of the Asociación para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera (ASELE).

Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching Series editor: Javier Muñoz-Basols University of Oxford

The Routledge Advances in Spanish Language Teaching series provides a showcase for the latest research on the teaching and learning of Spanish. It publishes high-quality authored books, research monographs and edited volumes on innovative methods and theories. The series takes a multiple-perspective approach, with titles focusing on core topics in the areas of applied linguistics, Spanish language and grammar, second language skills, sociolinguistic and cultural aspects of language acquisition and Spanish for academic purposes. Through a discussion of problems, issues and possible solutions, books in the series combine theoretical and practical aspects, which readers can apply in the teaching of the language. e-Research y español LE/L2 Investigar en la era digital Edited by Mar Cruz Piñol La diversidad del español y su enseñanza Natividad Hernández Muñoz, Javier Muñoz-Basols and Carlos Soler Montes Aproximaciones al estudio del español como lengua de herencia Edited by Diego Pascual y Cabo and Julio Torres Spanish Vocabulary Learning in Meaning-Oriented Instruction Edited by Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols For more information about this series please visit: www.routledge.com/RoutledgeAdvances-in-Spanish-Language-Teaching/book-series/RASLT

SPANISH VOCABULARY LEARNING IN MEANING-ORIENTED INSTRUCTION

Edited by Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols Series Editor: Javier Muñoz-Basols

First published 2022 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 selection and editorial matter, Joe Barcroft and Javier MuñozBasols; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-29589-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-29590-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-10036-4 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364 Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

CONTENTS

List of figures and tablesx Notes on contributors xii

Meaning and vocabulary: two key elements in Spanish language teaching1 Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols

1 Identifying target Spanish vocabulary: issues of regional variation Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández 1. Introduction 2.  Vocabulary acquisition 3.  Pedagogical implications of lexical variation 3.1.  Frequency and context of use 3.2.  Learner needs 3.3. Formality 4. Communicative language teaching and task-based learning 5.  Sample lessons 5.1.  Lexical lessons 5.2.  Discursive-pragmatic lexical lesson 6. Conclusions 7. Bibliography

7 7 9 12 12 13 15 15 17 17 19 19 20

vi Contents

2 Input, tasks, and processing specificity in Spanish vocabulary learning Joe Barcroft

26

1. Introduction 26 2.  Theory and research on lexical input processing 28 2.1. What is the TOPRA model and what does it predict? 30 2.2.  What is the most effective type of input? 34 2.3.  What are the most effective types of tasks? 35 3.  The IBI approach 37 3.1.  IBI principles 37 3.2.  IBI checklist 37 4.  Integration within MOI 38 4.1. Intentional vocabulary learning as focus on meaning38 4.2. Increased exposure to words while focusing on meaning 38 5.  Sample lesson 39 5.1.  Sample IBI lesson 39 5.2. Completion of seven-item checklist for the sample lesson 41 6. Conclusions 42 7. Bibliography 42 3 Incidental learning of L2 Spanish vocabulary María Pilar Agustín-Llach

44

1. Introduction 44 2.  Theory and research 45 2.1.  Input hypothesis 46 2.2.  Output hypothesis 47 2.3.  Interaction hypothesis 47 2.4.  The Involvement Load Hypothesis 48 2.5.  The TOPRA model 49 2.6. Summary 50 3. Methods and techniques: activities for incidental vocabulary acquisition50 3.1. Reading 50 3.2. Writing 51 3.3.  Other activities 52 4. Incidental vocabulary acquisition within Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI) 52 4.1.  Communicative language teaching 52 4.2.  Task-based instruction 53 4.3.  Content-based instruction 53 4.4.  Toward more effective MOI 54

Contents  vii

5.  Sample activities for L2 Spanish 6. Conclusions 7. Bibliography 4 Acquisition of idiomatic language in L2 Spanish Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

55 56 57 62

1. Introduction 63 2.  Theory and research 65 3.  Methods and techniques 68 3.1.  Justification for a focus on idioms 68 4.  Integration within Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI) 72 4.1. The benefits of recognizing the literal underpinnings of idioms 72 4.2. Why learners need assistance in establishing connections between idiomatic meanings and their literal underpinnings 73 5.  Sample activities 75 5.1. Selecting, organizing, and systematizing the linguistic material75 5.2.  Applying a constructivist approach 77 6. Conclusions 82 7. Bibliography 83 5 Lexicographic perspectives and L2 Spanish vocabulary Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

89

1. Introduction 89 2.  Theory and research 91 2.1. How has the SFL/SSL dictionary been used in general? 91 2.2. How can the dictionary be better used in a Spanish class? 92 2.3. What is the meaning of the Spanish learners’ dictionary? 94 2.4. What are the characteristics of Spanish learners’ dictionaries?94 2.5. How do Spanish learners gain access to the dictionary? 98 2.6. Are existing Spanish dictionaries designed for learners adequate?98 2.7. What possible solutions are there to reverse the lack of adequate online dictionaries? 99 3.  Methods and techniques 100 4.  Integration within MOI 101 4.1.  Should dictionaries be used within MOI? 102 4.2. How can dictionaries be used effectively within MOI? 103

viii Contents

5.  Sample activities 5.1.  Activities to familiarize the students with the text 5.2.  Activities involving dictionaries 6. Conclusions 7. Bibliography

103 104 105 106 107

6 Quality of lexicosemantic representations in L2 Spanish Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

112

1. Introduction 2.  Theory and research 2.1. Cognates and cognate facilitation: Definitions and empirical evidence 2.2.  Psycholinguistic perspective 2.3.  Second language processing perspective 3.  Methods and techniques 4.  Integration within MOI 5.  Sample activity 6. Conclusions 7. Bibliography

113 113

7 Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez 1. Introduction 2.  Theory and research 2.1.  Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge 2.2.  Some measures of vocabulary knowledge 3.  Methods and techniques 3.1.  Proficiency guidelines used in vocabulary testing 3.2.  Classroom-based assessment 3.3.  Eight recommendations 4.  Integration within MOI 4.1.  The inextricability of vocabulary and grammar 4.2.  Comparing proficiency with learner corpora 5.  Sample activity 6. Conclusions 7. Bibliography 8 New vocabulary levels tests for L2 Spanish Paul Chandler 1. Introduction 2.  Theory and research

113 115 117 119 121 121 125 126 130 130 130 131 132 135 136 138 143 143 143 144 145 147 147 150 150 151

Contents  ix

3.  Methods and techniques 4.  Integration within MOI 5. Conclusions 6. Bibliography

158 165 166 167

Index179

FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.1

Type of Processing-Resource Allocation (TOPRA) model IBI checklist for sample lesson on the Galapagos Islands A L2 learner processing idiomatic language and language use variables A possible structure for organizing idiomatic sequences Sample activity – idiomatic expressions related to nature Sample activity – idiomatic expressions with animals Sample activity – proverbs Definition of posible in the monolingual dictionary used in Google Translate 5.2 Syntactic properties and definition of posible as suggested by Dam-Jensen and Tarp (2018) 6.1 The Distributed Lexical/Conceptual Feature model for a typical non-cognate translation pair such as “cat” and “gato” in English and Spanish

32 41 71 76 78 79 80 96 97

116

Tables 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Dictionary advantages in language learning Types of competence related to dictionary use for Spanish teachers Activities for Spanish teachers to promote effective dictionary use Skills of Spanish learners who are good dictionary users What Spanish dictionaries are expected to include and what they actually include 5.6 The word posible “possible” in five Spanish dictionaries 6.1 Selected English-Spanish morphological suffixation patterns

90 92 93 93 95 95 124

Figures and tables  xi

7.1 What it is to know a word 7.2 Example of count-based word frequency (using CORPES raw unlemmatized frequency list) 7.3 Sample of depth vocabulary test 7.4 Competence in vocabulary CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) 7.5 ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (ACTFL 2012) 8.1 Cognates per 500-word frequency band 8.2 Parts of speech in the 5000 most frequent Spanish words 8.3 Estimating total words known with the SVLT: 1000/24 = 42 (41.66)

132 134 135 136 137 160 161 164

CONTRIBUTORS

María Pilar Agustín-Llach is Professor of English Philology and Second Language

Acquisition at the University of La Rioja (Spain). Her main research interest is the examination of vocabulary acquisition and teaching in light of the variables of age, gender, proficiency level, L1 influence, and learning context. Other vocabularyrelated issues like lexical errors, lexical transfer, and vocabulary strategies are also included in her research agenda. Joe Barcroft is Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition and Affiliate

Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis (USA). His research focuses on lexical input processing and vocabulary learning, types of processing in language acquisition, and psycholinguistic approaches to issues in second language acquisition. His publications include the books Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction (2012) and Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning (2015). Frank Boers is Professor of Applied Linguistics and TESOL at the University of

Western Ontario (Canada). His early publications were in the field of lexicology, with a focus on polysemy and metaphor. His more recent interests, however, stem from his extensive experience as a language teacher and teacher trainer. He now publishes mostly about L2 instructional methods. Paul Chandler is Professor of Spanish Applied Linguistics at the University of

Hawaii at Mānoa (USA). He received an honorary PhD (2018) from the University of Athens, Greece and the University of Hawaii’s President’s Meritorious Teaching Award. He has published language textbooks, book chapters and articles and given more than 150 presentations and workshops for language teachers around the US, Spain, and Latin America.

Contributors  xiii

Manuel Díaz-Campos is Professor of Hispanic Sociolinguistics at Indiana Univer-

sity, Bloomington (USA). He has published on the acquisition of sociolinguistic variables in L1, sociolinguistic variation including phonological and morphosyntactic phenomena, acquisition of second language phonology, and topics in Spanish laboratory phonology. His research appears in notable journals, such as Language in Society, Probus, Lingua, Hispania, Spanish in Context, and Studies in Second Language Acquisition, among others. He is the editor of The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics (2011), the author of Introducción a la sociolingüística hispánica (2014), and Introducción y aplicaciones contextualizadas a la lingüística hispánica (2017, with Kimberly Geeslin and Laura Gurzynski-Weiss). Jamile Forcelini is Assistant Professor of Spanish at Sam Houston State University (USA). She has a PhD in Hispanic linguistics from Florida State University. Dr Forcelini has taught a variety of classes in English, Spanish, Portuguese, linguistics, and cultural studies in the US and overseas. Her research investigates bilingual and trilingual lexical processes, as well as the role of second language instruction on lexical processing and acquisition. Laura M. Merino Hernández is a PhD candidate of Hispanic linguistics at Indiana University (USA). Her current areas of research include language variation and change, corpus linguistics, and sociolinguistics. She is interested in morphosyntax, particularly its intersection with semantics and pragmatics. Javier Muñoz-Basols is Senior Lecturer in Spanish at the Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages at the University of Oxford (UK). He coauthored Introducción a la lingüística hispánica actual (2017) and coedited the Routledge Handbook of Spanish Language Teaching (2019). He is the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of the Journal of Spanish Language Teaching and President of the Asociación para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera (ASELE). Antoni Nomdedeu Rull is Associate Professor of Spanish Language at Rovira i Virgili University (Spain). He has also taught in Italy, Cuba, and Denmark. He is Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of Revista Internacional de Lenguas Extranjeras (RILE). His areas of expertise include lexicography, history of the Spanish language and Spanish as a foreign language. He has authored the Diccionario de fútbol (2009) and has contributed to other dictionaries. He is Secretary of the Asociación Española de Estudios Lexicográficos (AELex) and Secretary of the Asociación para la Enseñanza del Español como Lengua Extranjera (ASELE). Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez obtained his PhD at Swansea University. He is interested in modeling and measuring L2 vocabulary acquisition, corpus linguistics, and the digital humanities. He worked at Swansea University, Goldsmiths University of London, and since 2005, works at Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro (Mexico),

xiv Contributors

where he teaches psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and statistics for language teachers to undergraduate and postgraduate students. Gretchen Sunderman  is a Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at Florida State University (USA). Her research focuses on the bilingual mental lexicon, psycholinguistic of second language processing, and individual differences in memory and executive function. Her work has appeared in  journals such as  Psychological Science, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and Language Learning.

MEANING AND VOCABULARY: TWO KEY ELEMENTS IN SPANISH LANGUAGE TEACHING Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols

Based on his experience in testing individuals with different types of aphasia recounted in “The Meaning-Making Mechanism(s) Behind the Eyes and Between the Ears,” Haagort (2019) provided evidence of how communication can be achieved by individual words even in the absence of syntax. He offered the following example: Any order of the string “apple man eat” will make it clear that “the man eats the apple.” In other words, when it comes to using language to convey meaning, vocabulary plays a greater role than one might assume. The symbiotic relationship between meaning and vocabulary is particularly salient when observed from two different perspectives. First, a more developed knowledge of vocabulary equips us better to engage in the expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning – all key aspects of communication itself (see e.g., VanPatten 2017). Echoing Hagoort’s point, this observation should come as no surprise to teachers of L2 Spanish, who are already keenly aware of the central role vocabulary plays in successful communication. Second, meaning is also a critical ingredient for vocabulary to be acquired in the first place. Novel lexical forms such as words, multiword units, and other types of lexicalized and idiomatic language must be mapped onto the meanings they represent for vocabulary acquisition to take place (e.g., Muñoz-Basols 2016). If there is no meaning onto which to map the forms, no form-meaning mappings can be made. Moreover, if a substantial amount of the input conveying meaning is incomprehensible (following Krashen 1985), there will still be insufficient meaning onto which to map forms, and the process of vocabulary acquisition will break down on that front as well. In short, we need vocabulary to convey meaning in order to communicate, and we need meaning to acquire vocabulary in the first place.

DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-1

2  Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols

For these reasons, the present volume focuses on L2 vocabulary development in Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI) – language instruction focused on meaning for the purpose of communicating, completing tasks, or learning content – with a special focus on Spanish. As such, the chapters within this volume focus on different aspects of vocabulary in L2 Spanish and will serve those who recognize and accept the need to focus on meaning in language instruction (see, e.g., Šifrar Kalan 2017). The contributions made by the authors are all underpinned by the principles of MOI and have MOI in their focus at each stage of the project. Consequently, the volume should offer a more streamlined and coherent consideration of vocabulary in L2 Spanish teaching and learning than otherwise might have been the case if MOI had not been spelled out as a central feature. Each chapter in this volume focuses on key issues related to how instructors and language program directors can treat vocabulary effectively within the larger context of the MOI approach. In other words, regardless of the particular flavor of MOI being utilized at any given time – communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching, or content-based language teaching – the research background and evidence-based recommendations provided in each chapter are applicable. The issues discussed should also be of interest to researchers in different areas of second language acquisition and applied linguistics. Let us now consider the issues addressed in the volume and their recommendations. To begin, virtually anyone involved in teaching L2 Spanish is aware of the large amount of variation in words and other types of lexical items used in different regional and social contexts throughout the Spanish-speaking world (see Hernández Muñoz, Muñoz-Basols, and Soler Montes 2021). Consider, for example, that a word such as t-shirt can translate to camiseta, playera, polo, or otherwise, and a word such as popcorn can translate as palomitas, canguil, cancha, depending on the regional variety of Spanish. Given this general state of affairs, teachers and language program directors often ask questions such as Which lexical variants should be included? Should all of them be included? How do I help students vary the vocabulary they use appropriately? In Chapter 1, “Identifying target Spanish vocabulary: Issues of regional variation,” Díaz-Campos and Merino Hernández address these questions as they consider how to select and teach regional and sociolinguistic lexical variants in Spanish. They recommend teaching with attention to cultural context and provide concrete sample lessons that address lexical, morphosyntactic, and discursive-pragmatic features of Spanish vocabulary. As such, their chapter represents a breakthrough in a critical, but to date underdiscussed, area of Spanish vocabulary instruction. Further questions that relate to the teaching of vocabulary in the MOI framework for Spanish concern the basic ingredients needed for vocabulary acquisition at a general level as well as specific evidence-based solutions that can increase vocabulary learning in different instructional contexts. Why is input so critical in vocabulary learning? What type of input works best to promote vocabulary learning? What types of tasks should learners engage in? How do these considerations fit into a full-scale instructional program? In Chapter 2, “Input, tasks, and processing specificity in Spanish vocabulary

Meaning and vocabulary  3

learning,” Barcroft provides answers to these questions from the perspective of lexical input processing, that is, “the manner in which learners process words and lexical phrases as input, or samples of the target language presented in communicative contexts” (Barcroft 2015, 14). In so doing, the chapter reviews a series of effective instructional practices based on the evidence-based approach known as Input-Based Incremental (IBI) vocabulary instruction (Barcroft 2012), which advocates focusing on (a) how target vocabulary is presented in the input in both intentional and incidentally oriented learning contexts and (b) how to promote the incremental build-up of appropriate aspects of vocabulary knowledge over time. The IBI approach is exemplified in the chapter with a sample IBI lesson related to travel in the Spanish-speaking world. A series of questions oftentimes raised about the role of incidental vocabulary learning include the following: How much vocabulary can learners pick up incidentally during reading and other activities? What theoretical approaches best predict the learnability of novel vocabulary in incidental learning contexts? What types of activities can be used to increase incidental vocabulary learning within a program of MOI? In Chapter 3, “Incidental learning of L2 Spanish vocabulary,” Agustín-Llach focuses on a wide range of issues and perspectives related to incidental vocabulary learning. The chapter highlights three provisions for promoting incidental vocabulary learning during reading activities and concurs with five recommendations offered by Restrepo Ramos (2015) for enhancing incidental vocabulary learning. Sample activities for L2 Spanish are also provided. Another pivotal issue in effective teaching of Spanish vocabulary is how instructional programs might help learners to develop higher levels of competence in their use of Spanish idiomatic expressions. What is idiomaticity and how much of vocabulary learning does it encompass? What constitutes and what are some examples of idiomaticity in L2 Spanish? What does research indicate about the best ways to promote learners’ development of knowledge of idiomatic expressions? To what extent and in what ways can I  incorporate teaching idioms within a truly meaning-oriented instructional program? In Chapter 4, “Acquisition of idiomatic language in L2 Spanish,” Boers and Muñoz-Basols review pertinent research and pedagogical proposals regarding the need to teach Spanish idiomatic expressions and how best to teach them. In addition to the wealth of evidence-based recommendations provided in the chapter, the authors directly address best practices regarding how to treat Spanish idioms within the larger context of MOI. The second half of their chapter focuses on figurative expressions, which tend to be challenging to L2 learners, and advocates a researchsupported approach to teaching expressions of this nature. Concrete sample activities are provided for the benefit of L2 Spanish instructors. Other questions of interest about L2 Spanish vocabulary are tied to the potential role of dictionaries in learning novel vocabulary and increasing comprehension within a program of MOI: What is the role for the dictionary in the Spanish L2 classroom? What are the characteristics of Spanish learners’ dictionaries? How do Spanish learners gain access to the dictionary? Are existing Spanish learners’ dictionaries adequate? What are possible solutions to the lack of adequate online dictionaries? These and other

4  Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols

related questions are the subheadings of Chapter 5, “Lexicographic perspectives and L2 Spanish vocabulary,” by Nomdedeu Rull. Importantly, the chapter keeps MOI in mind as a general instructional framework when addressing the extent to which and the manner in which dictionaries can be incorporated to promote learning L2 Spanish vocabulary and to increase comprehension and improve communication in the L2 Spanish classroom and beyond. The chapter includes a series of specific suggestions for the effective incorporation of dictionaries in L2 Spanish teaching and a set of sample activities for improving learners’ ability to make best use of different types of dictionaries available to them. Whereas overall quantity of vocabulary learning is important, questions about the quality of vocabulary learning are also of interest to many Spanish teachers and language program directors working within MOI as their overarching instructional framework. These questions involve how different word forms and their meanings are stored, distributed, connected, and accessed in the brain. How are L2 words stored in the brain with respect to corresponding L1 translations and the concepts and other types of meaning they represent? Do more direct connections between L2 word forms and what they represent develop over time? Do L2 learners and bilinguals ever become completely independent of L1 with regard to (selective versus non-selective) activation of lexical knowledge in the brain? In Chapter 6, “Quality of lexicosemantic representation in L2 Spanish,” Sunderman and Forcelini address questions such as these. The chapter considers, based on a variety of psycholinguistic studies, how L2 words are stored within the bilingual mental lexicon and how they are retrieved. As clarified in the chapter, the preponderance of evidence supports a non-selective view of lexical access. The chapter also focuses on the role of cognates in L2 Spanish teaching and presents Spanish instructors with a new technique for cognate instruction, Structured Cognate Instruction (SCI). Sample SCI activities designed to promote the development of rich and accessible lexicosemantic representations are presented and discussed. Also pertinent are questions related to testing L2 Spanish vocabulary. Can testing vocabulary be consistent with MOI? If so, in what ways? What traditional testing options are available and which (if any) can be most easily incorporated into MOI? What recommendations can be made regarding best practices when vocabulary testing is carried out in MOI programs? In Chapter  7, “Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge,” Rodríguez Sánchez takes on the challenge of analyzing a wide range of options for testing Spanish vocabulary knowledge within the parameters and goals of MOI. As part of this effort, the chapter reviews proficiency guidelines for vocabulary described in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001), its Companion Volume (2020), and the Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (2012) put forward by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. A large variety of vocabulary testing activities are also reviewed and exemplified. Eight general recommendations related to vocabulary testing in MOI are also presented; they support what is described as an integrated approach to vocabulary assessment. In addition to testing specific sets of Spanish vocabulary, it also can be helpful for instructors and learners of L2 Spanish to be able to assess a learner’s overall knowledge of Spanish vocabulary at any given point in time, which leads to a number of

Meaning and vocabulary  5

other important questions. While there are a number of tests for assessing one’s level of vocabulary knowledge in L2 English, is there a test that can be used to assess one’s level of vocabulary knowledge in L2 Spanish? If so, what is the test and how was it developed? How can it be used and to what degree can it be considered accurate? Fortunately, a test of this nature for assessing vocabulary knowledge in L2 Spanish – the Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test – has been developed by Chandler and is presented and discussed in the final chapter in this volume, Chapter 8, “New vocabulary levels tests for L2 Spanish.” The chapter reviews how the test was developed, how it has been piloted, and how it can be used. The test itself, which exists as two versions based on reception and production, appears in the Appendix of the chapter, making it available for the first time to Spanish instructors and language program directors everywhere. The content of each chapter should be of interest to readers interested in any combination of theory, research, and practice. Simultaneously, this volume can be used as toolkit for promoting Spanish vocabulary in MOI, thanks to its logical sequence from an instructional standpoint. (1) It begins with issues related to identifying target vocabulary amid the reality of lexical variation in the Spanishspeaking world. (2) It continues with a variety of topics related to how to promote L2 Spanish vocabulary learning effectively, ranging from the roles of input and tasks, promoting incidental vocabulary learning and learning of idiomatic expressions, and attending to issues of the quality of developing vocabulary knowledge in L2 Spanish. (3) Finally, it concludes with a focus on vocabulary testing and a new means for assessing one’s level of Spanish vocabulary knowledge at any point in the trajectory of acquiring L2 Spanish. As such, the organization of chapters parallels the decisions that need to be made about different aspects of vocabulary teaching over time.

Acknowledgments We would like to express our gratitude to all the authors who contributed their research and knowledge of innovative ways to teach Spanish vocabulary to this volume as well as for making their contributions directly applicable to the language classroom. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers of the book and to Routledge for their support during the publishing process. Finally, we are indebted to Craig Neville of University College Cork, Ireland, whose excellent comments and stylistic suggestions have contributed to enriching the final result.

Bibliography American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012. ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. www.actfl.org/resources/ actfl-performance-descriptors-language-learners. Barcroft, J. 2012. Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association.

6  Joe Barcroft and Javier Muñoz-Basols

Barcroft, J. 2015. Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https:// rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-referencefor-languages-learningteaching/16809ea0d4. Haagort, P. 2019. “The Meaning-Making Mechanism(s) behind the Eyes and between the Ears.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 375. Doi: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0301. Hernández Muñoz, N., J. Muñoz-Basols, and C. Soler Montes. 2021. La diversidad del español y su enseñanza. London and New York: Routledge. Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman. Muñoz-Basols, J. 2016. “Enseñanza del lenguaje idiomático.” In Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, ed. J. Gutiérrez-Rexach, 442–453. London and New York: Routledge. Restrepo Ramos, F. D. 2015. “Incidental Vocabulary Learning in Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review.” PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 17 (1): 157–166. Šifrar Kalan, M. 2017. “Lexical Availability in English and Spanish as a Second Language.” In Lexical Availability in English and Spanish as a Second Language, ed. R. M. Jiménez Catalán, 125–138. Dordrecht: Springer. VanPatten, B. 2017. While We’re on the Topic: BVP on Language, Acquisition, and Classroom Practice. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL.

1 IDENTIFYING TARGET SPANISH VOCABULARY Issues of regional variation Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

Abstract This chapter examines the acquisition and teaching of regionally and socially appropriate vocabulary. We provide a panorama of the methodological advances in research concerning the acquisition of vocabulary with a special emphasis on Spanish. Learners often lack the ability to vary their speech, given the limited nature of their exposure to different varieties of Spanish in the classroom where formal registers are favored. Even in the case of study abroad experiences, limited interaction with native speakers and informal registers may explain the underdeveloped sociolinguistic competence of L2 students. We advocate for the teaching of language in reference to the cultural context so that vocabulary is introduced as relevant material for the teaching of content such as food preparation, ordering in a restaurant, or buying groceries at the supermarket. We also provide three sample lesson plans to teach lexical and discursive-pragmatic vocabulary items. Finally, it is important to underscore the need to take various factors into account when determining which vocabulary items to teach since not only topic and geographical region are important; but also, factors such as age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, among many others can affect the use of one lexical item over another.

1. Introduction Lexical variation studies are concerned with the use of one word over another to refer to the same concept or object. An example of this would be the use of pop versus soda to refer to a sugary carbonated drink in the United States (Kiesling 2011, 164). According to Kiesling (2011, 164), lexical variation was once the main way to determine dialects and isoglosses. Lexical variation can occur at the word level, DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-2

8  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

but one must generally go beyond the word level (i.e., sentence and discourse level) to fully understand the meaning of a word. Essentially, a lexicon cannot be studied in isolation. Lexical meaning is dependent on context and its most immediate context is linguistic. For example, the word especie literally means “species”; however, depending on its collocation, it can have other completely different meanings, as in los ratones son una especie de mascota “mice are a sort of pet,” in which especie now means “sort” (see Simone and Masini [2014] for a more detailed discussion on this type of words). Kiesling (2011) also considers intensifiers (I am pretty tired) and address forms (tú, usted, vos “you singular”) to be lexical variants. Furthermore, we must also consider the pragmatic aspects of lexical items. For instance, when teaching the different forms of address, we need to model to students when it is appropriate to use one word or another and that their usage varies by region. Determining which lexical items to teach can be daunting for instructors of any foreign language. In Spanish, this task can become overwhelming due to the extensive variation that exists across the Spanish-speaking world. The sociolinguistic factors affecting language use can be contextual (formal, informal), social (e.g., class, age, sex, education level), and/or regional (e.g., Spain, Mexico, Southwest of the US). Regional variation, the focus of this chapter, refers to the linguistic differences that exist in any given speech community; that is, a group of individuals who share a set of linguistic patterns (Labov 1972). Typically, regional variation across speech communities is characterized by geographical criteria. However, establishing the limits of any given dialect can be problematic given the gradual and probabilistic nature of sociolinguistic phenomena. For instance, while the term Caribbean Spanish can be used to refer to Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico, it also includes Panama, Northern Venezuela, and coastal Colombia. Moreover, this macro-region is not homogenous, and lexical differences can be attested in insular versus continental varieties. The difficulty in determining dialectal areas raises several issues for language instructors. Are we supposed to teach regional variation ­taking into account geopolitical divisions (e.g., the Mexican and Argentinian dialect), or should we look into linguistic research and include regional variants based on empirical evidence? Although the latter option would be ideal, the former seems to be more practical. Moreover, regional variation does not occur in a vacuum: That is, there is also variation within each dialect. When we teach one lexical item, even if it is from a specific region, we must also ask ourselves if this variant is used by the general population, or if there is a sex/age/class divide, as well as if its use varies according to the interlocutor’s characteristics and/or register. Consequently, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the acquisition and teaching of regionally and socially appropriate vocabulary. Sociolinguistic aspects of vocabulary teaching are often difficult to address in the context of a regular classroom in which formal and limited social situations are the norm. In the remainder of this chapter, we aim to provide our readers with some useful ideas and tools to identify and teach target vocabulary items that are suitable for the social context that students may be exposed to while interacting with a diverse group of speakers. Section 2 provides a detailed review of the general aspects of vocabulary acquisition. Some of the key questions asked here include: What does it mean to

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  9

be sociolinguistically competent in a language? What role does vocabulary play in learner competency? What do language teaching frameworks say about the student proficiency and vocabulary? And what goals should the instructor have for the student regarding regional variation? Section 3 then analyzes the pedagogical implications of lexical and regional variation. Some of the main questions dealt with here include: How should a language instructor choose the vocabulary items for any given lesson? What social and linguistic factors should they take into account? Section 4 provides the reader with three task-based lesson plans that they can implement in their classroom. Finally, we conclude with a brief overview of the main topics covered in this chapter.

2.  Vocabulary acquisition One issue that instructors face when deciding what lexical items to teach is the lack of attention given to this topic in pedagogical research. In Spanish, researchers are mostly interested in morphosyntactic-lexical variation and tend to focus on issues such as subject expression (e.g., Linford and Shin 2013; Geeslin, Linford, and Fafulas 2015), copula choice (e.g., Geeslin 2000, 2013), clitics (e.g., Salgado Robles 2015), and future expression (Regan, Howard, and Lemée 2009), among others. Classroom vocabulary lists make little reference to lexical variation and usually stick to the traditional one-lexical-form  =  one-meaning approach. However, in order to be successful second language (L2) users, students would benefit from developing richer linguistic awareness from the point of view of lexical variation. Dewaele (2007) indicates that traditional classroom learners are exposed to basic vocabulary with a denotative meaning. These items are considered broad enough to be used in the majority of regions and social situations. Issues related to connotative meaning, or different denotative meanings shared by specific speech communities, are often not addressed or remain an afterthought in the classroom context. Such lack of exposure is problematic since learners must be sociolinguistically competent to be successful L2 users while interacting with other speakers. That is, they must be able to use a speech community’s sociocultural and discourse rules. Such competence will allow them to decipher “utterances for social meaning, particularly when there is a low level of transparency between the literal meaning of an utterance and the speaker’s intention” (Canale and Swain 1980, 30). Sociolinguistic competence covers a broad range of aspects such as “situations, variation [on linguistic choices], switch-on, participants, content [e.g., politeness], message form, channel and management, and pragmatics” (Marriot 1995, 198). In other words, lexical variation is at the core of sociolinguistic competence considering that learners must use individual lexical variants (e.g., tú “you informal” versus usted “you formal” versus vos “you regional”) in order to produce speech that is appropriate for any given situation in any given geographical area. The general focus of vocabulary research has been on the cognitive factors that facilitate its acquisition, as well as the most effective pedagogical strategies to present and model its usage in the classroom. Lexis, the collection of words in a language, is at the core of second language acquisition since vocabulary items carry the basic

10  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

meaning of any utterance. Thus, having an ample vocabulary is necessary in order to attain a good level of proficiency in any L2. This holds true for frameworks like the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL), where a broad range/ repertoire of lexical items is seen as an essential element of high-level proficiency. For instance, the ACTFL guidelines for advanced interpersonal skills indicate that for this level the student “Comprehends and produces a broad range of vocabulary related to school, employment, topics of personal interest, and generic vocabulary related to current events and matters or public and community interest” (ACTFL 2015, 15). The CEFRL guidelines for vocabulary state that a student in the C2 level (highest level) “Has a good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms; shows awareness of connotative levels of meaning” (Council of Europe 2001). However, despite the fact that vocabulary is central to high-level proficiency, consideration of its acquisition has remained secondary. Instead, (morpho)syntax has been the main focus of Second Language Acquisiton (SLA) theory (Haastrup and Henriksen 2001). This focus might be because vocabulary “does not represent the finite and relatively neat system that can be found in grammar” (O’Dell 2000, 59). This description implies that it is difficult for learners to know all the words and their context of use. Even in the case of native speakers, knowledge of vocabulary usage is finite. Vocabulary learning is a process that never ends and that depends on speakers’ experiences and exposure to different social/regional contexts. These factors make it difficult for researchers to agree on what words to teach, how to teach them, and/or what it means to “know a word.” It can be mentioned that the process of developing knowledge about a word comes together with familiarity and automatization of its meaning and appropriate context of use. Despite the difficulty of word-level instruction, in the last few decades, we have seen an increasing interest in the topic (e.g., Dewaele and Pavlenko 2002; Tight 2010; Sommers and Barcroft 2013). Different scholars have focused on diverse aspects of vocabulary acquisition. Haastrup and Henriksen (2001), for example, propose a central distinction between receptive and productive vocabulary. The former is associated, in this particular article, with reading and the latter is associated with writing. Knowing a word has also been divided into receptive and productive knowledge. Receptive knowledge entails that the learner must recognize the word, understand its morphological structure, and know its semantic meaning in context; whereas the productive knowledge of a word consists in its proper writing, pronunciation, and use in context (cf. Nation 2001b). Accordingly, language instructors need to decide the capacity in which new vocabulary items will be used. For example, when reading an authentic text from Argentina learners might be faced with the colloquial word quilombo “mess,” as in example (1). (1) Para ordenar esta economía, que es un quilombo, necesitás un Ministro de Economía (Prat Gay, Argentinian ex-Minister of Finance, August 18, 2018) “To fix this economy, that is a mess, you need a Finance Minister”

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  11

Should learners only be able to recognize the word and make the necessary sociolinguistic associations, or should they incorporate it into their oral or written speech? According to the CEFRL, learners must be able to use an ample repertoire of colloquialisms. Colloquialisms might be easy to teach in languages that are spoken in limited areas. However, for Spanish, one must ask the extent to which learners are able to acquire colloquialisms from all 21 Spanish-speaking countries, and how feasible/beneficial it would be to incorporate them in the classroom. The definition of context is also problematic, as it is further complicated by the social situation in which language is used appropriately (regional variety, repertoire, concrete information about the interlocutors, topic, etc.). Using a word in context provides another set of questions, particularly in the case of Spanish, a language with 472 million speakers in four continents. Variation is inherent to any language and vocabulary learning is connected to the particular social contexts speakers experience every day. Classroom teaching is typically limited to reproducing particular settings that tend to be formal. By including socially and pragmatically appropriate vocabulary, we reach another line of study, that of the acquisition of phraseological units/idioms (i.e., multiword, fixed, non-compositional, lexically restricted units; Bolly 2009, 202), which has been considered a difficult area even for advanced learners (Bolly 2009). For example, Bolly (2009) found that advanced French learners overuse collocations with the verb donner “to give” (e.g., donne la possibilité “give the possibility”), but underuse formulaic phrases with prendre “take” (e.g., Prenons un exemple typique, “let”s take a typical example”). Bolly argues that the results can be explained by taking into account that donner is acquired first, that it is a productive verb that is used in a wide range of linguistic contexts, and that it is a verb that results in positive transfer. Further inquiry regarding the acquisition of these formulaic expressions may include not only the linguistic makeup of the expression but also their appropriate use in different social contexts. In terms of linguistic skills, successful acquisition of formulaic expressions may be an indicator of language proficiency (Zyzik 2010). Another line of study in vocabulary acquisition focuses on task differences. For example, Tight (2010) investigated the role of perceptual modality (e.g., visual, auditory, tactile) and found that the acquisition and retention of the target vocabulary items was not significantly affected by modality. Sommers and Barcroft (2013) found similar results regarding visual modality. They analyzed the effects of visual token variability (i.e., different pictures of a target item versus same picture of the target item) and found that the use of different pictures of a target item has a negative impact on the acquisition of an accompanying word. Consequently, language instructors could use these results to their advantage. When teaching regional variants, they could present each word with a stereotypical picture (e.g., a map, a flag) of the region associated with the word. These results contrast with other studies (e.g., Barcroft and Sommers 2005) regarding phonological referent variability, where it was found that having a vocabulary item spoken by different speakers facilitates the acquisition of a particular item.

12  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

3.  Pedagogical implications of lexical variation Vocabulary teaching represents a challenge for language instructors since it is always difficult to choose which lexical items best suit the needs of students. Nonetheless, the most important aspect is to present the items in a context that may reflect actual use in the community. Moreover, research is scarce on the acquisition of regional vocabulary variants (i.e., different lexical items to express the same referent or the same items expressing a different referent). This section examines some pedagogical implications of lexical variation, followed by a set of lesson plans that could be used as a model to fill this gap in learners’ language production.

3.1.  Frequency and context of use Textbook vocabulary lists are problematic since they often reflect so-called “standard” vocabulary and contain words that might not be suitable for the students’ social context. The use of the term “standard” may also be problematic, as there is no consistent and unanimous consensus on what the standard variety of a language may be. The work of Poplack and Dion (2009) and Malvar and Poplack (2008) has demonstrated that, in languages such as French and Portuguese (with a long historical tradition of prescriptive grammars), robust conceptualizations of what it means to have a standard variety are scant. In the particular case of vocabulary items, “standard” items may refer to words that are both highly frequent and used in a wide variety of contexts. For example, high frequency refers to the 2000 most frequent words (Nation 2001a) that, according to Read (2004), account for 80% of any written text. Nation (2001a) argues that low frequency vocabulary will cause difficulties for language learners in their second language acquisition. Nevertheless, frequency lists can be inappropriate due to the diverse methodologies used for tracking frequency and the diversity of available corpora, because they do not reflect the social values attached to language use. For example, an electronic corpus that does not distinguish the origin of the texts would be problematic. Vocabulary teaching cannot be solely based on frequency, as this approach may neglect other sociolinguistic aspects of L2 acquisition. Frequency may be different based on geographical areas as well as social stratification. These frequency differences may be particularly relevant for content words, which may have different meanings depending on the regional or social variety. For example, Spanish is spoken in over 20 countries, and the most frequent items in certain geographical areas may be of little use, or less frequent, in other areas. This idea can be illustrated with the Spanish word mercado, which is the most common word to refer to a “food market.” However, in Mexico, the word tianguis is also used for this purpose and is highly frequent in this dialect. Another example is the word palta; while it is the most frequent term to refer to an “avocado” in Chile and certain parts of the Spanish-speaking world, the word aguacate is used in Mexico and other countries.

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  13

Another issue with frequency lists is the fact that they do not take into account the collocations in which words occur. This is further complicated by the fact that the context in which a word appears might alter its meaning, both in a literal sense and possibly figuratively, too: (2) a. La capital de Perú es Lima. “The capital of Peru is Lima.” b. Ella invirtió todo su capital en la bolsa de Nueva York. “She invested all of her capital in New York’s stock exchange.” For example, in (2a) the use of the word capital refers to the legislative, economic, or administrative center of a particular jurisdiction, whereas in (2b) capital refers to money or assets invested. Note that the meanings and collocations of capital closely resemble those of English, which may or may not always be the case with other lexical items across languages. Therefore, instructors must decide which meaning(s) to teach (see section 4 for more details on current methods). There may be certain areas of vocabulary that are more likely to show regional and social variation, and good examples may be found in food items such as fruits, vegetables, and cultural activities. The same holds true for various morphosyntactic variants. For instance, the present perfect (e.g., esta mañana he comido pizza “this morning I  have eaten pizza”) is far more common in Spain, where its use has extended to non-immediate futures, whereas in Argentina, the most common variant is the preterit (e.g., esta mañana comí pizza “this morning I ate pizza”). These issues leave us with many questions: Do we teach the most frequent variant overall? Do we teach the most frequent meaning? Are learners supposed to acquire the geographical variants as they travel and/or meet people from other Spanish-speaking countries? Or should they be exposed to them in the classroom? While frequency is one factor to take into account, other contextual and pedagogical goals must also guide our decisions. In our approach to vocabulary teaching, we advocate for the teaching of language in context, so that vocabulary is introduced as relevant material for the teaching of content such as lesson on food preparation, ordering in a restaurant, buying groceries at the supermarket, and so forth. Particular vocabulary items with sociolinguistic value can be part of short cultural activities that are presented in the wider context of a lesson.

3.2.  Learner needs In recent decades, the rapid growth of computational linguistics and associated software and platforms have allowed for the creation of new tools to help to identify vocabulary items that better fit learner needs. Eisenstein et al. (2010) created a computational model to identify lexical variation by topic and geographical region in the United States. They applied their cascading model to Twitter data (cf. Einstein et al. for a detailed explanation of the technicalities of the model) in order to categorize data from different US regions. For example, they found that Spanish lexical

14  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

items such as papi “daddy” and nada “nothing” tend to appear more frequently in regions with large Spanish-speaking populations, and the term cab is more frequent in New York Spanish. Such tools could be extrapolated to other languages and could serve as the baseline for instructors’ identification of the target vocabulary for their classrooms. Instructors can benefit from such tools once they become more user-friendly. For instance, instead of solely depending on any given textbook’s vocabulary list, language teachers can undertake geotopical searches according to the target language community under study or the community in which the students reside. To illustrate, let us imagine that in a Spanish classroom in Tucson, Arizona, the topic is travel and transportation, and coche/carro “car” is given as one of the forms of transportation. However, pickup trucks are also a frequent mode of transportation in the area, and the regional word for this type of car is troca/troka. Thus, if the instructor researches all the different ways to refer to a car locally, then they can teach vocabulary items in a student-centered way that allows learners to succeed in interactions with local speakers. This strategy aligns with the approach described by Gutiérrez and Fairclough (2006), who stress the need to prioritize local Spanish varieties while exposing students to the large sociolinguistic diversity inherent in the Spanish-speaking world. This is especially relevant in the US where students are most likely to encounter and use real-world Spanish in their immediate communities. For the instructor, this requires a good level of understanding of the regional reality and the varieties involved. Furthermore, vocabulary teaching can also address some of the learners’ needs concerning professional preparation. For instance, O’Dell points out that the goal of teaching vocabulary should be “in accordance with their [learners’] own individual learning purposes” (O’Dell 2000, 59). One approach here is to develop specific courses such as Spanish for the Health Professions or Business Spanish. In content courses such as those that relate to health workers, the design of any syllabus should focus on learning about the medical community in the Hispanic linguistic world and the relevant cultural practices implicit in the treatment of patients. Topics/themes, readings, and cultural activities may target general issues, primary care issues, vaccinations, healthcare prevention, and the relevant vocabulary associated with these areas. However, a note of caution should be adopted here. While such courses provide a student-centered approach to learning that allows learners to develop certain outcomes and objectives, they also represent the same issue that has been discussed throughout the chapter: What specific lexical variants should we teach? For example, in a Spanish for the Health Professions course, would we teach the word citología for the term “pap smear” that is more common in Spain, or the term papanicolau, which is more common in Mexico? This issue can be solved by conducting a needs analysis, in which instructors identify the learners’ needs in order to create an informed syllabus that addresses them (Long and Crookes 1991). Instructors must in turn create real-world tasks that will prepare learners to face the language in outside-of-the-classroom settings. By doing so, instructors will not only identify the outside-of-the-classroom tasks that learners might face but will also identify

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  15

the target vocabulary items that the community uses in each context. Thus, if the learners’ goals were to study or live in Spain, then a word such as citología would be appropriate, whereas if they were planning to do such activities in Mexico, the word papanicolau would be more suitable. Furthermore, sometimes learners do not have plans to go abroad; instead, instructors should look for the specific lexical items that are used in learners’ communities (e.g., Chicago versus Miami).

3.3. Formality As stated in the introduction, lexical variation cannot be extracted from its context (linguistic or social). Additionally, an important factor that arises when choosing what vocabulary to teach is the role of formal and informal variants and the importance that one should have over the other. Rehner, Mougeon, and Nadasdi (2003) indicate that pedagogical materials prioritize formality over other modes, where formal variants tend to be syntactically more complex than informal ones. Consequently, lexical acquisition becomes a moving target subject to an “abstract set of complex native variation patterns” (Dewaele 2007, 18). As such, learners must, in turn, understand that they need to consider such variation in order to produce language that is contextually appropriate. Formality also varies according to geographical region: In a language spoken in over 20 countries, this variation is further augmented. For instance, the use of usted to address a college professor in Spain might be seen as extremely formal, whereas in Mexico, it would be the expected form. Knowing that different variants are appropriate for different contexts is crucial for learners. If, as Rehner, Mougeon, and Nadasdi (2003) state, learners’ language use is merely formal, when they interact with a speaker in an informal context, there can be a breakdown in communication. Even if there is not, learners can also be perceived as less fluent or proficient since they do not know how to vary their speech. The inclusion of a wide range of texts that reflect the different dialects of Spanish should be a goal for all learning; such activities should go from the most formal language to the more casual interaction in different countries.

4. Communicative language teaching and task-based learning The ideal framework for the teaching of sociolinguistically oriented vocabulary seems to be Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which “improves the student’s ability to communicate” (Littlewood 2011, 542). CLT is concerned with the teaching of the communicative value that words and sentences have in different contexts and in actual interactions, as opposed to the sole teaching of their meaning as is typical in other methods, such as grammar-based teaching (cf. Littlewood 2011 for a brief but informative history on CLT). This type of teaching would be insufficient for the learners’ sociolinguistic development, as learning the meaning of a word is only the first step. They must then decipher the different linguistic contexts in which they appear (e.g., if it is in a prefabricated collocation, and if it

16  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

preserves its literal meaning or not). After all linguistic factors have been considered, a learner’s needs must then be considered to identify the appropriateness of any given lexical item in any given situation. Among many other factors (e.g., register), this includes deciding if the word is common to most geographical areas or if it is a regionalism (i.e., particular to a specific geographic area). If it were a regionalism, then the learner must decide if the lexical item is indeed from the region in which she/he resides. As such, the learner will not only have a vast vocabulary repertoire but also the sociolinguistic competence to thrive in and outside of normal classroom interactions. Under the umbrella of CLT, Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) forms a major tenet of the action-oriented approach to language teaching. TBLT can be considered a form of teaching that is focused on communication of meaning, encouraging learners to use their previous linguistic knowledge and available cognitive resources to accomplish a real-world goal, such as making a request or telling a story (Ahmadian 2016). The principal advantage of this methodology is that it engages students in active language learning by creating a context that they could reasonably encounter in daily life, and, therefore, encourages the application of both recently- and previously-taught knowledge. This allows students to connect previous experiences to new experiences in the target language, thus converting classroom experiences into intake and facilitating acquisition. TBLT is defined as an activity centered on everyday language used to complete goals such as requesting an appointment, making a phone call to the dentist, ordering a meal in a restaurant, etc. Although various authors (e.g., Long 1985; Skehan 1998) have worked on tasks and task-based teaching, this chapter adopts Ellis’ (2003, 2009) approach to a task. For him, there are four key characteristics of tasks: (a) meaning should be the primary focus of a task, (b) there should be a gap that the learner needs to fill, (c) learners need to use their own (non)linguistic resources to complete the task, and (d) and the task should have a clear outcome (Ellis 2009, 223). For TBLT, he proposes three key characteristics: (a) there must be natural language use, (b) there must be a focus on form, and (c) there can be focused and unfocused tasks (225). It is important to note that Ellis does not reject traditional approaches to language teaching; rather he sees them as complementary to TBLT. Finally, TBLT consists of three main stages (Ellis 2003). The first one is the pre-task stage where students prepare to perform the task in ways that will promote acquisition (e.g., performing a similar task, strategic planning, 244). The second stage is the task phase, in which students perform the task at hand. The third and final stage is the post-task phase, in which learners have the opportunity to repeat a performance of the task, reflect on their learning, and have their attention drawn to focus on form. These activities could include assessments to measure the effectiveness of instruction. Finally, it is important to note that task complexity (cf. Robinson 2001) might have an impact on the type of vocabulary that will be elicited. For example, De Jong et al. (2012) measured lexical diversity using the Guiraud’s index in speech samples of native speakers (NS) and non-native speakers (NNS) of Dutch from

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  17

43 different native languages. They found that tasks that were more complex elicited a more diverse vocabulary repertoire. Thus, language instructors must consider that students might not be producing an ample vocabulary because of the task and not because of their lack of vocabulary knowledge. In what follows, we present four lessons that instructors can adapt to their L2 classrooms, regardless of the language they teach.

5.  Sample lessons Vocabulary is also subject to phonological (e.g., Barcroft and Sommers 2005), syntactic, and discoursal (e.g., Dewaele 2007) variation. Thus, learners must use all their resources to determine if a lexical item is being used appropriately. In her study, Laufer (1994) found that vocabulary growth does not necessarily correlate with a student’s variation of their lexical repertoire. Therefore, she calls for the explicit teaching of lexical variation via reformulation exercises. It is in these instances where regional variants should be included. On the other hand, Dewaele (2007, 19) states that “no amount of classroom instruction can suffice to instill the intuition of what sociolinguistic variant is appropriate for a specific situation.” Nonetheless, classroom instructors can do their best to prepare students for outside-of-the classroom settings, considering, of course, the target regional variant. This section of the chapter provides four pedagogical examples on how to teach lexical variation in the Spanish classroom from a TBLT perspective: One purely lexical, and one discursive-pragmatic approach.

5.1.  Lexical lessons The use of a lexical item can give the hearer a lot of information about the social class, gender, and nationality, among other things, about the speaker. For example, the use of pop over soda in English can provide the receiver with information about the geographical origin of a person. The same holds true for learners; they can recognize the potential origin of an interlocutor, and they can create an L2 identity by using one word or another. Generally speaking, textbooks choose the most “common” lexical variant and sometimes make mention of some other variant. However, this is not systematic. The purpose of this lesson is to create awareness among learners about lexical variation, its causes, and consequences in any given society. Communicative outcome: To talk about lexical variation found in Spanish, the possible origins of such variation, and the possible social implications that it has in a given society. See Appendix A for the teaching materials for this task. Proficiency level: Intermediate Target language: Spanish. The lesson is conducted in the target language. Duration: 1 hour Pre-task: 15 minutes

18  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

Learners will have to come up with a definition and an example for the words synonym, antonym, and homonym. As a class, the instructor discusses with learners their answers and their examples. The instructor gives learners an activity that they can complete individually or in pairs where they need to match a set of synonyms and antonyms and give a definition of a set of homonyms (see Appendix A  for a sample activity). The instructor can decide if learners can use additional resources such as a dictionary or the Internet to complete the task. The instructor checks learners’ answers as a class activity in which they go through the activity sheet and resolve any questions or concerns. Task: 30 minutes Drawing on some of the words from the previous task, in pairs or individually, learners will reflect on some of the reasons for dialectal variation. Go over answers as a class and write answers on the board. Next, watch a video about words that come from Nahuatl (PRECISA Traducciones profesionales 2017) and have students answer the questions found in Appendix A. Finally, in pairs or individually, learners come up with the different definitions for the homonyms provided and the country they come from. Go over answers as a class (see Appendix A). Post-task: 15 minutes Learners will reflect on the lexical variation of the US as compared to dialects of other Spanish-speaking countries (see Appendix A  for a set of questions for reflection). Communicative outcome: Talk about food traditions in different Hispanic cultures and the use of corn to prepare tamales, hallacas, and similar dishes. Target language: Spanish. The lesson is conducted in the target language. Duration: 40 minutes Pre-task: 10 minutes Learners will make a list of their favorite foods with corn: What types of foods have they prepared in the past? When are these dishes prepared? Do these dishes require family help? Are these popular or rare dishes? Do they know their origin? Students will prepare the questions in groups for 5 minutes and then share their answers for 5 minutes. Task: 30 minutes All students will watch brief videos that talk about how to prepare a tamal (La Cocina De Lina 2018) and an hallaca (Ross 2015). Take note of the ingredients and the process of making each dish – how they are similar and how they are different. For this purpose, students may work in small groups (one set of groups will work on the tamal and the other on the hallaca). After 15 minutes of preparing the materials, students will present the topic. One group will talk about tamales and another about the hallaca, and the whole class will discuss their similarities and differences. Post-task: 10 minutes Students may share ideas about their favorite recipe, other corn dishes in their culture, and how they compare with what they learned in the lesson. They could also identify other dishes that are similarly prepared in other Hispanic speaking countries similar to the tamal and the hallaca.

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  19

5.2.  Discursive-pragmatic lexical lesson Lastly, we provide a discursive-pragmatic lesson considering that the lack of pragmatic skills can have a greater impact, positive or negative, on the communicative interaction. For example, the use of tú, vos, or usted can be viewed as rude, overly formal, and/or overly familiar depending on the characteristics of the interlocutor and the speech event. Communicative outcome: Refusals: How to refuse something. Proficiency level: Intermediate. Target language: Spanish. It is expected for the lesson to be conducted in the target language. Duration: 50 minutes Pre-task: 15 minutes Students will work in small groups to talk about what happens when you refuse an invitation. What can you do to not make the other person feel bad? What kind of words can they use to effectively express that you do not wish to accept the invitation? Students will provide a list of words and expressions that may be useful. Task: 20 minutes Students will listen to audio extracts with example refusals in Mexican Spanish from the Pragmatics and Discourse at Indiana University (IU) webpage (FélixBrasdefer 2021). In small groups, they will take note of the useful words in the audio, the strategies used, whether the speakers are more direct or indirect in their use of language and other cultural differences. Post-task A: 15 minutes Students will now work on comparing how the vocabulary they selected in the pre-task is different or similar from the language found in the sample audios. What new expressions did they learn? What are the cultural similarities and differences between Mexican Spanish and their own culture? Do they have preferences for a particular version of the apologies? If so, why? Post-task B: 15 minutes Find a video/audio of another Spanish-speaking dialect and compare and contrast it with the one we worked with in class.

6. Conclusions This chapter has provided a general panorama of the methodological advances in research concerning the acquisition of vocabulary with a special emphasis on Spanish. From the literature review, it is clear that learners often lack the ability to vary their speech given the limited nature of their exposure to different varieties of Spanish in the classroom where formal registers are favored. Even in the case of study abroad experiences, limited interactions with NS and informal registers may explain the underdeveloped sociolinguistic competence of L2 students. We advocate for the teaching of language in reference to the cultural context, so that vocabulary is introduced as relevant material for the teaching of content such as food preparation, ordering in a restaurant, buying groceries at the supermarket,

20  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

and so forth. Particular vocabulary items with sociolinguistic value should form part of short cultural activities that are presented in the wider context of a lesson. As mentioned earlier, the ideal framework for the teaching of sociolinguisticrelevant vocabulary seems to be CLT, and particularly TBLT, because this approach allows students to connect old and new experiences and knowledge in the target language, thereby converting classroom experiences opportunities to facilitate acquisition. We have also provided the reader with three sample lesson plans that can be adapted to teach lexical, and/or discursive-pragmatic vocabulary items. It is important to remember that lexical items cannot be taught in isolation. Moreover, researchers and instructors can benefit from technological advances to aid the selection of vocabulary items and the design of new lesson plans. As previously mentioned, Eisenstein et al.’s (2010) computational model identifies lexical variation by topic and geographical region in the US. The tools used by Eisenstein et al. (2010) provide researchers and instructors with the necessary apparatus to design lessons and research agendas. Finally, it is important to underscore the need to take various factors into account when determining which vocabulary items to teach, since not only topic and geographical region are important; but also, factors such as age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, among many others can affect the use of one lexical item over another.

7. Bibliography Ahmadian, M. J. 2016. “Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning.” The Language Learning Journal 44 (4): 377–380. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2015. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL. Barcroft, J. and S. M. Sommers. 2005. “Effects of Acoustic Variability on Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (3): 387–414. Bolly, C. 2009. “The Acquisition of Phraseological Units by Advanced Learners of French as an L2: High Frequency Verbs and Learner Corpora.” In The Advanced Learner Variety: The Case of French, eds. E. Labeau and F. Myles, 199–220. Bern: Peter Lang. Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 1–47. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Jong, N. H., M. P. Steinel, A. Florijn, R. Schoonen, and J. H. Hulstijn. 2012. “The Effect of Task Complexity on Functional Adequacy, Fluency and Lexical Diversity in Speaking Performances of Native and Non-Native Speakers.” In Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA, eds. A. Housen, F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder, 121–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dewaele, J.-M. 2007. “Diachronic and/or Synchronic Variation? The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in L2 French.” In The Handbook of French Applied Linguistics, ed. D. Ayoun, 208–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dewaele, J.-M. and A. Pavlenko. 2002. “Emotion Vocabulary in Interlanguage.” Language Learning 52 (2): 263–322.

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  21

Eisenstein, J., Br. O’Connor, N. A. Smith, and E. P. Xing. 2010. “A Latent Variable Model for Geographic Lexical Variation.” Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Cambridge, MA. Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. 2009. “Task-Based Language Teaching: Sorting Out the Misunderstandings.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19 (3): 221–246. Félix-Brasdefer, C. 2021. “Refusals in L2 Spanish. From.” https://pragmatics.indiana.edu/ teaching/refusals-spanish.html. Geeslin, K. L. 2000. “A New Approach to the Study of the SLA of Copula Choice.” In Spanish Applied Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium, eds. R. P. Leow and C. Sanz. Medford, MA: Cascadilla Press. Geeslin, K. L. 2013. “Future Directions in the Acquisition of Variable Structures: The Role of Individual Lexical Items in Second Language Spanish.” In Selected Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, eds. C. Lubbers, M. Blackwell, and S. Howe, 187–204. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Geeslin, K. L., B. Linford, and S. Fafulas. 2015. “Variable Subject Expression in Second Language Spanish.” In Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective, eds. A. Carvalho, R. Orozco, and N. Shin. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Gutiérrez, M. J. and M. Fairclough. 2006. “Incorporating Linguistic Variation into the Classroom.” In The Art of Teaching Spanish: Second Language Acquisition from Research to Praxis, eds. R. Salaberry and B. A. Lafford, 173–191. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Haastrup, K. and B. Henriksen. 2001. “The Interrelationship between Vocabulary Acquisition Theory and General SLA Research.” EUROSLA Yearbook 1 (1): 69–78. Kiesling, S. F. 2011. Linguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. La Cocina De Lina. 2018. “Cómo hacer tamales de rajas con queso.” [Video]. YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7-QOCDABuk. Laufer, B. 1994. “The Lexical Profile of Second Language Writing: Does it Change Over Time?” RELC Journal 25 (2): 21–33. Linford, B. and N. L. Shin. 2013. “Lexical Frequency Effects on L2 Spanish Subject Pronoun Expression.” In Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, eds. J. Cabrelli Amaro, G. Lord, A. de Prada Pérez, and J. E. Aaron, 175–189. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Littlewood, W. 2011. “Communicative Language Teaching: An Expanding Concept for a Changing World.” In The Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, ed. E. Hinkel, 541–557. London and New York: Routledge. Long, M. H. 1985. “A Role for Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Task-Based Language Teaching.” Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition 18: 77–99. Long, M. H. and G. Crookes. 1991. “Three Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design.” TESOL Quarterly 26 (1): 27–56. Malvar, E. and S. Poplack. 2008. “O presente e o passado do futuro no Português do Brasil.” In Anthony Julius Naro e a Lingüística no Brasil: uma homenágem académica, eds. S. Votre and C. Roncarati, 186–206. Río de Janeiro: Universidade Federal do Río de Janeiro Press. Marriot, H. 1995. “The Acquisition of Politeness Patterns by Exchange Students in Japan.” Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context 9: 197–224. Nation, P. 2001a. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

Nation, P.  2001b. “Using Small Corpora to Investigate Learner Needs: Two Vocabulary Research Tools.” In Small Corpus Studies and ELT, eds. M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, and R. L. Roseberry, 31–45. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. O’Dell, F. 2000. “Words: What Are They, Which to Teach and How to Teach Them?” In TESOL France Colloquium: “Words, Words, Words . . . Le poids des mots”, ed. S. Bosworth Gérôme, 59–67. France: The Journal. Poplack, S. and N. Dion. 2009. “Prescription vs. Praxis: The Evolution of Future Temporal Reference in French.” Language 85 (3): 557–587. PRECISA Traducciones Profesionales. 2017. “Palabras en náhuatl que aún usamos.” [Video]. YouTube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSngHPafbG8. Read, J. 2004. “Research in Teaching Vocabulary.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 146–161. Regan, V., M. Howard, and I. Leméem. 2009. The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rehner, K., R. Mougeon, and T. Nadasdi. 2003. “The Learning of Sociolinguistic Variation by Advanced FSL Learners.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25 (1): 127–156. Robinson, P.  2001. “Task Complexity, Task Difficulty, and Task Production: Exploring Interactions in a Componential Framework.” Applied linguistics 22 (1): 27–57. Ross, A. 2015. “Cómo Hacer Hallacas Venezolanas?” [Video]. YouTube. www.youtube. com/watch?v=Iy8nMyqvlHk. Salgado-Robles, F. 2015. “Variación dialectal por aprendientes de español en un contexto de inmersión en el extranjero: Un análisis cuantitativo del uso leísta en el discurso oral y escrito.” Lenguas Modernas 43: 97–112. Simone, R. and F. Masini. 2014. “On Light Nouns.” In Word Classes. Nature, Typology and Representations, eds. R. Simone and F. Masini, 51–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Skehan, P. 1998. “Task-Based Instruction.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18: 268–286. Skehan, P. 2003. “Task-Based Instruction.” Language Teaching 36 (1): 1–14. Sommers, M. S. and J. Barcroft. 2013. “Effects of Referent Token Variability on L2 Vocabulary Learning.” Language Learning 63 (2): 186–210. Tight, D. G. 2010. “Perceptual Learning Style Matching and L2 Vocabulary Acquisition.” Language Learning 60 (4): 792–833. Zyzik, E. 2010. “Sin pelos en la lengua: la adquisición de modismos en una clase de español como lengua extranjera.” Hispania 93 (3): 453–470.

APPENDIX A

Note: The instructions are in English for the purpose of this chapter, but the materials would ideally be provided in the target language.

Pre-task 1. Match the following words with their synonym a. chibolo b. aguacate c. guajolote d. chancho e. betabel f. chile g. tianguis h. vos i. tocino j. calzones k. fresa l. manejar m. chicle n. chica o. camiseta p. pitillo q. habichuelas r. mellizos

  1. ____ palta   2. ____ conducir   3. ____ frutilla   4. ____ tú   5. ____ mercado   6. ____ muchacha   7. ____ remolacha   8. ____ frijoles   9. ____ escuincle 10. ____ pancetta 11. ____ playera 12. ____ pajita/popote 13. ____ cochino 14. ____ ají 15. ____ pavo 16. ____ bragas 17. ____ goma de mascar 18. ____ cuates

24  Manuel Díaz-Campos and Laura M. Merino Hernández

2. Match the following words with their antonym a. subir b. guerra c. amor d. casado e. dulce f. sobrar g. superior h. limpio i. futuro j. despreciar

  1. ____ paz   2. ____ valorar   3. ____ pasado   4. ____ faltar   5. ____ soltero   6. ____ apreciar   7. ____ odio   8. ____ salado   9. ____ bajar 10. ____ inferior

During task Video questions 1. ¿Cuál es el rol de las lenguas indígenas en el español? 2. Tomate en inglés se dice “tomato”, en alemán “Tomate”, en danés “tomat”, y al igual que en estas lenguas muchas otras comparten la misma palabra. ¿Qué nos dice esto del idioma? ¿Por qué no se inventaron otras formas de decir la misma cosa? 3. Piensa y/o busca en Google otras lenguas indígenas que han tenido una gran influencia en el español. 4. ¿Qué significa la palabra cobija? ¿De dónde viene? ¿En dónde se usa? ¿Por qué crees que ha sobrevivido esta palabra? 5. Da una definición de los siguientes homónimos y del país del que provienen. El número entre paréntesis es el número de definiciones que tienes que dar, pero puede haber más. a. b. c. d. e. f. g.

zapatilla (2) bocadillo (2) bolsa (3) torta (2) chapa (2) chongo (3+) tinto (2)

6. Piensa en tres palabras que varíen geográficamente (no tienen que ser homónimos).

Post-task El español en los EEUU 1. ¿Qué es el español de los EEUU? ¿De dónde viene? 2. Piensa en el vocabulario del español de los EEUU. ¿Puedes pensar en diferencias léxicas con el español de otros países del mundo?

Identifying target Spanish vocabulary  25

3. ¿Qué significan las siguientes palabras en los EEUU y en otros países de habla hispana? a. aplicar b. aseguranza c. refinanciar d. librería 4. ¿Qué opinas de estas diferencias dialectales? ¿Son válidas? Explica. 5. ¿Hacia dónde va el español de los EEUU?

2 INPUT, TASKS, AND PROCESSING SPECIFICITY IN SPANISH VOCABULARY LEARNING Joe Barcroft

Abstract This chapter explains and exemplifies which types of input and tasks are most effective for promoting Spanish vocabulary learning in Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI). It draws on research and theoretical advances in lexical input processing, including assertions that can be made about the processing of form and meaning based on the Type of Processing-Resource Allocation (TOPRA) model (Barcroft 2002). With reference to input, the chapter recommends input that is meaning bearing and sufficiently comprehensible, increased repetition of novel words, input enhancement in both the written and spoken modes, and the gradual build-up of languagespecific word usage and meanings over time. It is also suggested that tasks not involve a large degree of semantic elaboration or forced output without access to meaning and that learners are provided with opportunities to retrieve novel words on their own. Given how these pedagogical recommendations are key tenets of Input-Based Incremental (IBI) vocabulary instruction (Barcroft 2012), the chapter also reviews the ten principles of the IBI approach and a seven-item checklist that can be used when designing IBI lessons along with a sample IBI lesson about the Galapagos Islands for intermediate learners of Spanish.

1. Introduction Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI) is ideally positioned when it comes to promoting vocabulary development in a second language (L2). When the primary goal of an activity is to communicate, to complete a task, or to learn content, as is the case with MOI, learners are afforded the conditions they need to acquire numerous components of vocabulary knowledge that we associate with high levels of DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-3

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  27

lexical competence. Among these are (a) the spoken and written form of words and multiword phrases; (b) the denotative and connotative meanings and appropriate usage of vocabulary, including appropriate widening of students’ linguistic awareness of the collocational (word-combinatory) and syntactic properties of words and phrases; and (c) appropriate mappings between acquired forms and their meanings as learners continuously refine the lexicosemantic space for words and phrases in the brain. Not all types of instruction are as advantageous as MOI in this regard. As one initial example, if an instructional program relies excessively on intentional vocabulary learning that is isolated in nature (i.e., learners study novel words using only word-picture pairs or translation pairs), learners cannot develop appropriate knowledge of the collocational properties because they gain no experience of how the words in question co-occur with other words at the level of sentences and more extended discourse. This example does not imply that there is no place for intentional and isolated vocabulary learning in MOI because there definitely can be, but with MOI, provision of input – samples of a target language to which a learner is exposed – consistently extends beyond individual words. When students come into contact with novel words that appear in sentences and more extended discourse over time, it allows them to acquire L2-specific meanings and uses, including their collocational properties, while simultaneously focusing on meaning, the most central tenet of MOI. Having noted how MOI is inherently advantageous when it comes to vocabulary learning, let us now turn to the goals of this chapter, which is to provide up-todate information for language instructors, and in particular L2 Spanish instructors, about the pivotal roles of input, tasks, and processing specificity when working to promote vocabulary learning in MOI in the most effective manner. Each of these three elements – input, tasks, and processing specificity – is discussed with regard to how it affects L2 vocabulary learning and how it can be manipulated to create conditions that yield the most effective vocabulary learning possible, as evidenced by a series of research findings and theoretical developments in the study of lexical input processing. Concrete pedagogical recommendations are also provided regarding each element as part of a larger series of recommendations that form part of Input-Based Incremental (IBI) vocabulary instruction (Barcroft 2012), an MOIcompatible approach that emphasizes (a) provision of the most optimal input possible, which includes increased repetition and different types of input enhancement (e.g., increasing talker variability of spoken word forms) of target words; (b) careful selection of tasks, some of which yield positive effects while others yield negative effects of word form learning; and (c) careful attention to the role of processing specificity when it comes to what instructors should expect from different ways of presenting novel words in the input and different tasks in which learners can engage when working with novel vocabulary. The rest of the chapter is divided into four main sections. Section 2 reviews the theoretical advances and research findings on lexical input processing that underlie the IBI approach, including discussion of the predictions of the Type of ­Processing-Resource Allocation (TOPRA) model (as detailed in section 2.1) and the extent to which they are supported by different research findings. Section 3 then

28  Joe Barcroft

focuses on how IBI vocabulary instruction, offering an explanation of the ten principles of this approach and providing a seven-item checklist that can be used to create different types of IBI lessons. Section 4 then explains how the IBI approach is compatible with and can easily be integrated into MOI, including with regard to consistent focus on meaning and involvement of multiple types (or levels) of input, a central feature of IBI lessons. Finally, in section 5, a sample IBI lesson for teaching L2 Spanish is presented along with a summary of how the principles of IBI lessons are implemented. The lesson, which is designed for intermediate or highintermediate L2 Spanish students, focuses on the Galapagos Islands, its history, and activities one could do on a theoretical trip to the Galapagos Islands.

2.  Theory and research on lexical input processing Both incidental and intentional vocabulary learning confer advantages when it comes to developing lexical competence over time. Incidental vocabulary learning refers to acquiring words during language use without explicitly intending to learn them, such as when learners pick up new words in the context of individual sentences or series of sentences while attending to pertinent information about what the meaning of a word is, how it tends to be used, words with which it co-occurs, and so forth. Intentional vocabulary learning, on the other hand, refers to when one learns a new word or phrase intentionally, such as when looking at a word-picture pair or reading a definition of a novel word, which can be a much more straightforward and transparent means of gaining access to a word’s meaning than relying on how a word is used in the context of one or more sentences. As is the case with many dichotomous concepts, the distinction between incidental and intentional vocabulary learning also can be viewed as a continuum between fully incidental at one end and fully intentional on the other. Points in the middle between the two endpoints can be viewed in terms of the degree to which the acquisition is intentional or incidental. A substantial proportion of the research on L2 vocabulary acquisition to date can be categorized according to the intentional-incidental continuum. (1) On one incidental side of the continuum, some research has focused primarily on incidental vocabulary learning, such as during reading. Studies in this area have confirmed what can be described as the relative rates of acquiring new words when one relies on incidental vocabulary learning alone. Such rates vary between 15% (Brown, Waring, and Donkaewbua 2008) and 18% (Waring and Takaki 2003) (for a more complete review of research in this area, see Schmitt 2010). (2) Toward the middle of the continuum, other research on vocabulary is better categorized as falling somewhere in between the two endpoints on the incidental-intentional continuum. In one study, Paribakht and Wesche (1997) compared effects of (a) relying on reading alone with (b) reading plus completing a series of vocabulary learning activities. They found the latter to be more effective overall when it comes to rates of vocabulary learning. (3) Finally, on the intentional side of the continuum, studies have assessed the effects of a variety of different variables and learning conditions

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  29

on intentional vocabulary learning. For example, in an early study on the effects of retrieval on L2 vocabulary learning, Royer (1973) demonstrated that flashcardbased learning of English-Turkish word pairs was higher in a group provided with particular opportunities to retrieve target vocabulary (based on viewing only one half of each translation pair) as compared to groups who were not. Other research on vocabulary has addressed issues that can be considered independently of the incidental-intentional continuum. While these areas may delve into questions that relate to whether vocabulary is learned incidentally or intentionally at times, the questions they address impinge upon both incidental and intentional vocabulary learning and can go in other directions that are independent of how vocabulary may initially be learned. Two examples would include research on productive versus receptive vocabulary knowledge (see, e.g., Melka 1997) and research on the bilingual mental lexicon (see, e.g., Kroll and Sunderman 2003). Another area that falls into this category, this one being of greatest relevance to the present chapter, is research on lexical input processing, which provided the foundations for the IBI approach that will be presented in section 3 and exemplified in section 4. Lexical input processing has been defined as “the manner in which individuals process words and lexical phrases as input” (Barcroft 2012, 14) and lexical intake as “the multiple bits and pieces of word form and the multiple bits and pieces of semantic information associated with word forms that are attended to in the input and made available to the developing lexicosemantic system” (2012, 23). The word “semantic” here can be interpreted broadly in the sense of including not only referential but also connotative meaning and, at least, some components related to usage, such as syntactic projections and knowledge about which words are associated with and tend to co-occur with a given word. Consider, for example, a case in which a learner of Spanish is exposed to the words foca “seal” and pinzón “finch” for the first time in a sentence that somehow provides sufficient context to infer meanings of both words, such as direct context when a speaker points and comments Mira, allí hay una foca y un pinzón brincando justo a su lado “Look, there is a seal and a finch hopping right next to it.” In such a case, the learner may remember the entire word foca or only acquire part of one of the words (such as p***ón) immediately and then later forget the f in foca and replace it with a z, creating zoca and then map what they do remember of pinzón and map it onto another type of bird. Both lexical input processing and lexical intake may result in partial encoding and partial retention of novel words, as word knowledge is gradually refined over time through additional lexical input processing. Research on lexical input processing, including numerous studies with implications for lexical input processing but not conceived within this particular theoretical framework per se, has tended to rely on observations about the effects of manipulating variables related to (a) how input is presented and (b) tasks that learners are asked to engage in or not to engage in when provided with opportunities to learn new vocabulary. We can refer to effects observed in each of these two areas respectively as (a) input-based effects and (b) task-based effects. Regarding input-based effects, for one research finding that is intuitive and likely to be (or at

30  Joe Barcroft

least hopefully) well known is that, in many (but perhaps not all) circumstances, the greater the number of times a target word is presented in the input, the more likely it is to be learned (see, e.g., Rott 1999). While this finding may be largely intuitive, others may be quite counterintuitive. Consider, for example, a study on task-based effects by Wong and Pyun (2012). Both researchers asked Englishspeaking learners of French or Korean to attempt to learn new words while writing each word in a sentence (sentence writing) or not doing so (no sentence writing) and found that word learning was much lower for sentence writing than for no sentence writing, and more pronouncedly so for L2 Korean as compared to L2 French. What might account for the pattern observed by Wong and Pyun? In answering this question, it can be helpful to clarify that the increases in semantic processing we associate with sentence writing (in order to reflect on contexts in which a word would be appropriate and so forth) are separate from form-oriented processing and, therefore, should not be expected to increase form-oriented learning. Given that overall processing demands were sufficiently high, the increased semantic processing (tied to sentence writing) led to decreases in form-oriented processing and form-oriented learning. This explanation is consistent with the findings of Wong and Pyun because overall word form learning decreased with sentence writing. Furthermore, if one considers L2 Korean as more formally different from English than L2 French, the more sizable negative effect of sentence writing on L2 Korean word learning makes sense. The negative effect of sentence writing was more pronounced for L2 Korean because more form-oriented processing was needed and, in the process, lost with L2 Korean learners.

2.1.  What is the TOPRA model and what does it predict? The task-based effects observed by Wong and Pyun and the explanation provided for them exemplify the pivotal role that processing specificity can play in vocabulary learning. The negative effects observed for sentence writing in their study suggest that increases in semantic processing are not helpful when what is really needed is form-oriented processing to encode and retain novel word forms. This type of mismatch between type of processing required versus type of processing used emerges across a range of input- and task-based effects that can be observed in research on lexical input processing and vocabulary learning. Therefore, before reviewing a wider range of input- and task-based effects in sections 2.2 and 2.3, effects with both theoretical implications regarding our understanding of lexical input processing and practical implications regarding the development of input-based incremental vocabulary instruction (Barcroft 2012), we first consider in this section a model that was designed to account for relationships among different types of processing and their learning counterparts, with particular focus on the semantic, formal, and mapping components of vocabulary learning. Do increases in semantic processing increase form-oriented processing and form learning? Do increases in form-oriented processing increase semantic processing and semantic learning? According to the Type of Processing-Resource Allocation

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  31

(TOPRA) model (Barcroft 2002), the short answer to both of these questions is no. In fact, following the TOPRA model, if overall processing demands are sufficiently high, increases in semantic processing can decrease form-oriented processing and learning, and increases in form-oriented processing can decrease semantic processing and learning. The TOPRA model asserts this pattern these two types of processing in question are dissociable and can exhaust resources that otherwise might be used for the other. These predictions, in addition to others, made by the TOPRA model with regard to the mapping component of vocabulary learning, have important implications for vocabulary learning and instruction, such as when it comes to informed choices about the many possible ways of presenting target vocabulary in the input and the many different types of tasks that can be assigned to learners (or not) in situations with potential vocabulary learning. Figure  2.1 presents three versions of the TOPRA model: Version A  can be applied to any set of different types of processing (three in this case, but it could be only two or it could be four or more); version B focuses on the semantic, formal, and mapping components of vocabulary; and version C narrows its focus to the semantic and formal components of vocabulary learning only. The outer lines in all versions of the model represent a learner’s overall processing resources, which may vary depending upon individual differences such as working memory and processing speed, but the main point is that all learners ultimately have limits. The inner bars with arrows above and below them in each of the models represent how processing resources needed for different types of processing can increase or decrease over time, increasing or decreasing resources available for other types of processing and their learning counterparts. In version B, for example, an increase in semantic processing would force reductions in processing resources that remain available for form- and mapping-oriented processing their learning counterparts. The evidence in favor of the TOPRA model is substantial. Recall, to begin that the findings of Wong and Pyun (2012) are consistent with the predictions of the TOPRA model. Their findings indicated substantially lower L2 word learning when learners were required to write target words in novel sentences as compared to when they were not required to do so. Applying predictions of the TOPRA model to their study, because sentence writing is a task that involves increased semantic processing, it decreased the cognitive resources available for the formal and mapping components of vocabulary learning during the study. In turn, the decreases in learners’ abilities to process the formal and mapping components of the target words resulted in decreased performance in post-task tests, in which the extent to which the learners could recall target word forms and map them to their meanings when presented with pictures that cued each target word meaning was measured. Finally, the finding that the negative effects of sentence writing were more pronounced for novel L2 Korean vocabulary as compared to novel L2 French vocabulary is also consistent with the TOPRA model in that L2 Korean words in the study were, at least very arguably, more formally novel as compared to the L2 French word forms for the English-speaking participants in the study, allowing for the potential negative effects of the semantic task (sentence writing) to emerge more readily and completely among the learners of L2 Korean.

32  Joe Barcroft

A. General version: Types of processing and learning

B. Components of vocabulary learning: Semantic, formal, and mapping

C. Semantic and formal components of vocabulary learning

FIGURE 2.1 

Type of Processing-Resource Allocation (TOPRA) model

In another study on intentional vocabulary learning with English-speaking learners of L2 Spanish, Barcroft (2002) assessed the effects of (a) increases in semantic processing using a pleasantness ratings task (indicate on a scale how positive or negative each word meaning makes you feel) versus (b) increases in form-oriented

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  33

processing based on a letter-counting task (count the number of letters in each word and circle the right number) on (a) free recall (try to call on your own) in both Spanish and English and (b) cued recall (recall based on the stimulus, in this case a picture of each target word) of Spanish target words, which were concrete nouns such as borla “tassel,” rastrillo “rake,” and resbaladilla “slide.” Results focused on increased semantic versus form-oriented tasks indicated relatively higher free recall in English for the semantic task but higher free recall in Spanish for the form-oriented task. This double dissociation, which is consistent with predictions of the TOPRA model from two angles, constituted uniquely strong support for the model, at least when it comes to intentional L2 vocabulary. To what extent do predictions of the TOPRA model apply to incidental L2 vocabulary learning as well? To address this question, let us consider a study reported by Kida (2020) in which Japanese-speaking learners of L2 English were asked to read a text in different learning conditions. One involved a semantic pleasantness ratings task (for meaning of each target word in the text, indicate how positive or negative it makes you feel). Another included a structural task, which in this case was to write the pronunciation of English words they guessed in a Japanese script, in essence seemingly form-only “translation” of each target word. There was also a control condition in which neither of these two tasks was involved. Translation-based post-test scores indicated highest levels of incidentally oriented vocabulary learning for the structural task over both the semantic task and the control on L1-to-L2 recall (but not significantly so on L2-to-L1 recall). This finding is particularly informative on two fronts. First, despite the potential of the semantic task (pleasantness ratings) to draw learners’ attention to novel words during reading, the semantic focus overrode any potential benefits of this directed attention when it came to learning the word forms. Second, the study is unique in that it demonstrates how at least one type of structural task, a type of “formal translation” of word forms from one language to the script of another, can increase incidentally oriented vocabulary learning based on L1-to-L2 recall as a measure when compared to a control condition. This finding speaks positively to the usefulness of a TOPRA perspective when it comes to incidental contexts of L2 vocabulary learning. It demonstrates what Barcroft (2015) referred to as the resource-depletion potential of increased semantic processing on incidental vocabulary learning without denying that other semantic tasks might have sufficiently appropriate attentiondrawing potential that, ultimately, could draw attention to target word forms in a manner that increases incidental L2 vocabulary learning. Although it is beyond the goals of the present chapter to review all of research support for the TOPRA model, there is a substantial quantity and range in type of evidence supporting it (see Barcroft 2015; for a review; see also Kida and Barcroft 2018, for a study on TOPRA effects on the mapping component of L2 vocabulary learning). It is critical to understand the role of processing specificity (distinctions between processing types, such as those pointed out in this section), as pointed out by the TOPRA model, when making choices about (a) the type of input provided and (b) the tasks that learners are engaged in during L2

34  Joe Barcroft

vocabulary learning and beyond. The next two sections provide brief summaries about types of input (section 2.2) and types of tasks (section 2.3) that have been found to be effective with regard to learning L2 vocabulary. These summaries also highlight cases in which processing specificity is particularly relevant to learning outcomes that instructors and language program directors should (and should not) expect from presenting input in each way and engaging learners in each type of task indicated.

2.2.  What is the most effective type of input? To begin, one of the ways in which instructors and language program directors can promote effective vocabulary learning is to present (or structure) input in ways that have been demonstrated to be effective. Following is a list of five assertions on this front. Each begins with a brief sentence stating the assertion, followed by a theoretical rationale for it, citations of studies whose findings support it, or a combination of both. Note that within this group, the pivotal role of processing specificity is highlighted for assertion 4. 1. Use input that is meaning bearing and sufficiently comprehensible. Development of form-meaning connections is predicated on provision of input that is meaning bearing and sufficiently comprehensible (see, e.g., Krashen 1985). Without meaning, there is nothing to which linguistic forms, including lexical forms, can be connected. Similarly, without sufficient comprehension, there is still no meaning and, therefore again, nothing to which forms can be connected. 2. Use input with increased exposures to novel words. As with other areas of learning, all else being equal, increasing the number of times a stimulus appears increases how well it is remembered. Studies that provide evidence of the benefits of increased exposures on incidental L2 vocabulary learning include, for example, Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996), Rott (1999), and Chen and Truscott (2010). With reference to IBI vocabulary instruction and sections 3, 4, and 5 of this chapter, Barcroft (2012) noted how increased repetition can be incorporated in meaning-oriented contexts during communication and need not be divorced from meaning in a rote manner. 3. Use input that is textually enhanced. Instructors have many options when it comes to enhancing words in print as a means of potentially drawing attention to them. In one study, for example, Barcroft (2003) found that bolding of target words in lists increased L2 incidental L2 vocabulary learning provided that the textual enhancement was sufficiently distinctive (in this case, with 3 out of 24 words bolded and fontenlarged but not with 9 out of 24 words bolded and font-enlarged). In another study, Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) found that the provision of definitions and marginal glosses of words increased incidental vocabulary learning during reading.

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  35

4. Use input with talker, speaking-style, and speaking-rate variability. In both digital formats (online or otherwise) and in-person contexts, instructors and language program directors can increase L2 vocabulary learning rates by using multiple talkers, multiple speaking styles, and multiple speaking rates. Studies by Barcroft and Sommers (2005) and Sommers and Barcroft (2007) have demonstrated substantially increased vocabulary learning rates associated with input of this nature, including, for example, increases from 38% to 64% in word learning when changing from one talker to six talkers in the earlier of these two studies. Increasing acoustic variability is one effective means of enhancing lexical input of the spoken mode. Otheres include playing classical music in the background while presenting target words, the benefits of which were demonstrated in a study by de Groot (2006). To achieve positive effects of variability on word form learning, does the input manipulation in question need to be directed at word forms and not word meaning? Sommers and Barcroft (2013) tested predictions of the TOPRA model in this regard by having absolute beginner learners of L2 Spanish attempt to learn a series of target words in three conditions: no referent token variability (only one picture of each target word referent for six repetitions), moderate referent token variability (three pictures of each target word for two repetitions each), and high referent token variability (six pictures of each target word for one repetition each). Results of the study indicated systematic negative effects for referent token variability, vocabulary learning being the lowest with high referent token variability. As is consistent with the predictions of the TOPRA model, increased semantically oriented variability did not positively affect word form learning and, instead, decrease it, in spite of previous demonstrations of the benefits of increased form-oriented variability. 5. Use input with L2-specific meanings and usage. In order for learners to acquire meanings and uses of vocabulary that are appropriate for a target language, they have to be exposed to input that conveys this type of information. One means of providing input in this nature is simply to explain different meanings and uses of target vocabulary directly. Another is to rely on sentence- and discourse-level input that includes target vocabulary in a manner that allows learners to acquire information of this nature over time, along with the collocational properties of individual words and phrases that appear in input of this nature.

2.3.  What are the most effective types of tasks? In addition to these five effective ways of presenting target vocabulary in the input, following is a list of four assertions regarding the types of tasks that are effective with regard to L2 vocabulary learning. Assertions 1 and 4 have particular ties to the role of processing specificity and the predictions of the TOPRA model. 1. Include tasks without excessive semantic elaboration. In addition to the negative effects of sentence writing demonstrated by Wong and Pyun (2012), studies have revealed negative effects for other types

36  Joe Barcroft

of semantically elaborative tasks, such as addressing questions about word meaning, generating synonyms for target words during reading, and attending to sentence-level input with more (as compared to less) informational content (see Barcroft 2012, 2015 for a review of these studies). As explained previously, this assertion regarding tasks and the research that supports it are consistent with the TOPRA model in that not only do increases in semantic processing not positively affect word form learning, they can decrease it. Understanding this type of potential effect of increased semantic processing is particularly important when it comes to the initial stages of learning novel word forms, as has been the case with most research in this area. Also consistent with the TOPRA model is the notion that increases in semantic processing result in increases in semantic learning, making semantically elaborative tasks that focus on L2 word meanings that are different than L1 meanings a much better option than tasks that involve semantic elaboration focused on meanings that are largely or wholly redundant with L1 word meanings for the same word. 2. Include tasks without ineffective types of forced output. Studies have found that tasks of a parroting nature such as copying target words (Barcroft 2004) or choral repetition of target words (Wong and Barcroft 2020) do not lead to positive effects on L2 word learning (based on posttests that require production of target word forms) and, in some cases can lead to negative effects (particularly with word copying). We refer to tasks of this nature as output without access to meaning because they do not require retrieval of the target word form based on a cue. Barcroft (2015) provides a more complete review and analysis of studies on word copying, including studies that have concluded at least some degree of benefit for word copying based on different measures. 3. Include tasks with opportunities for target word retrieval. In contrast to word copying or choral repetition, retrieving a target word or phrase is an example of output with access to meaning. Several studies, including that of Royer (1973) discussed previously have demonstrated how providing learners with opportunities to retrieve target words can increase learning rates for the words in question 4. Include tasks that increase word form processing during reading. As summarized in section 2.1., the findings of Kida (2020) revealed positive effects of “formally translating” novel English words into a Japanese script on L1-to-L2 recall. These results speak to the applicability of the TOPRA model for different issues in incidental vocabulary learning, such as during reading. One might classify the structural task used by Kida as a “mnemonic device” given the way it involves recoding L2 word forms into more familiar forms, as is the case with the Keyword Method (Atkinson and Raugh 1975), which may render the results more intuitive, but the findings beg the question What other types of structural tasks might increase incidental vocabulary learning when compared to reading only? Explorations of this question in future studies may lead

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  37

to important advances both with regard to our understanding of processing specificity in language acquisition and lesson design for L2 reading and other contexts in which novel vocabulary can be acquired incidentally.

3.  The IBI approach This section provides a brief explanation of IBI vocabulary instruction, which Barcroft (2012) defined as “an approach that presentation of target vocabulary as input early on and the incremental (gradual) build-up of different aspects of vocabulary knowledge over time” (2012, 12), noting also as advantages that it (2012, 12–15): (a) is researchbased; (b) considers limited processing capacity from a cognitive perspective; (c) is easily incorporated in a range of instructional contexts; (d) is designed to promote all aspects of vocabulary knowledge; and (e) is designed to incorporate existing and future research findings (see also Fichtner and Barcroft 2019, for an evaluation of the IBI approach in light of other approaches to L2 vocabulary instruction).

3.1.  IBI principles The ten principles of IBI vocabulary instruction (Barcroft 2012) are the following:   1. Develop and implement a vocabulary acquisition plan.   2. Present new words frequently and repeatedly in the input.   3. Promote both intentional and incidental vocabulary learning.   4. Use meaning-bearing comprehensible input when presenting new words.   5. Present new words in an enhanced manner.   6. Limit forced output without access to meaning during the initial stages.   7. Limit forced semantic elaboration during the initial stages.   8. Promote learning L2-specific word meanings and usage over time.   9. Progress from less demanding to more demanding activities over time. 10. Apply research findings with direct implications for vocabulary instruction. Note that the first and last of these principles are unsurprising due to the importance of sound curriculum design and current research knowledge to successful practice in the classroom. Many of the other principles are tied to theoretical advances and research findings on lexical input processing, as described in section 2.

3.2.  IBI checklist In addition to the ten principles, there is also checklist that can be used when creating new lessons that are based on the IBI approach. This seven-item checklist is provided here: ___ 1. I defined target vocabulary and materials needed for the activities. ___ 2. I designed the activities to be meaningful, educational, and interactive. ___ 3. I included cultural and historical information when appropriate.

38  Joe Barcroft

___ 4. I presented target vocabulary repeatedly in the input first. ___ 5. I increased the difficulty of tasks involving target vocabulary gradually over time. ___ 6. I incorporated a number of the ten principles of the IBI approach. ___ 7. I included directly applicable research findings. Note that item 1 is practical in nature. Items 2 and 3 help to ensure the presence of features one would expect in MOI, such as focus on meaning and attention to cultural and historical information. Items 4 through 6 are tied to research on lexical input processing and beyond. Item 7 (like IBI Principle 10) provides a reminder to apply up-to-date pertinent research findings on a regular basis.

4.  Integration within MOI The IBI approach was designed throughout its development to be consistent with MOI. As stated by Barcroft (2012, 13), “the IBI approach fits seamlessly within an approach to teaching that is largely meaning oriented and that encourages the development of communicative competence.” Two features of the approach that make it uniquely suited to be integrated within MOI are (a) how it treats intentional vocabulary learning as being meaning-oriented and (b) how it advocates increasing frequency of exposure to target lexical items while maintaining a focus on meaning. Each of these two are discussed and exemplified briefly in the rest of this section.

4.1.  Intentional vocabulary learning as focus on meaning Explicit grammar instruction typically involves explanation of pedagogical “rules” about how a language is supposed to work. As such, it oftentimes divorces form from meaning. Explicit vocabulary instruction, on the other hand, by its nature, does not divorce form from meaning in this way. The IBI approach recognizes this critical distinction and, in turn, advocates promoting both intentional and incidental vocabulary learning (Principle 3). While this position may not appear to be very communicative or meaning-oriented at first blush, the purpose of learning new vocabulary is to communicate better and to convey meaning in ways not previously possible. The IBI approach does not advocate excessive intentional learning of vocabulary in isolated contexts because that would limit a learner’s ability to acquire all of the statistical properties of word learning, such as acquiring shades of meanings, multiple uses, and collocational tendencies of words. What it does recommend is an appropriate place for effective intentional vocabulary learning that is meaning-focused and couched within different types of communicative, task-based, and content-focused activities.

4.2.  Increased exposure to words while focusing on meaning As indicated in section 2.2, one way to enhance vocabulary learning is to increase the number of times target words appear in the input. A unique feature of the IBI

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  39

approach is how it incorporates increased repetition while maintaining focus on meaning. Take the item hacer clavados “to dive,” for example. Instead of presenting repetitions of this term using word-picture or translation pairs in a rote manner, an instructor can include multiple instances of it while focusing on meaning in an authentic manner, as in the following: Pues sí, llegamos a una bahía y todos comenzamos a hacer clavados desde el barco. Hacer clavados es cuando saltas desde un lugar más alto para entrar al agua [gesturing to indicate “diving”]. Uno de nuestros compañeros hizo unos clavados impresionantes. ¿A ustedes les gusta hacer clavados? Repeating target words while maintaining focus on meaning, as is also exemplified in the sample activity in the next session, is another one of the many ways that IBI vocabulary instruction can be integrated in MOI.

5.  Sample lesson This section presents a sample IBI lesson for L2 Spanish about the Galapagos Islands (El rincón del SELE.com 2020) (see also, e.g., Barcroft and Méndez Santos 2021, for another sample lesson for L2 Spanish based on an audiovisual segment about the feminist movement in Spain). It is designed for intermediate-level learners and is consistent with MOI, interweaving communicative, task-based, and contentfocused elements while teaching vocabulary in an effective manner.

5.1.  Sample IBI lesson ¿Qué sabes de las islas Galápagos? ¿Te gustaría ir allí como hizo Darwin? Target vocabulary. foca, arrastrarse, cojear, piquero, pata, pico, bucear, estar como pez en el agua, tiburón, martillo, acantilado, hacer/darse/tirarse clavados, pinzón, pico, and other vocabulary that may be pertinent to discussing the Galapagos Islands and other themes related to the content and tasks to be completed in the lesson. Materials needed. Map of the Galapagos Islands, pictures of referents of target words. Step 1. As a class, do a brainstorming activity on places with natural beauty that need to be protected. Involve at least some target vocabulary in the input, clarifying meanings. For example: Sí, exactamente: el Gran Cañón es buen ejemplo. Qué lindo es, ¿no? Con todos esos acantilados rojizos y cobrizos sobre el río Colorado. ¿Qué son acantilados? Son como paredes. No te quieres acercar demasiado a los acantilados. Step 2. Let students know that you will be completing a series of activities about the Galapagos Islands. Divide students into small groups and ask them to discuss and take notes about information they know about Galapagos. Go over the information as a class, asking each group to contribute new points. All of the following should be noted, again involving target vocabulary when appropriate. For example: Sí, en Galápagos hay bastantes tiburones, por ejemplo, tiburones martillo que son esos tiburones que parece que les sale un martillo de la cabeza. Saben lo que es un martillo, ¿no? . . . Es la herramienta que utilizas para martillar clavos [gesture to show action].

40  Joe Barcroft

Each of the following should be touched upon in the discussion: the variety of animals on the islands, species found in this region, and Charles Darwin and his trip to Galapagos. Step 3. Show pictures from Galapagos and about its history, while introducing and clarifying the meaning of new words, using both the pictures and explanations. For example: Miren, esta es la isla de Santa Cruz. ¡Es increíble! Recuerdo la primera vez que llegué a esa isla en el pueblo de Puerto Ayora. Estaba como pez en el agua, es decir, muy muy contento. Recuerdo que había unas aves enormes tirándose clavados en la bahía. Fue increíble verlas dándose clavados de esa manera. Luego, al estar almorzando, vimos unos pinzones que me recordaron de la historia de Darwin en las islas. ¿Qué importancia tuvieron los pinzones en las investigaciones de Darwin? . . . Exacto, los pinzones tuvieron importancia por las diferentes formas de sus picos. Los pinzones que comían semillas tenían picos adaptados para aquello. Los pinzones que comían frutas tenían otro tipo de pico adaptado para eso. Continue showing pictures and discussing until all target vocabulary has been included. Step 4. Provide students with a list of Vocabulario útil that includes blank spaces for all target words. Each space should be followed by a clear definition of the target word in question. Give students time to try to generate each target word on their own and then go over the answers together as a class so that all students have a list of the target vocabulary with definitions. Step 5. Select a series of online readings that provide different types of information about the Galapagos Islands, including its different species and basic information about visiting, such as on a cruise ship. Divide students into small groups and have each group read one of the articles together and prepare a summary of the content of the reading and their thoughts on it. Have each group present their summary. Step 6. Divide the class into two large groups for doing online research outside of class on two topics: (1) What important scientific observations did Charles Darwin make during his visit to Galapagos? (2) What needs to be done to protect the Galapagos? All members of each of the two groups should bring information about their topic to share with the rest of their group in the next class. Step 7. In the next class, begin by administering a practice vocabulary quiz. For half of the words, provide definitions or pictures of target items, and for the other half, provide target words for the students to write definitions or draw pictures of the target word referents. Administer the quiz and then go over it as a class. When giving answers, mention various alternate Spanish-specific meanings and uses as appropriate. For example: Sí, un pico es lo que utilizan los pájaros para comer. De hecho, el verbo picar también indica comer, cuando comes algo pequeño a alguna hora del día. Por ejemplo, en un día típico yo pico algo a eso de las tres de la tarde. ¿Ustedes también? Step 8. Have the two large groups created in Step 6 meet to prepare and present information about their assigned topic. Allow each group a given amount of time to go over key pieces of information that they learned from their exploration of different sources online. These presentations can lead to large class discussions about each of the two topics, which also is likely to include new vocabulary that can be highlighted by the instructor in different ways to promote varying degrees of incidental vocabulary learning of other vocabulary that emerges, based on the content being discussed.

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  41

Step 9. Ask the entire class to vote on whether they would prefer to go on a tour of Galapagos or on their own if they were to visit. Each student can indicate their choice by raising their hand, and then the class can discuss different advantages. Show students an online article on this topic, such as the following: www.elrincondesele.com/50-consejos-practicos-para-viajar-a-galapagos-portu-cuenta/ Ask students to skim the article individually for up to 10 minutes to see if there is any information that either confirms their decision or changes their mind. Have them share their thoughts after reading the article with the rest of the class. Step 10. Summarize content covered in the lesson up to this point for the entire class, highlighting target vocabulary and (at least some) Spanish-specific meanings once again, before assigning the next activity to be conducted outside of class described in Step 11. Step 11. Have each student, outside of class, write an essay about what inspires them most to visit the Galapagos Islands and what they would do if they visited. They should address the following questions: To what extent would you like to learn more about the history of the islands? What would you do if you visited the Galapagos? Would you go on a tour or on your own? Why? What could you do to help protect the Galapagos as part of your visit or before and after your visit? What other natural wonders of the world have you not yet visited but would like to visit?

5.2.  Completion of seven-item checklist for the sample lesson The sample lesson satisfies each item in the checklist for creating IBI lessons, as summarized briefly for each item in Figure 2.2.



1. I defined target vocabulary and materials needed for the activities. Target vocabulary related to topic within larger curriculum.



2. I designed the activities to be meaningful, educational, and interactive. Interactive group work; lesson is meaningful and educational regarding Galapagos.



3. I included cultural and historical information when appropriate. Information about a unique region of Ecuador; historical information related to Darwin.



4. I presented target vocabulary repeatedly in the input first. Target words presented frequently early on (Steps 1–3) and repeatedly (Step 7) in the input.



5. I increased the difficulty of tasks involving target vocabulary gradually over time. Little output in Steps 1–3; more challenges and analysis (summaries, final essay) in later steps.



6. I incorporated a number of the ten principles of the IBI approach. Almost all principles incorporated, including Principles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.



7. I included directly applicable research findings. Advantages of increased repetition of words; benefits of opportunities for word retrieval.

FIGURE 2.2 

IBI checklist for sample lesson on the Galapagos Islands

42  Joe Barcroft

6. Conclusions Taking as a starting point the overall advantages of meaning-oriented instruction in fostering vocabulary development, this chapter highlighted which types of input and tasks are more effective than others when it comes to learning new vocabulary in Spanish. Grounded in research and theoretical advances related to lexical input processing and predictions of the TOPRA model about the pivotal role of processing specificity in vocabulary learning, a series of assertions were provided about the type of input and the types of tasks that Spanish instructors and language program directors can incorporate in order to promote vocabulary learning in an effective manner. We advocated using input that (a) is meaning-bearing and sufficiently comprehensible, (b) includes increased exposures to novel words, (c) is textually enhanced in the written mode, (d) is enhanced with talker, speaking-style, and speaking-rate variability in the spoken mode, and (e) contains Spanish-specific meanings and usage. We recommended tasks that (a) do not involve excessive semantic elaboration, (b) do not involve ineffective types of forced output of a “parroting” nature, (c) provide opportunities for retrieval of target vocabulary, and (d) increase word form processing during reading. We then explained IBI vocabulary instruction as an approach that can be seamlessly integrated within MOI, including the ten principles that characterize the IBI approach and a seven-item checklist to be used when creating IBI lessons. Finally, we provided an example IBI lesson focused on the Galapagos Islands and their history that can be implemented with intermediate-level learners of L2 Spanish.

7. Bibliography Atkinson, R. C. and M. R. Raugh. 1975. “An Application of the Mnemonic Keyword Method to the Acquisition of Russian Vocabulary.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 104: 126–133. Barcroft, J. 2002. “Semantic and Structural Elaboration in L2 Lexical Acquisition.” Language Learning 52 (2): 323–363. Barcroft, J. 2003. “Effects of Questions About Word Meaning During L2 Spanish Lexical Learning.” The Modern Language Journal 87 (4): 546–561. Barcroft, J. 2012. Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Barcroft, J. 2015. Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barcroft, J. and M. Méndez Santos. 2021. “Aplicación didáctica del método IBI con materiales audiovisuales.” In Internacionalización y enseñanza del español como LE/L2: plurilingüismo y comunicación intercultural, eds. M. Saracho Arnáiz and M. Otero Doval. Oporto: ASELE. Barcroft, J. and M. S. Sommers. 2005. “Effects of Acoustic Variability on Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (3): 387–414. Brown, R., R. Waring, and S. Donkaewbua. 2008. “Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition from Reading, Reading-While-Listening, and Listening to Stories.” Reading in a Foreign Language 20 (2): 136–163. Chen, C. and J. Truscott. 2010. “The Effects of Repetition and L1 Lexicalization on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition.” Applied Linguistics 31 (5): 693–713. de Groot, A. M. B. 2006. “Effects of Stimulus Characteristics and Background Music on Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning and Forgetting.” Language Learning 56 (3): 463–506.

Input, tasks, and processing specificity  43

El rincón del SELE.com. 2020, May 6. “50 consejos prácticos para viajar a Galápagos por tu cuenta.” www.elrincondesele.com/50-consejos-practicos-para-viajar-a-galapagos-por-tu-cuenta/ Fichtner, F. and J. Barcroft. 2019. “The Input-Based Incremental Approach to German Vocabulary: A Sample Lesson Based on the Film Barbara.” Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 52 (1): 82–102. Hulstijn, J. H., M. Hollander, and T. Greidanus. 1996. “Incidental Vocabulary Learning by Advanced Foreign Language Students: The Influence of Marginal Glosses, Dictionary Use, and Recurrence of Unknown Words.” Modern Language Journal 80 (3): 327–339. Kida, S. 2020. “Secondary Task Type, Exposure Frequency, and Their Combined Effects on Second Language Vocabulary Learning through Reading.” Second Language Research Doi: 10.1177/0267658320931919. Kida, S. and J. Barcroft. 2018. “Semantic and Structural Tasks for the Mapping Component of L2 Vocabulary Learning: Testing the TOPRA Model from a New Angle.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40 (3): 477–502. Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York, NY: Longman. Kroll, J. F. and G. Sunderman. 2003. “Cognitive Processes in Second Language Learners and Bilinguals: The Development of Lexical and Conceptual Representations.” In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, eds. C. Doughty and M. Long, 104–129. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Melka, F. 1997. “Receptive vs. Productive Aspects of Vocabulary.” In Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy, eds. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 84–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paribakht, T. S. and M. Wesche. 1997. “Vocabulary Enhancement Activities and Reading for Meaning in Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition.” In Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, eds. J. Coady and T. Huckin, 174–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rott, S. 1999. “The Effect of Exposure Frequency on Intermediate Language Learners’ Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition and Retention through Reading.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 (4): 589–619. Royer, J. M. 1973. “Memory Effects for Test-Like Events during Acquisition of Foreign Vocabulary.” Psychological Reports 32: 195–198. Schmitt, N. 2010. Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Sommers, M. and J. Barcroft. 2007. “An Integrated Account of the Effects of Acoustic Variability in First Language and Second Language: Evidence from Amplitude, Fundamental Frequency, and Speaking Rate Variability.” Applied Psycholinguistics 28 (2): 231–249. Sommers, M. and J. Barcroft. 2013. “Effects of Referent Token Variability on L2 Vocabulary Learning.” Language Learning 63 (2): 186–210. Waring, R. and M. Takaki. 2003. “At What Rate Do Learners Learn and Retain New Vocabulary from Reading a Graded Reader?” Reading in a Foreign Language 15: 130–163. Wong, W. and D. O. Pyun. 2012. “The Effects of Sentence Writing on L2 French and Korean Lexical Acquisition.” Canadian Modern Language Review 68 (2): 164–189.

3 INCIDENTAL LEARNING OF L2 SPANISH VOCABULARY María Pilar Agustín-Llach

Abstract The present chapter presents an overview of incidental vocabulary learning in the foreign language (FL). Incidental acquisition of vocabulary is a common phenomenon, especially in the L1, where most of the words are acquired incidentally as the by-product of other communicative, that is, meaning-oriented activities such as reading or essay writing. In the FL, incidental vocabulary acquisition, with a meaning-oriented focus, also plays an outstanding role. Different theoretical strands have dealt with the issue of incidental vocabulary learning trying to account for how words are acquired as the result of communicative activities. Myriad studies have explored the effectiveness of these meaning-oriented activities in incidental vocabulary acquisition. Here, a review of these studies will precede an account of activities and examples. What characterizes incidental vocabulary acquisition is that the focus during acquisition is on meaning and not on (word) form; thus, vocabulary is incorporated as the result of accomplishing another communicative activity. Finally, we will provide with some illustrative activities for incidental learning of vocabulary in L2 Spanish. We will show how Spanish as a Foreign Language (SFL) teachers can make the most of their classes by using specific communicative activities that can contribute to increasing the lexical repertoire of the students.

1. Introduction For decades, researchers have addressed the question of how language learning happens in order to guide effective language teaching methodologies (Segoviano 1996; cf. Nation 2001). The distinction between intentional and incidental acquisition is very useful in discussions on how to introduce new language forms in the foreign DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-4

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  45

language classroom in the best and most cost-effective way (e.g., Meara 1997; Nagy 1997; Sökmen 1997; Singleton 1999). This distinction has been paralleled to other dichotomies such as implicit versus explicit learning, or attended versus unattended learning (cf. Rieder 2003; Hulstijn 2013). Intentional learning through explicit practice and repetition has been shown to be very effective but very time-consuming (e.g., Laufer 2003, 2004; Elgort et al. 2017). Incidental acquisition refers to the apprehension of specific vocabulary as the by-product of activities not aimed at language acquisition specifically (cf. Hulstijn 2013). Here, reading for pleasure is the most paradigmatic example (cf. Krashen 1982). In vocabulary studies, the main difference between incidental and intentional lexical learning, to put it in an almost oversimplified way, pertains to whether the focus of the activities is on meaning or on form (Nation 2001, 2). The notion of (un) intentionality in the acquisition/learning process is essential here (cf. Rieder 2003). Previous studies that compare both learning modalities have not reached definite conclusions about which is more effective (e.g., Gass et al. 1999; Rodríguez and Sadowki 2000; Gu 2003; Laufer 2003; or Pressley, Levin, and McDaniel 1987 for L1). Here, we are specifically concerned with the incidental acquisition and teaching of the lexical component. Considering the massive number of lexical items learned through life (Hulstijn 2013, gives the figure of 20,000 for an adult, educated British speaker) both in the L1 and the other FLs, it is clear that intentional learning and systematic instruction cannot be the main and only source of lexical knowledge (cf. e.g., Laufer 2003, 2004). Furthermore, as many foreign language (FL) learners can attest, some words are learned without having been taught explicitly (cf. Criado Sánchez, Sanchéz Pérez, and Cantos Gómez 2010). This leaves incidental vocabulary acquisition with a central and determinant role in the development of lexical competence.

2.  Theory and research Rieder (2003) offers a wide array of conceptual definitions of incidental vocabulary acquisition. In general, it is acknowledged that the concept refers to the vocabulary learned as a result of performing another activity not aimed at vocabulary learning. For Gass (1999), incidental vocabulary acquisition is the by-product of other exercises aimed at comprehension and meaning transmission. This does not imply that the acquisition is “unconscious” in any way, but that there is no explicit intention to learn vocabulary in the task at hand, that is, text comprehension. In a widely cited study, Ellis (1994) argues that within incidental vocabulary acquisition, formal aspects of lexical items are acquired in an implicit way, that is, without awareness, whereas semantic or meaning aspects, such as inferring meaning from contexts, are acquired more explicitly, with awareness, but without intention (cf. Rieder 2003). Restrepo Ramos (2015) identified three main factors influencing the incidental learning of vocabulary: (a) the amount of exposure to the specific lexical items, (b) the use of word-guessing strategies, and (c) the quality of context for lexical inference. Particularly important here is the proficiency level of the students and

46  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

their previous lexical knowledge. The more words they know, the better off they are set to guess the meanings of unknown words from context (cf. Pulido 2003). In the same line, Rieder (2002) alludes to (a) procedures or strategies applied in meaning inference, (b) the reading task and learner factors (e.g., proficiency), and (c) inferencing-enhanced contexts, e.g., glosses, as variables affecting incidental vocabulary acquisition. She also deals with the notion of word saliency and relates it to the individual interest of the learner in that word, which will determine meaning guessing and commitment to memory. Going into the specifics of each of these variables would go beyond the scope of this chapter, but see Restrepo Ramos (2015) for an unfolding of these. In terms of important theories and models that try to account for how incidental vocabulary learning takes place, this section explores the following: (1) input hypothesis, (2) output hypothesis, (3) interaction hypothesis, (4) involvement load hypothesis, and (5) the TOPRA model.

2.1.  Input hypothesis Krashen (e.g., 1989) has argued that a learner who is regularly exposed to the FL will notably improve the size and depth of his/her lexical repertoire. The input needs to be comprehensible, that is, a bit beyond the learners’ level so that they can figure out the new linguistic aspect; in lexical terms, we say that comprehensible input is that which includes few unknown words within a context of known lexical items (cf. Krashen 1985). Hence, massive exposure to the FL is the necessary and sufficient condition for learning to happen. This “non-instruction” trend suggests that when the learner encounters a new word while performing another communicative activity not directed at vocabulary acquisition, e.g., reading, he or she will be able to guess its meaning. As the learner is repeatedly exposed to this word, meaning retention will improve and information about the word expanded (Laufer 2004). Whereas this seems to be widely demonstrated for native language development (Krashen 1989; Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Gardner 2004), its validity in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is controversial and far from conclusive. Although we will deal with the different methods and techniques within incidental vocabulary acquisition next, we state at the outset that reading, especially extensive reading for pleasure, is considered to be a prototypical activity of incidental vocabulary acquisition for contenders of the input hypothesis (see esp. Krashen 1989). In fact, Krashen (1989) and other advocates of the input hypothesis (Zahar, Cobb, and Spada 2001; Rodrigo, Krashen, and Gribbons 2004) maintain that reading by itself can lead to satisfactory levels of vocabulary development in the L2. Reading can be enhanced with comprehension questions. Previous studies have shown that answering general and specific questions about the content of text after reading enhances learning (cf. Rott 2004). More recent developments of the input hypothesis pay attention to the determinants that influence or contribute to learning. For instance, frequency of the target word in the input, number of repetitions, and the quality of the context are some elements that have a greater impact on acquisition and incidental word learning.

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  47

2.2.  Output hypothesis Questioning the contention that comprehensible input is a sufficient condition for vocabulary acquisition in the L2, Swain (1985) formulated the “output hypothesis” or “comprehensible output hypothesis.” She proposed that in order for language to develop, for vocabulary to be acquired, learners must be given the opportunity to produce language. Thus, when learners are made or pushed to produce in the target language, they can notice the gap or unbalance between their intended message and their knowledge to express it. This realization leads to a process of solution searching: That is, learning. Therefore, attention is drawn to relevant input to foster new learning (cf. Swain 1985). In this sense, producing language in the L2 facilitates the learning of new linguistic information or contributes to consolidating existing knowledge. In this sense, the input and output hypotheses complement each other. Unfortunately, experimental studies on the influence of production-based tasks on learners’ lexical acquisition are relatively few. Most of them point to positive results from output tasks over input only (cf. Song 2010). For instance, Browne (2003) compared the effects of a “pushed output” task, a reading comprehension exercise, and a vocabulary task on lexical learning. He found that for different proficiency levels, the output task, a writing task, obtained far higher lexical gains than the other two. Very much along the same line, Song (2010) found out that a translation output task was superior to an input or reading comprehension task in the noticing and acquisition of lexical phrases. In the same vein, Yaqubi, Rayati, and Gorgi (2010) study points to the output-oriented task, a gap-filling task, showing higher results for word retention than input-oriented tasks. Huang, Willson, and Eslami (2012) conclude that learners performing output tasks did better than those who completed independent reading after analyzing a series of research studies that compared input and output tasks. Some other studies have found more inconclusive results (Izumi et  al. 1999; Feng and Huang 2004; Song 2010). Specifically, Rott (2004) found that there was no advantage for output tasks over reading alone as far as lexical acquisition and retention are concerned, although different output tasks led to variable results themselves. It can be argued that output tasks, by having learners do something with the target words, will yield higher degrees of lexical retention. However, input tasks may compensate for this lack of production by providing learners with more exposures to the target words and thus enhancing lexical learning. The literature points to around eight encounters with a word for acquisition to take place (e.g., Nagy 1997; Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Nation 2001; Zahar, Cobb, and Spada 2001). Thus, further research in this respect is warranted.

2.3.  Interaction hypothesis Interactionists advocate for language in interaction to trigger acquisition. Long (1985) proposed the Interaction Hypothesis, which claimed that together with comprehensible input (meaning and form), negotiation, and the subsequent

48  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

modifications to the language which take place as a result are necessary for L2 acquisition. For them, input and output are necessary, but they need to be contextualized within interaction, which implies that there is going to be modified input and output to adapt to the needs of the message and the interlocutors, especially in the case of the non-native learner. In addition, form and meaning negotiation together with feedback, be it linguistic or extralinguistic (Gass 1999; Alcón 2001) are equally important. Communication and communicative pressure are contexts in which language develops, and vocabulary is acquired. Noticing the discrepancy between the resources to produce or understand a message and what the learner knows, and the means to express/comprehend the intended message is what triggers acquisition (cf. Gass 1999). Again, this trend lies in the realm of the theories of SLA and although there is plenty of evidence of the value of interactional modifications, experimental studies that try to probe the effectiveness of interaction as a source of incidental vocabulary acquisition are very few. Alcón (2007) demonstrated that teachers’ reactions to students’ productions were effective for learners’ learning of vocabulary items. Before that, Ellis, Tanaka, and Yamazaki (1994) found that interactionally modified input led to the acquisition of new words. Similarly, Polio and Gass (1998) found that negotiated interaction on production has a positive effect (in Gass 1999).

2.4.  The Involvement Load Hypothesis In analyzing the effectiveness of output tasks in incidental vocabulary acquisition, Laufer and Hulsijn (2001) proposed the Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH). This hypothesis claims that word learning depends on the amount of involvement in a set task; thus, the higher the involvement the more likely a word is to be acquired (e.g., Kim 2011; Huang, Willson, and Eslami 2012). The ILH as a model for lexical learning overcomes the dichotomy input-output hypotheses. The ILH is grounded in the idea that the degree of involvement of learners with the lexical items will determine acquisition success. Thus, higher involvement in lexical learning tasks will result in more durable learning as a consequence of deeper processing of the linguistic information. Laufer and Hulsijn’s (2001) motivational-cognitive construct of task-induced involvement comprises three components: need, which is a motivational dimension as well as search and evaluation, which are cognitive dimensions. Each of them in turn is divided into two levels: strong or moderate. Need is strong if it is self-imposed, and moderate if the imposition is external. Search is strong if it is the learner who looks for the words to be used, and moderate if learners only need to apply a given word to the context. Finally, the evaluation component is strong when the learner uses an L2 word in a sentence or text, without having the possibility to choose among several options, and it is moderate to weak when there is the possibility of choosing an L2 word among different options. Laufer and Hulsijn’s (2001) and Hulstijn and Laufer (2001) illustrate the involvement load or index of different tasks, such as reading comprehension, gap-filling, or writing, depending on the combination of the three components with their levels. Hence, different tasks impose varying demands on learners. To operationalize the

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  49

involvement construct, Laufer and Hulsijn (2001) created the involvement index for a task that results from giving a 2 for a strong presence of the dimension, 1 for a moderate presence, and 0 for absence of the dimension in the task. Accordingly, the task with the higher involvement index will induce a higher involvement load and thus will lead to better learning outcomes. For example, a reading comprehension task with an involvement load of 1 (1 for need to find the meaning of the word, 0 for search for the meaning of the word and 0 for evaluation of correct meaning of the word), a reading comprehension with marginal glosses has an involvement load index of 3 (1 for need to learn the word, 1 for search for the meaning of the word and 1 for evaluation of correct meaning of the word in an already provided context), and a gap-filling exercise of 4 (1 for need to learn the word, 2 for search for the meaning and the form of the word, and 1 for evaluation of correct meaning of the word). Finally, a writing activity has the highest involvement load index with 6 points (2 for need to find and learn the word, 2 for search for the meaning and the form of the word, and 2 for evaluation of correct meaning and form of the word in a self-provided context). Some studies have elaborated on this motivational-cognitive construct, especially concerning vocabulary acquisition. Empirical investigations have led to the design incidental learning tasks with various degrees of involvement by combining the three dimensions of the ILH. Thus, the effectiveness of tasks with different involvement indexes is analyzed and the relationship between the task involvement load and word retention explored (Yaqubi, Rayati, and Gorgi 2010, 150). Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), Keating (2008), and Kim (2008) (only the last of these set tasks under timed conditions) conducted studies addressing the validity of the ILH for lexical learning. They compared different tasks with varying involvement indexes. All three of them found evidence in favor of the ILH (but see what follows). In other words, the task that imposed the highest involvement demands on the learners obtained the best results in terms of word retention. However, when time on task was considered, the benefit associated with more involved tasks faded (Keating 2008). Laufer and Hulsijn (2001) did not control for time on task in their initial proposal, and differences in time allotted were substantial. Yaqubi, Rayati, and Gorgi (2010) compared an input task and an output task with a lower involvement load, this last one turned out to be the most effective for vocabulary learning. These authors claim that the hypothesis and, specifically, the evaluation component, need to be reconsidered. Accordingly, there are some issues on the ILH yet to be addressed. These basically concern the effects of tasks with the same involvement load but different componential weight.

2.5.  The TOPRA model Advocated by Barcroft (2000, 2004) and his colleagues (Kida and Barcroft 2018), TOPRA stands for Type of Processing-Resource Allocation and refers to how (as one main example of the predictions of the model) allocation of resources to process structural properties can decrease when more resources are needed to process

50  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

semantic properties when semantic elaboration increases. According to the TOPRA model, tasks that avoid excessive semantic elaboration have more positive effects on word form learning than those that do not. Thus, tasks like sentence writing can decrease word form learning as compared to when these tasks are not required. A large number of studies have yielded results congruent with the TOPRA model. For instance, in studies on intentional L2 vocabulary learning, Barcroft (2004) and Wong and Pyun (2012) probed that when time is devoted to sentence writing (also Kida [2010] for reading comprehension), the resources required for semantic processing increase. Consequently, this reduces general lexical input processing capacity, which in turn, decreases resources available for word form processing and, in this way, hinders word form learning and retention. Also, Kida and Barcroft (2017) used an interesting technique termed Alternate Meaning Mapping where known L2 word forms are mapped onto known L1 meanings so that little structural and semantic processing resources are needed to be allocated to the task. They demonstrated that this vocabulary learning technique led to more learning when semantically and structurally elaborative tasks were not required. In sum, these studies suggest that the allocation of processing resources is relevant in L2 vocabulary learning and will determine success in lexical learning. The pedagogical implications of the TOPRA model are promising. Mainly, the predictions of the model point to a learning process where input is processed more effectively when manipulations that direct processing resources extraneously are avoided. Therefore, tasks that involve semantic elaboration are considered less effective for word form learning than the task of processing input only, for instance. Note also, however, that Barcroft (e.g., 2015a) acknowledges the attention-drawing potential of semantically oriented tasks in incidental vocabulary learning contexts.

2.6. Summary In synthesis, all of these theories and models try to account for how vocabulary can be learned incidentally. Each of them puts different aspects in the spotlight; namely, input and the conditions related to it, such as frequency, and contextual information, the combination of input and output; the inclusion of the hearer/reader as a crucial element in SLA; motivational aspects; and different types of cognitive processing. These are, to a substantial extent, not contradictory, but complementary models, advocating not only the promotion of acquisition processes based on attention to meaning and practicing but also on the introduction of knowledge-based instruction in SLA.

3. Methods and techniques: activities for incidental vocabulary acquisition 3.1. Reading Reading, especially extensive reading for pleasure, is assumed to be a highly favorable activity for incidental vocabulary learning (e.g., Krashen 1989; and more

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  51

recently Webb 2008; Kweon and Kim 2008). Generally considered, this seems to be true, especially when the learners have already mastered a considerable number of words and can infer the meaning of unknown words from the context/co-text (Huckin and Coady 1999). Furthermore, Ponniah (2011) proved that learners, who acquired words incidentally while reading, were able to use them appropriately in context: That is they did not only develop lexical knowledge but extended lexical competence. This stands as a very interesting and promising result, and this line of research deserves further investigation. However, the amount of reading hours, or broadly speaking, of exposure to the FL necessary for the development of lexical competence goes beyond what seems reasonable for learners in L2 learning scenarios, not to mention the size of vocabulary needed to be able to read (Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; de Groot 2000; Zahar, Cobb, and Spada 2001). Hence, some extra active engagement is desirable to maximize incidental vocabulary acquisition (Jiang 2004; Rott 2004; Laufer and Hulsijn 2001; Nation 2001; Gu 2003). Furthermore, it is essential for the lexical items to be relevant and meaningful in tasks in order to aid lexical retention (cf. Restrepo Ramos 2015). The selection of appropriate texts for reading and engaging, which are appropriate for the age and stage of students, and which are contextually rich (cf. Webb 2008), together with some manipulation to ensure, for instance, that difficult or unknown words are included at least twice in the passage, can greatly enhance the students’ opportunities for incidental vocabulary acquisition (cf. Restrepo Ramos 2015). Contextually rich texts can also help learners make connections between old and new lexical items (cf. Hulstijn 2013) as well as connect the new words with the content or meaning of the text, providing students with meaningful experiences in word meaning inferencing. Rott (2007) deals with the question of how reading-enhancing activities might affect word learning and reading comprehension as it concerns attentional and processing resources. According to the premise that engaging learners in output tasks during reading might interfere with text comprehension, she found that semantic word enhancements had positive effects on the development of lexical knowledge (2007, 188) and advocates the use of glosses in lexical learning from reading. Prior to this study, Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) found that the effect of L1 marginal glosses was greater than that of dictionary use because readers seldom used the dictionary during their reading. Also, Davis (1989) found significantly better results in reading comprehension in those participants who had received additional vocabulary help in the form of marginal glosses. Similarly, Barcroft (2015b) shows the benefits of retrieval opportunities on incidental L2 vocabulary learning during reading.

3.2. Writing Writing can also be a source for incidental vocabulary acquisition (as purported by the output hypothesis. See for example, Katznelson, Perpignan, and Rubin 2001; Harklau 2002; Muncie 2002; Lee 2003). Some activities that might enhance incidental vocabulary acquisition in writing can be the writing of a single extensive composition (e.g., Kim 2008), original isolated sentences (e.g., Keating 2008;

52  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

Agustin-Llach 2015), or writing of individual words retrieved during reading (e.g., Barcroft 2015b). In the specific case of studies conducted within Spanish as a foreign language, sentence writing was found to be a more effective method in the incorporation of vocabulary in an incidental way when compared to a selection of definitions and of examples (Matanzo Vicens 1996; Reyes Díaz 1996–1997).

3.3.  Other activities Other activities that might lead to incidental vocabulary acquisition and that can be framed within a meaning-oriented focus are fill-in-the-gaps activities either within full passages (Keating 2008; Kim 2008) or of isolated sentences (e.g., Laufer 2003), puzzles (Browne 2003), translations (Kondo 2007), and writing words next to their definitions (San-Mateo-Valdehíta 2012). Writing tasks show better results in terms of lexical gains, that is, in incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001; Browne 2003; Keating 2008; Kim 2008; San-MateoValdehíta 2012). Two studies undertaken by Barcroft (e.g., 2004, 2009), however, provide evidence against this conclusion and, rather, point to the negative effect of semantically elaborative tasks such as sentence writing on word learning. A similar outcome is also attested in a study undertaken by Folse (2006).

4. Incidental vocabulary acquisition within MeaningOriented Instruction (MOI) MOI focuses on the transmission of messages, where the aim is to communicate. We firmly believe that incidental acquisition of vocabulary can be framed within MOI because it exposes learners to lexical items in a comprehensive way. In other words, intentional vocabulary acquisition implies the memorizing of isolated lexical items, which is a quick but superficial process. However, incidental vocabulary acquisition happens with contextually presented vocabulary in authentic texts, which helps it to be deeply retained in the mental lexicon, including acquisition of a full range of languagespecific meanings, uses, and collocational properties of words. Consequently, these newly learned words can be used more effectively. As was hinted at earlier, reading and especially reading for pleasure, is a useful exercise for incidental vocabulary learning because words are presented in context and it also provides the learner with lexico-syntactic information, idiomatic information, natural word occurrence, and repetition, all of which help learners better remember the new words. In this sense, several teaching methodologies can be framed within an MOI approach. Communicative language teaching, task-based teaching, and contentbased foreign language teaching will be considered here.

4.1.  Communicative language teaching The most prominent approach to dealing with meaning-oriented teaching and focus on meaning in a systematic way has been the communicative approach (cf. Larsen-Freeman 2000; Farrell and Jacobs 2010). The main objective of this

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  53

approach is to enable students to communicate using the target language and to teach grammar structures and vocabulary and functions in terms of usage. The development of communicative competence and all its components, including sociocultural, strategic, and pragmatic competence, is the main goal of this approach. It is based on the premise of interaction models and relies on the negotiation of meaning as its main tenet. Among the techniques of the communicative approach, those that stand out as useful in the context of incidental vocabulary acquisition include the use of authentic language and language in real context, games with a communicative purpose, multiple interactions, and the integration of skills. Reading for pleasure and incidental learning also belong within this approach as per their very nature.

4.2.  Task-based instruction Task-based teaching emerged within the realm of communicative language teaching and MOI (cf. Prabhu 1987; Estaire and Zanon 1994; Littlewood 2004; Martín Peris 2004; Sánchez 2004; Robinson 2011). The task stands as the central teaching and practicing element. Teaching happens through communication. The term task refers to the (series of) activities carried on in the classroom to promote communication. In this approach, the focus is on the how (the way learners do things to learn) and not on the what (the object of study). Instruction must be compatible with the L2 acquisition cognitive process highlighting or promoting the following components: Cooperative learning, natural acquisition, learners’ involvement, that is, cognitive motivation and focus on meaning. One of the most important proponents of the task-based approach, Skehan (2003, 12–13), contends that a task is an activity in which meaning is primary, there is a problem to solve, the performance is outcome evaluated and there is a real-world relationship. In completing the task, learners are acquiring new language and vocabulary in an incidental way. This approach is, therefore, well suited to the topic under discussion here.

4.3.  Content-based instruction Finally, embedded within immersion education, especially in Canada in the 1970s, is content-based instruction. In its simplest form, this approach advocates the use of the target language to deliver content, academic or other, while simultaneously developing content/subject knowledge and foreign language acquisition (e.g., Stoller 2002; Tedick and Cammarata 2012). It complies with the main premises of MOI, such as natural language acquisition, meaningful learning and interaction, and meaning negotiation (Stoller 2002). There is empirical evidence (see Grabe and Stoller 1997 for details) that content-based instruction results in language learning, content learning and increased motivation (cf. Stoller 2002). Here again, incidental vocabulary acquisition happens. Learners focus on acquiring the content and skills (e.g., vocabulary) that they

54  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

might need to communicate their understanding of the content. The task, therefore, is not on lexical learning, but it happens as a by-product of content learning.

4.4.  Toward more effective MOI Although there is no exhaustive list of how incidental vocabulary acquisition should proceed within MOI, from the previous studies we can infer a set of conditions under which optimal results are to be expected. The following provisions can be highlighted: 1. Extensive and sustained reading, which mainly refers to reading over long periods of time, for instance six months or the whole school year. 2. Reading for pleasure, which implies that students take part in the selection of the reading material. 3. Adapting reading texts to the learners’ proficiency level (cf. comprehensible input hypothesis), which implies the use of adapted, simplified, or rather graded readers and not strictly authentic texts. For Meara (1997, 113), it is necessary that research learns how, why, and with which relative effectiveness reading results in lexical learning (Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998), because if not, it is like “planting seeds in a pot in order to confirm that they will grow into flowers” (quoted from Meara 1997, 113). In other words, there is the need to establish a hierarchy of effectiveness of activities leading to incidental vocabulary acquisition so that teaching can result in substantial word gains. The relevance of reading as a source for lexical learning cannot, indeed, be denied. In fact, reading as a vocabulary learning activity meets two basic conditions: (1) it can offer several repetitions of the same word. If eight encounters are necessary for a word to be acquired (Nagy 1997; Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Nation 2001; Zahar, Cobb, and Spada 2001), reading stands out as a great source for these encounters. And (2) it shows words in diverse linguistic and extralinguistic contexts, which promotes the development of the different aspects of lexical competence and contributes to reinforcing and consolidating that knowledge (Nassaji 2003, 664). Among the factors that are believed to influence word learning, we call attention to (a) absolute word frequency (Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Nation 2001), (b) relative word frequency and word repetitions in the text (Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Nation 2001; Zahar, Cobb, and Spada 2001), (c) previous lexical knowledge (Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Zahar, Cobb, and Spada 2001), (d) the presence of context (extensive reading versus explicit instruction) (Mason and Krashen 1997; Horst, Cobb, and Meara 1998; Lao and Krashen, 2000; Laufer, 2003; Rodrigo, Krashen, and Gribbons 2004), and (e) type of context (transparent, difficult or opaque) (Zahar, Cobb, and Spada 2001; Gardner 2004). Except for

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  55

relative word frequency or number of occurrences of the word, which points to the positive relationship between frequency and learning, results for the other factors are contradictory, inconclusive, and inconsistent. Word learning strategies or vocabulary learning strategies play a central and substantial role in meaning-oriented incidental vocabulary acquisition. Using context to make informed guesses, that is, inferring meaning, is the most important of these strategies. Additionally, learners can resort to a dictionary to check the meaning of unknown words (Laufer and Hill 2000); write the word down and ask the teacher, a classmate, or a native speaker for its meaning; or use word inferencing strategies based on word form or on the surrounding context (Nation and Coady 1988; Laufer and Hulsijn 2001; Nation 2001; Nassaji 2003; Laufer 2004). For guessing from context to be successful and effective, lexical coverage of known words needs to be around 95% or higher (see Nassaji 2003, 654; Laufer 2004), which also ties into our next section on the activities of incidental vocabulary teaching.

5.  Sample activities for L2 Spanish In this section, we offer some sample activities to illustrate tasks that might lead to the incidental acquisition of vocabulary. For each of the different task types proposed, we provide a sample activity as a suggestion. We order the task types from less manipulative or implicational to most manipulative, always aimed at incidental vocabulary acquisition. A. Reading for pleasure generally refers to extensive reading, for example, reading a whole novel. However, we can also think of providing learners with shorter texts, which they might read within the verge of one lesson or half a lesson, that is, 30–60 minutes. For that, and irrespective of the book or text selection that the teacher can make, we recommend the graded readers in the Centro Virtual Cervantes, section on Lecturas paso a paso (https://cvc.cervantes.es/aula/ lecturas/default.htm). They offer a selection of texts dealing with aspects of the Hispanic culture, which are of great interest to SFL learners. B. Reading while listening (e.g., teachers reading aloud) is a possible complement to reading only. It involves both modes of communication, oral and written, but it does not demand any further manipulation on the part of the learner. The use of subtitles in movies and television can be another example of this task type. C. Similarly, teachers are advised to adapt reading passages to the competency/ proficiency level of the learners. In this sense, the aforementioned resource of the Centro Virtual Cervantes stands as a good option since the recommended readings are graded according to three levels: Beginner, intermediate, and advanced, allowing the teacher to choose between these proficiency level tailored texts of different lengths. D. Additionally, the reading plus glosses task type also fits within this resource given that the texts in Centro Virtual Cervantes in the section on Lecturas paso a paso are glossed. The most difficult, less frequent words are glossed in Spanish

56  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

L2 so that learners are given a definition or synonyms of the words that they are not likely to know. Here, we refer the readers to the aforementioned section to check for the readings and text types. Furthermore, and although this would go beyond goals of the present chapter, each reading appears within the context of pre-reading, while-reading, and post-reading activities that facilitate text comprehension and language acquisition. E. Similarly, reading plus comprehension questions is an interesting exercise to combine reading comprehension and incidental vocabulary acquisition. The idea is that the set of comprehension questions following the text focuses on the target words, in the sense that in order to answer them, the target words will be required by the learner. Learners can either infer their meaning from the context, look them up in the dictionary or ask their teacher. The point is that learners use, in any form, the target words to transmit a message or to understand a message. F. Finally, at the most implicational level of these activities, we propose not only original sentence writing with the target words of the reading but also writing the individual target words. The idea here is that after the reading, learners use some of the words that appear in it (i.e., the selected target words) to produce original sentences that communicate a message. Here, learners will be producing language in a meaningful and contextualized way, and we believe this will or might result in incidental vocabulary acquisition.

6. Conclusions In this chapter, we have argued in favor of incidental vocabulary acquisition as a realistic option in the development of lexical competence not only in naturalistic but also in formal contexts. We have reviewed the main theories dealing with incidental lexical learning and have reviewed studies citing the benefits found. Additionally, we have offered some suggestions and descriptions of sample tasks as an illustration of what an incidental vocabulary learning activity in the classroom could look like. We agree with Restrepo Ramos (2015), who offered five main pedagogical recommendations for enhancing incidental vocabulary learning: 1. The selection of authentic texts with highly informative contextual clues and adapted to the proficiency level of the learners. 2. The use of multimodal glosses, for instance with pictures, to help learners gain lexical knowledge in meaningful texts. 3. The increase of the frequency of occurrence of the target vocabulary within the selected texts. 4. Awareness of vocabulary learning strategies. 5. Combination with intentional learning. Similarly, Teng (2016) advocates devoting particular attention to word frequency or repetition in occurrences for effective incidental word learning. Additionally,

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  57

learners should be instructed or guided to use inferencing strategies and the guessing-from-context phenomenon to promote incidental vocabulary acquisition. Other inferencing strategies include activating prior knowledge, making connections and relating to prior knowledge/information, using morphological and cotextual clues to guess meaning from context, and practicing with feedback, among others.

7. Bibliography Agustín-Llach, M. P. 2015. “Maximising Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in Spanish as a Foreign Language.” Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 5: 262–276. Alcón, E. 2001. “Interacción y aprendizaje de segundas lenguas en el contexto institucional del aula.” In Tendencias y líneas de investigarían en adquisición de segundas lenguas, eds. V. Salazar and S. Pastor Cesteros, 271–288. Alicante. Universidad de Alicante. Alcón, E. 2007. “Incidental Focus on Form, Noticing and Vocabulary Learning in the EFL Classroom.” International Journal of English Studies 7 (2): 41–60. Barcroft, J. 2000. “The Effects of Sentence Writing as Semantic Elaboration on the Allocation of Processing Resources and Second Language Lexical Acquisition.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Barcroft, J. 2004. “Effects of Sentence Writing in L2 Lexical Acquisition.” Second Language Research 20 (4): 303–334. Barcroft, J. 2009. “Effects of Synonym Generation on Incidental and Intentional Vocabulary Learning during Second Language Reading.” TESOL Quarterly 43 (1): 79–103. Barcroft, J. 2015a.  Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barcroft, J. 2015b. “Can Retrieval Opportunities Increase Vocabulary Learning During Reading?” Foreign Language Annals 48 (2): 236–249. Browne, C. 2003. “Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading, Writing and Tasks: A Comparison.” Ph.D. diss, Temple University. Criado Sánchez, R., A. Sanchéz Pérez, and P. Cantos Gómez. 2010. “An Attempt to Elaborate a Construct to Measure the Degree of Explicitness and Implicitness in ELT Materials.” International Journal of English Studies 10: 103–129. Davis, N. 1989. “Facilitating Effects of Marginal Glosses on Foreign Language Reading.” The Modern Language Journal 73 (1): 41–48. De Groot, P. 2000. “Computer Assisted Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition.” Language Learning and Technology 4 (1): 60–81. Elgort, I., M. Brysbaert, M. Stevens, and E. Van Assche. 2017. “Contextual Word Learning during Reading in a Second Language. An Eye-Movement Study.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40: 341–366. Ellis, N. 1994. “Implicit and Explicit Language Learning – An Overview.” In Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, ed. N. Ellis, 1–31. London: Academic Press. Ellis, R., Y. Tanaka, and A. Yamazaki, A. 1994. “Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and the Acquisition of L2 Word Meanings.” Language Learning 44 (3): 449–491. Estaire, S. and J. Zanon. 1994. Planning Classwork: A  Task Based Approach. Oxford: Heinemann. Farrell, T. S. C. and G. M. Jacobs. 2010. Essentials for Successful Language Teaching. London: Continuum. Feng, J. and J. Huang. 2004. “The Effect of Output Tasks on Acquisition of Linguistic Forms.” Modern Foreign Languages 2: 195–200.

58  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

Folse, K. S. 2006. “The Effect of Type of Written Exercise on L2 Vocabulary Retention.” TESOL Quarterly 40 (2): 273–293. Gardner, D. 2004. “Vocabulary Input through Extensive Reading: A Comparison of Words Found in Children’s Narrative and Expository Reading Materials.” Applied Linguistics 25 (1): 1–37. Gass, S. 1999. “Discussion: Incidental Vocabulary Learning.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 (2): 319–333. Gass, S., A. Mackey, M. Alvarez-Torres, and M. Fernández-García. 1999. “The Effects of Task Repetition on Linguistic Output.” Language Learning 49 (4): 549–581. Grabe, W. and F. Stoller. 1997. “Reading and Vocabulary Development in a Second Language: A  Case Study.” In Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, eds. J. Coady and T. Huckin, 98–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gu, P. Y. 2003. “Fine Brush and Freehand: The Vocabulary-Learning Art of Two Successful Chinese EFL Learners.” TESOL Quarterly 37 (1): 73–104. Harklau, L. 2002. “The Role of Writing in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.” Journal of Second Language Writing 11: 329–350. Horst, M., T. Cobb, and P. Meara. 1998. “Beyond a Clockwork Orange: Acquiring Second Language Vocabulary Through Reading.” Reading in a Foreign Language 11 (2): 207–223. Huang, S., V. Willson, and Z. Eslami. 2012. “The Effects of Task Involvement Load on L2 Incidental Vocabulary Learning: A Meta-Analytic Study.” The Modern Language Journal 96 (4): 544–557. Huckin, T. and J. Coady. 1999. “Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: A Review.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 (2): 181–193. Hulstijn, J. H. 2013. “Incidental Learning in Second Language Acquisition.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. C. A. Chapelle, 2632–2640. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Hulstijn, J. H., M. Hollander, and T. Greidanus. 1996. “Incidental Vocabulary Learning by Advanced Foreign Language Students: The Influence of Marginal Glosses, Dictionary Use, and Reoccurrence of Unknown Words.” The Modern Language Journal 80 (3): 327–339. Hulstijn, J. H. and B. Laufer. (2001). “Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition.” Language Learning 51 (3): 539–558. Izumi, S., M. Bigelow, M. Fujiwara, and S. Fearnow. 1999. “Testing the Output Hypothesis. Effects of Output on Noticing and Second Language Acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 (3): 421–452. Jiang, N. 2004. “Semantic Transfer and Development in Adult L2 Vocabulary Acquisition.” In Vocabulary in a Second Language, eds. P. Bogaards and B. Laufer, 101–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Katznelson, H., H. Perpignan, and B. Rubin. 2001. “What Develops Along with the Development of Second Language Writing? Exploring the ‘By-Products’.” Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (3): 141–159. Keating, G. 2008. “Task Effectiveness and Word Learning in a Second Language: The Involvement Load Hypothesis on Trial.” Language Teaching Research 12 (3): 365–386. Kida, S. 2010. “The Role of Processing-Resource Allocation in Incidental L2 Vocabulary Learning through Reading.”  Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan  21: 171–180. Kida, S. and J. Barcroft. 2018. “Semantic and Structural Tasks for the Mapping Component of L2 Vocabulary Learning: Testing the TOPRA Model from a New Angle.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40 (3): 1–26.

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  59

Kim, Y. 2008. “The Role of Task-Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition.” Language Learning 58 (2): 285–325. Kim, Y. 2011. “The Role of Task-Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition.” Language Learning 61 (s1): 100–140. Kondo, H. (2007). “The Effects of Semantic Elaboration on L2 Vocabulary Learning.” Research Journal of Jin-Ai University 6: 71–78. Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language. Oxford: Pergamon. Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman. Krashen, S. 1989. “We Acquire Vocabulary and Spelling by Reading: Additional Evidence for the Input Hypothesis.” The Modern Language Journal 73 (4): 440–464. Kweon, S. and H. Kim. 2008. “Beyond Raw Frequency: Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in Extensive Reading.” Reading in a Foreign Language 20 (2): 191–215. Lao, C. Y. and S. Krashen. 2000. “The Impact of Popular Literature Study on Literacy Development in EFL: More Evidence for the Power of Reading.” System 28: 261–270. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2000.  Techniques  and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laufer, B. 2003. “Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: Do Learners Really Acquire Most Vocabulary by Reading? Some empirical Evidence.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 59 (4): 567–587. Laufer, B. 2004. “Focus on Form in Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” Plenary Talk at the 14th EUROSLA Conference, San Sebastián, September 8–11. Laufer, B. and M. Hill. 2000. “What Lexical Information do L2 Learners Select in a CALL Dictionary and How Does it Affect Word Retention.” Language Learning & Technology 3 (2): 58–76. Laufer, B. and J. Hulsijn. 2001. “Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: The Construct of Task-Induced Involvement.” Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 1–26. Lee, S. H. 2003. “ESL Learners’ Vocabulary Use in Writing and the Effects of Explicit Vocabulary Instruction.” System 31 (4): 537–561. Littlewood, W. 2004. “The Task-Based Approach: Some Questions and Suggestions.” ELT Journal 58 (4): 319–326. Long, M. H. 1985. “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory.” In Input and Second Language Acquisition, eds. S. Gass and C. Madden, 377–393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Martín-Peris, E. (2004). “¿Qué significa trabajar con tareas comunicativas?” Red ELE 0. Mason, B. and S. Krashen. 1997. “Extensive Reading in English as a Foreign Language.” System 25 (1): 91–102. Matanzo Vicens, G. 1996. “Incorporación de léxico materno a la competencia lingüística de universitarios puertorriqueños.” REALE 6: 69–79. Meara, P. 1997. “Towards a New Approach to Modelling Vocabulary Acquisition.” In Vocabulary. Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, eds. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 109–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Muncie, J. 2002. “Process Writing and Vocabulary Development: Comparing Lexical Frequency Profiles Across Drafts.” System 30 (2): 225–235. Nagy, W. 1997. “On the Role of Context in First- and Second-Language Vocabulary Learning.” In Vocabulary. Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, eds. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nassaji, H. 2003. “L2 Vocabulary Learning from Context: Strategies, Knowledge Sources, and Their Relationship with Success in L2 Lexical Inferencing.” TESOL Quarterly 37 (4): 645–670. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

60  María Pilar Agustín-Llach

Nation, I. S. P. and J. Coady. 1988. “Vocabulary and Reading.” In Vocabulary and Language Teaching, eds. R. Carter and M. McCarthy, 97–110. London: Longman. Polio, C. and S. M. Gass. 1998. “The Role of Interaction in Native Speaker Comprehension of Non-Native Speaker Speech.” Modern Language Journal 82 (3): 308–319. Ponniah, R. J. 2011. “Incidental Acquisition of Vocabulary by Reading.”  The Reading Matrix 11 (2): 135–139. Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pressley, M., J. R. Levin, and M. A. McDaniel. 1987. “Remembering Versus Inferring What a Word Means: Mnemonic and Contextual Approaches.” In The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition, eds. M. G. McKeown and M. E. Curtis, 107–127. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pulido, D. 2003. “Modelling the Role of Second Language Proficiency and Topic Familiarity in Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading.” Language Learning 53 (2): 233–284. Restrepo Ramos, F. D. 2015. “Incidental Vocabulary Learning in Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review.” PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development 17 (1): 157–166. Reyes Díaz, M. J. 1996–1997. “Implicaciones de las variables sociales en el aprendizaje del vocabulario de la lengua materna.” Philologica canariensia 2–3: 333–342. Rieder, A. 2002. “Beiläufiger Vokabelerwerb: Theoretische Modelle und empirische Untersuchungen.” Ph.D. diss, University of Tübingen. Rieder, A. 2003. “Implicit and Explicit Learning in  Incidental  Vocabulary Acquisition.” Views 12: 24–39. Robinson, P. 2011. “Task-Based Language Learning: A Review of Issues.” Language Learning 61 (s1): 1–36. Rodrigo, V., S. Krashen, and B. Gribbons. 2004. “The Effectiveness of Two ComprehensibleInput Approaches to Foreign Language Instruction at the Intermediate Level.” System 32 (1): 53–60. Rodríguez, M. and M. Sadowki. 2000. “Effects of Rote, Context, Keyword, and Context/ Keyword Methods on Retention of Vocabulary in EFL Classrooms.” Language Learning 50 (2): 385–412. Rott, S. 2004. “A Comparison of Output Interventions and Un-Enhanced Reading Conditions on Vocabulary Acquisition and Text Comprehension.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 61 (2): 169–202. Rott, S. 2007. “The Effect of Frequency of Input-Enhancements on Word Learning and Text Comprehension.” Language Learning 57 (2): 165–119. San-Mateo-Valdehíta, A. 2012. “Aprendizaje de léxico en español como segunda lengua/ lengua extranjera: investigación sobre la efectividad de tres tipos de actividades para aprender vocabulario.” Ph.D. diss., UNED. Sánchez, A. 2004. “The Task-Based Approach in Language Teaching.” International Journal of Language Studies 4 (1): 39–71. Segoviano, C., ed. 1996. La enseñanza del léxico español como lengua extranjera. Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. Singleton, D. 1999. Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skehan, P. 2003. “Task-Based Instruction.” Language Teaching 36 (1): 1–14. Sökmen, A. 1997.”Current Trends in Teaching Second Language Vocabulary.” In Vocabulary. Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, eds. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 237–257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Incidental learning of L2 vocabulary  61

Song, Z. 2010. “An Empirical Study of the Role of Output in Promoting the Acquisition of Linguistic Forms.” English Language Teaching 3: 109–114. Stoller, F. L. 2002. “Promoting the Acquisition of Knowledge in a Content-Based Course.” In Content-Based Instruction in Higher Education Settings, eds. J. A. Crandall and D. Kaufman, 109–123. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Swain, M. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, eds. S. Gass and C. Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Tedick, D. J. and L. Cammarata. 2012. “Content and Language Integration in K-12 Contexts: Student Outcomes. Teacher Practices, and Stakeholder Perspectives.” Foreign Language Annals 45 (s1): s28–s53. Teng, F. 2016. “The Effects of Word Exposure Frequency on Incidental Learning of the Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge.” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 16 (3): 53–70. Webb, S. 2008. “The Effects of Context on Incidental Vocabulary Learning.” Reading in a Foreign Language 20 (2): 232–245. Wong, W. and D. O. Pyun. 2012. “The Effects of Sentence Writing on Second Language French and Korean Lexical Retention.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 68 (2): 164–189. Yaqubi, B., R. A. Rayati, and N. A. Gorgi. 2010. “The Involvement Load Hypothesis and Vocabulary Learning: The Effect of Task Types and Involvement Index on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition.” The Journal of Teaching Language Skills (JTLS) 2 (1): 145–163. Zahar, R., T. Cobb, and N. Spada. 2001. “Acquiring Vocabulary through Reading: Effects of Frequency and Contextual Richness.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (4): 541–572.

4 ACQUISITION OF IDIOMATIC LANGUAGE IN L2 SPANISH Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

Abstract A good command of idiomatic or formulaic language is one of the hallmarks of L2 proficiency (e.g., Boers et al. 2006; Bestgen 2017), which is in fact not surprising given the well-documented prevalence of idiomaticity in natural discourse (Erman and Warren 2000). And yet, it is a dimension of L2 development that has remained marginalized in major L2 curricular documents such as CEFR (2001), its Companion Volume (2020), PCIC (2006) and ACTFL (2012), despite increasing recognition of its importance since the early 1990s (Nattinger and DeCarrico 1992; Lewis 1993). Consequently, discussion surrounding its inclusion at all levels of language learning is warranted, including questioning why idiomatic language constitutes a stumbling block for many L2 learners (e.g., Wray 2002, ix). In this chapter, we discuss the challenges that idiomaticity poses to L2 learners of Spanish and we review some of the research on ways in which teaching and learning have been adapted to support learners to meet those challenges. Although most studies focus on EFL or TESOL, it is reasonable to assume that such interventions are transferable to other target languages, including Spanish. Simultaneously, we point to aspects of idiomatic language use that have attracted little attention in the pedagogically-oriented research, such as register and regional variation (MuñozBasols 2016). While idiomaticity is an umbrella term for a wide variety of formulaic expressions, we focus in the second half of the chapter on a special class known to be particularly challenging for L2 learners, notably figurative expressions. We describe a research-informed approach to teaching figurative language in which learners engage with the literal underpinnings of such expressions. We illustrate

DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-5

Acquisition of idiomatic language  63

this approach with samples of exercises on figurative phrases in Spanish. However, what is striking from our literature review is the virtual absence of classroom activities where idiomatic expressions are integrated naturally into discourse-level communication. Our conclusion offers some suggestions as a means of filling this gap.

1. Introduction As pointed out by Grant and Bauer (2004), the term idiomaticity is employed by linguists and language teachers in two ways. In its broadest sense, idiomaticity refers to native speakers’ general use of (semi-)fixed expressions and their preference for certain word combinations, for example, cometer un error (to make a mistake), over theoretically possible synonymous ones, for example, hacer un error, a phenomenon labeled “native-like selection” by Pawley and Syder (1983). Here, idiomatic language can be considered synonymous to formulaic language (Wray 2002). In its narrowest sense, the term refers to a specific category of phraseological units, notably phrasal expressions which are typically included in so-called idiom dictionaries in English. In Spanish, a variety of nomenclatures are employed to refer to such phenomena including frases hechas, expresiones fijas, expresiones idiomáticas, modismos, and predicados complejos (Muñoz-Basols 2016, 442). In this chapter, we will first consider matters of idiomaticity in the broadest sense and then focus more specifically on pedagogical approaches to “idioms.” While estimates vary, it is now well recognized that a very substantial proportion (over 50% according to Erman and Warren 2000) of English natural discourse is idiomatic. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that other languages would attest similar idiomatic tendencies. In fact, comparisons of snippets of radio interviews in English and Spanish have revealed similar levels of idiomaticity (Stengers et al. 2011). If idiomaticity is a ubiquitous feature of L1 users’ natural discourse, then its acquisition by L2 learners is equally advantageous, especially if they wish to emulate the characteristics and spontaneity of native speaker discourse. Several studies have demonstrated that appropriate use of idiomatic language helps learners to be perceived by native speakers as proficient language users, both in speaking (e.g., Boers et al. 2006; Stengers et al. 2011) and in writing tasks (e.g., Crossley, Salsbury, and Mcnamara 2015; Bestgen 2017). Knowledge of idiomatic language is also integral at the receptive level, notably for reading comprehension (Kremmel, Brunfaut, and Alderson 2017). Achieving a level of proficiency with idiomatic phrases serves various important communicative functions at all levels of language production and interaction. For example, fórmulas rutinarias (routine formulas) (Alvarado Ortega 2007) contribute to fluent and pragmatically smooth everyday interaction (Martín Noguerol 2012, 63–64). These range from basic expressions, such as ¿Qué tal? (How are you?) or ¡Buen provecho! (Bon appétit!), to more expressive ones, such as ¡Qué fuerte! (Unbelievable!) or ¡Madre mía! (Oh dear!/Oh God!) (see Alvarado Ortega 2008, 406). Other multiword expressions (locuciones in Spanish) contribute to organizing, describing, and linking elements in discourse (see Ruiz Gurillo 2001).

64  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

The most common of these are prepositional and adverbial in nature. Examples of adverbial phrases include: adverbiales de tiempo (time) al instante; modo (manner) a ciegas; lugar (place) a lo lejos; cantidad (quantity) por poco; duda (doubt) tal vez; afirmación (statement) por supuesto; negación (negation) nunca jamás. Next, expresiones idiomáticas (idioms) are helpful for describing and evaluating things or places, for example, vivir en el quinto pino (to live out in the sticks), actions, for example, mirar por encima del hombro (to look down on someone), or situations, for example, estar entre la espada y la pared (to be between a rock and a hard place); expressing feelings, for example, sentirse como un niño con zapatos nuevos (to be as pleased as Punch), or ideas, for example, poner una pica en Flandes (to pull off a real coup). They are also utilized to vary the style of expression as well as to display cultural and sociolinguistic knowledge. It is important to note that proverbios y refranes (proverbs and sayings), can help students understand cultural aspects of the language. They can be particularly useful in persuasive discourse, where they are perceived as true statements (or aphorisms). Some examples are: La avaricia rompe el saco (Greed doesn’t pay) or A quien madruga, Dios le ayuda (The early bird catches the worm). While it is undeniable that learners need to gain proficiency in L2 idiomatic language, research unfortunately suggests that this is a very slow and challenging endeavor (e.g., Laufer and Waldman 2011; Hoang and Boers 2016). The explanations for this arduous development are diverse (Boers, Lindstromberg, and Eyckmans 2014) and differ from one kind of phrase to the next. For example, in the case of phrases that are semantically transparent, a learner may not pay close attention to their precise lexical makeup and thus fail to realize that substituting one of the constituents (e.g., say lies instead of tell lies) will result in a non-idiomatic sequence. Moreover, a learner’s non-idiomatic word sequences (if semantically transparent) are unlikely to cause misunderstandings during communication and are therefore unlikely to trigger feedback (e.g., in the form of clarification requests) on the part of the interlocutor. Steps that draw learners’ attention to the word combinations, such as making them more noticeable in texts by means of highlighting, underlining, or bolding (Boers et al. 2017; Choi 2017) have been shown to be helpful, given that drawing attention to items is crucial for learning to take place (Schmidt 2001; Godfroid, Boers, and Housen 2013). However, in many other cases, the challenge not only involves remembering the lexical composition of a phrase but also understanding its meaning. This challenge follows from the fact that many expressions are non-transparent in the sense that their overall meaning is not straightforwardly derivable by adding up the basic meanings of their constituent parts – a phenomenon called non-compositionality. This will be discussed in more detail later when we deal with idiomaticity in the narrower sense of the term. An additional yet important explanation for the slow rate of acquisition is the lack of repeated exposure to the same idiomatic phrases over a short period of time. While discourse abounds with idiomaticity as a phenomenon, relatively few individual idiomatic phrases occur frequently enough in discourse for their “incidental” acquisition to be likely (Boers and Lindstromberg 2009, 51–54; Webb, Newton, and Chang 2013). This is yet another motivation for incorporating activities and materials with an explicit focus on idiomatic phrases in L2 courses.

Acquisition of idiomatic language  65

2.  Theory and research Within the realm of TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language), lesson ideas and examples of classroom activities to help teachers engage their students with idiomatic phrases are prevalent throughout numerous educational publications, (e.g., Lewis 1997, 2000; Lindstromberg and Boers 2008; Liu 2008; Davis and Kryszewska 2012; McPherron and Randolph 2014), and resources for the independent study of English phrases have also become available (e.g., McCarthy and O’Dell 2002, 2005; Gairns and Redman 2011). However, when it comes to idiomatic phrases in L2 Spanish, it seems that teachers are still left mostly to their own devices (see what follows), given that idiomatic language is absent from most Spanish language textbooks, apart from sporadic compilations of expressions when introducing a specific topic/ theme (see Sánchez Rufat and Jiménez Calderón 2015, 104). Learners without substantial exposure to natural Spanish discourse can therefore only access instances of idiomatic language by consulting specialized dictionaries (see Weibel 2004; Saviano 2007; Rodríguez-Vida 2011; Mestre Vives 2018), which take the form of lengthy lists of decontextualized, unordered expressions that do not guide the learner to master their authentic usage in context. In either linguistic context (Spanish or English), it is striking that idiomatic expressions are seldom integrated into discourse-level communicative activities, a limitation we will return to in greater detail later. In any case, even when it comes to the commonly observed treatment of decontextualized idiomatic expressions in English, it is not always clear whether the suggestions made in teachers’ manuals and the design of instructional materials are well supported by empirical research into their effectiveness. Pellicer-Sánchez and Boers (2018) provide a review of the kinds of pedagogical interventions that have been put to the test in empirical research thus far. Perhaps unsurprisingly, results have varied, since the effectiveness of a given activity is bound to depend on the nature of the target phrases and on the quality of its implementation. Concerning decontextualized phrase-focused exercises, Boers, Dang, and Strong (2017) found that exercises that require learners to match constituents (e.g., which is the right combination: say, speak or talk nonsense?) are not particularly effective – and yet they are very common in language learning books. Instead, exercise formats that present learners with intact phrases from inception appear to be more conducive to acquisition, given that they reduce the risk of inter-item interference. However, as previously noted, it is striking that, notwithstanding a few exceptions (e.g., Peters 2012 [for German] and Stengers and Boers 2015 [for Spanish]), virtually all empirical studies into the effects of teacher formative assessment on the learning of L2 idiomatic language concern TEFL. It should also be acknowledged that most of the research has been conducted with high-intermediate or advanced adult L2 learners and, therefore, does not necessarily provide practical guidance for the teaching of idiomatic language that would be valuable to the many language practitioners who work with lower-proficiency learners (Wood 2015, 162–163). With the growing availability of online corpora, several pedagogy-oriented applied linguists now advocate for data-driven learning of idiomatic language

66  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

(Cobb 2018, for a review), where learners are invited to explore how a given phrase is used in a collection of samples of authentic discourse extracted from a corpus. While again more feasible for advanced learners, this exemplar-based learning strategy has the advantage that the expressions are encountered in meaningful contexts. Furthermore, it is an approach which can help foster an appreciation of the dimensions of variation that characterize idiomatic language, most notably frequency of use, register, and dialectal variation (Muñoz-Basols 2016). For example, a corpus search may help learners determine which of two synonymous expressions is most common. For instance, there are different expressions to say ciertamente (certainly), for example, como dos y dos son cuatro or como tres y dos son cinco (sure as sure can be), and learners may wish to determine which of these is the most useful to learn by taking frequency of use as a proxy for utility. Corpus data may also help learners determine in which register a given phrase is most typically used – although this will be less straightforward than comparing overall frequencies and may require more assistance from a teacher in providing additional comparisons with similar register choices in the students’ L1. For example, some formal alternatives to ciertamente in Spanish are por supuesto or desde luego (of course), or sin lugar a duda(s) (without a doubt). For a more informal expression, such as como dos y dos son cuatro, in English we could say “as sure as sure can be” and “as sure as eggs is eggs,” with a corresponding difference in register. Many idiomatic expressions are typical of oral discourse and may be considered colloquial. Instructional approaches to idiomatic language should therefore include raising the students’ awareness of where to use (or to avoid using) given phrases (e.g., informal versus formal discourse). The third dimension of variation mentioned earlier, dialectal variation, is the variety of the language a speaker ascribes to. It has social implications and concerns not only the lexicon but also phonology, morpho-syntax, and pragmatics. For instance, for the expression “to be broke,” a speaker in Spanish can say estar sin un duro (Spain), estar sin un mango (Argentina), or estar limpio (or más limpio que talón de lavandera) (Venezuela) (for an explanation on the etymology and use of these expressions, see Muñoz-Basols and Lacorte 2018, 165). Likewise, at a pragmatic level, speakers of other varieties of Spanish may be surprised if in Bogotá (Colombia) they are approached by a speaker who uses the routine expressions ¡Qué pena! or ¡Me da pena con usted!, literally “What a pity!,” used to call someone’s attention, as in “Sorry to bother you” (Muñoz-Basols et al. 2017, 348). These examples not only offer a glimpse into the rich linguistic diversity of the Spanish-speaking world (MuñozBasols and Hernández Muñoz 2019; Muñoz-Basols, Gironzetti, and Lacorte 2019; Hernández Muñoz, Muñoz-Basols, and Soler Montes 2021) but also illustrate its complexity (Muñoz-Basols 2019; Muñoz-Basols y Salazar 2016, 2019). Resources that compare instances of Spanish idiomatic language classified by geographical settings  – a language spoken by more than 500  million speakers, official in 21 countries and with 24 language academies – are practically non-existent. The Real Academia Española (RAE) and the Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (ASALE) are currently working on the first Diccionario fraseológico panhispánico (Estévez 2017).

Acquisition of idiomatic language  67

Of course, even within a given regional variant of a language, there will be differences among individual language users’ preferences for some idiomatic expressions over others. The repertoire of idiomatic expressions used by an L1 speaker is derived from an accumulation of linguistic experiences (in childhood, from exposure to the language used in the family, during education, and at the workplace) forming part of the speaker’s idiolect. The idiomatic expressions most frequently used by an individual (among which some might be frequent enough even to be called stock phrases) reflect the idiosyncrasies that define the way the person communicates, or their individual “collection of mental ‘constructions’ ” (Christiansen and Chater 2008, 506). For example, having interviewed native Spanish speakers from Argentina, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Peru, and Spain prior to writing their book on teaching idiomatic language to L2 speakers, Muñoz-Basols, Pérez Sinusía, and David (2014, xii) concluded that the use of idiomatic language appears to be inextricably related to personal preference. In the interviews, informants acknowledged being familiar with a wide range of expressions but argued that they did not use many of them. This is because they disliked certain expressions or simply preferred a different one to communicate the same idea. This implies that foreign language classes, where teacher talk is an important source of input, will not only expose students to a particular regional variant, but within that variant, probably a relatively narrow collection of expressions that happen to characterize the idiolect of the teacher (or the combined idiolects of a handful of teachers). Consequently, it is not surprising that even advanced learners are often confronted with idiomatic expressionsthat they are not yet familiar with when they spend time in a (different) L2 environment. These multiple dimensions of variability in idiomatic language (Herrera and White 2010) also imply that teachers themselves may find it useful to compare their own intuitions about a given expression against corpus data. Having argued that idiomaticity is ubiquitous in language and should therefore be part and parcel of L2 development at all levels of proficiency, let us now consider the place that it is given in major language curricular documents. A quick search for the words idiomatic and formulaic in key language assessment frameworks reveals that their inclusion is rare and primarily considered relevant to advanced learners. In the US, the Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (ACTFL 2012a) mention formulaic language at several levels. In the novice range, they state that such language is practiced and memorized for the interpretive and presentational modes of communication (2012b, 16, 18). However, it is only at the intermediate (2012b, 17) range that learners are required to understand “high frequency idiomatic expressions,” progressing to the comprehension of “an expanding number” of them at the advanced range (2012a, 17). Similarly, the first edition of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) relegates idiomatic language to advanced levels (C1–C2). It mentions in passing that B2 learners can understand some idiomatic usage (Council of Europe 2001, 243). These CEFR guidelines serve as a model for the Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes (PCIC), the main global Spanish language teaching curriculum. This document follows the same principles as its source regarding the levels at which idiomatic language is

68  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

taught and understood (Instituto Cervantes 2006). Furthermore, the latest edition of the CEFR maintains the same approach to the advanced levels of C1–C2 (Council of Europe 2020). At the beginner level, it now makes reference to formulaic expressions (A1) and formulaic language (A2) and mentions that intermediate learners (B1) avoid very idiomatic usage (Council of Europe 2020, 75), understand idiomatic expressions (B2) (Council of Europe 2020, 82), and lack expressive power and idiomaticity (Council of Europe 2020, 141). Still, not enough information is provided on how a learner (or a teacher) is to confront this important component of language learning. In light of this, the objective of the following sections is to enhance teachers’ awareness of ways in which they can help their students come to grips with idiomaticity in L2 Spanish. Owing to lack of space, we will be concerned mostly with a class of phrases that exemplify idiomaticity in a narrow sense of the term. We will discuss the special challenges that these expressions pose, review some of the research that informs a pedagogic approach for making phrases memorable, and present sample activities that illustrate this approach.

3.  Methods and techniques 3.1.  Justification for a focus on idioms As previously mentioned, in its narrower sense, idiomaticity refers to “idioms.” Although an all-encompassing definition does not exist (Grant and Bauer 2004), they can be described as (semi-)fixed expressions included in reference works such as idiom dictionaries in English (see Ayto 2016) and diccionarios de frases hechas in Spanish (see Rodríguez-Vida 2011). For the purpose of this chapter, we understand idioms as multiword units, which can be transparent and whose meaning can be understood by its separate constituents, for example, dar en el clavo (to hit the nail on the head), or non-transparent, the meaning of which requires additional cultural information to be understood and cannot be deduced by making sense of the entire sequence, for example, abrir la caja de Pandora (to open Pandora’s box). Idioms present predominantly figurative meanings, for example, vivir en el quinto pino (to live out in the sticks), where the sequence can be easily understood, but the meaning is not literal. Conversely, idioms can be purely literal, pisar terreno peligroso (to skate on thin ice), which is semantically less complex and the logic of the expression renders its meaning from a literal point of view. In any case, creating classifications of idioms is always problematic, as basing such taxonomies on their opaqueness is largely based on personal judgment (Liu 2008, 18–19). The idiomatic meaning of many of these expressions can be traced back to a context where the expression was first used literally (Grant 2005). For example, the idiomatic meaning of tirar la toalla (to throw in the towel) most probably has its literal underpinning in the context of boxing; the meaning of estar entre bastidores (to be behind the scenes) probably has it origin in the world of theater; and ir viento en popa (to have the wind in one’s sails) can be traced back to seafaring.

Acquisition of idiomatic language  69

Some expressions were inspired by historical events, for example, las paredes oyen (walls have ears) and no se conquistó Zamora en una hora (Rome wasn’t built in a day), or live on from memorable stories, for example, hacer de Celestina (to play Cupid), Fuenteovejuna, todos a una (one for all and all for one). What these expressions have in common is that, while their holistic figurative meaning transcends the meaning that one would derive by simply adding up literal readings of the constituent words  – that is, their idiomatic meaning is “non-compositional” – their holistic figurative meaning nonetheless “makes sense” once one appreciates the connection with the context in which the expression is/was used literally (e.g., a boxer’s coach throwing a towel into the ring to signal acceptance of defeat). Put differently, recognition of their literal underpinning can render idioms less arbitrary than they are often depicted. The literature on figurative idioms has diverse strands. One strand (e.g., Fernando 1996) has been concerned with the defining features of idioms, and linguists concur that these include a certain degree of formal (lexical/grammatical) fixedness and a certain degree of semantic non-compositionality. Non-compositionality indicates that the meaning of an idiom is not simply the result of adding up the meanings of its constituent parts (e.g., Gibbs 1994, for review). A second strand (e.g., Moon 1998) documents the use of idioms in discourse through analyzing large corpora. Several findings from this strand are relevant to language learning. One is that, while language abounds with idioms, very few of these multiword units occur with high frequency. Boers and Stengers (2008) tallied the instances of a random collection of 500 figurative idioms in the 56-million-word English text collection of the Wordbanks corpus and found these idioms occurred on average 0.44 times per one million words. This is probably an underestimation because spoken language is underrepresented in the corpus and it is well established that idioms occur more frequently in conversational discourse. Still, it strongly suggests that learners are very unlikely to encounter the same idiom several times in a short time span, and thus the chances of incidental acquisition from such encounters are very slim. This holds true for Spanish as well. In fact, Boers and Stengers (2008) also tallied the instances of 500 randomly selected Spanish idioms in the Spanish section of Wordbanks and found precisely the same average number of occurrences (i.e., 0.44) per one million words. However, to reiterate, learners exposed to authentic discourse will nonetheless often be confronted with idioms. Given that most idiom dictionaries have over 5,000 entries, we can posit that a 1000-word stretch of discourse is highly likely to exhibit at least one such expression, although this will of course vary depending on the genre and register of the text. More concretely, Boers and Lindstromberg (2009, 67) found, on average, one expression listed in the Collins COBUILD Dictionary of Idioms per 1.5 pages of a popular novel. While this confirms that idiom use as a phenomenon is common – at least in certain genres – almost all of the attested idioms occurred just once in this novel, and thus the likelihood of an L2 learner acquiring these idioms from merely reading at leisure diminishes greatly. And yet, idiom comprehension is an important objective given

70  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

that such multiword units perform crucial discourse functions, such as expressing an evaluative stance (O’Keeffe, McCarthy, and Carter 2007, 80–99). Without such comprehension, even advanced learners often fail to adequately interpret speakers’ intent when they use figurative expressions (Littlemore et  al. 2011). This point leads us to a third strand of research: Investigations of language learners’ comprehension of figurative idioms. Studies have demonstrated that the meaning of idioms very often eludes learners (Boers, Eyckmans, and Stengers 2007; Martinez and Murphy 2011). A fourth strand of research focuses on native speakers’ processing of idioms. A recurring question here is whether native speakers activate a literal reading of an idiom alongside (or even before) activating its figurative meaning. Various models have been proposed (e.g., Giora 1997), and psycholinguistic experiments (e.g., Tabossi, Fanari, and Wolf 2009) suggest that native speakers will, by default, access the idiomatic (i.e., figurative) meaning of an idiom, without recourse to a literal reading of the constituent words. The idiomatic meaning is simply the more frequent one and thus the more familiar one associated with the given expression. Literal interpretations can of course occur as well (Sprenger, Levelt, and Kempen 2006), as in the case of puns and wordplay, but that seems not to be the default processing mode under real-time conditions. However, a parallel strand of research on idiom processing in a second language, suggests that L2 idiom processing, on the contrary, does often involve literal readings of constituent words (e.g., Cieślicka 2006) and this might help to explain why learners’ processing of idiomatic meaning is comparatively slow even when they are familiar with the idiom (e.g., Siyanova, Conklin, and Schmitt 2011). This suggests that learners may be inclined to try and establish a connection between their literal interpretation of an idiom’s constituent words and its overall, figurative meaning. Although atypical of L1 idiom processing, we will argue later that L2 learners’ inclination to seek a connection between idiomatic meaning and a literal reading can benefit learning. Unfortunately, if learners base their inferencing on a “mistaken” literal interpretation of constituent words, then this may mislead them. This is why some scholars have made a case for an instructional approach that offers learners assistance in establishing literal underpinnings that are congruent with the idiomatic meaning of the expressions (e.g., Lindstromberg and Boers 2008); we will review some of the empirical evidence for its effectiveness in what follows. Making sense of idiomatic meaning by connecting it to its literal underpinnings does at least demand a level of cognitive engagement that goes beyond mechanical practice such as matching and gap-fill exercises. At the same time, we recognize that such practices need to be supplemented by more contextualized learning activities to foster a deeper appreciation of the pragmatic function of given idioms. Figure  4.1. (Muñoz-Basols 2016, 450) schematizes some of the information processing L2 language learners may need to engage in when hearing an idiomatic phrase in discourse and also indicates some of the aspects of its use that they may need to become aware of.

Acquisition of idiomatic language  71

FIGURE 4.1 

A L2 learner processing idiomatic language and language use variables

To deduce the meaning of the phrase, the learner may initially rely on the denotative or explicit meaning of the sequence. In the case of figurative idioms, this is likely to involve literal reading of the constituent words. For instance, in an expression such as tirar la casa por la ventana (to spare no expense), it is likely that many L2 learners will grasp the literal meaning of all the elements, since the expression is composed of relatively frequent lexical items, that is, tirar (to throw) → casa (house) → ventana (window). On the other hand, in an expression such as, irse de picos pardos (Spain), salir de farra (Ecuador), andar de carrete (Chile) (to go out on the town), many L2 learners may only understand the verb irse (to go). However, regardless of whether the “basic” meaning of the constituent words is known, the learner needs to arrive at the idiomatic meaning of the phrase, or what in Figure 4.1. has been labeled as its connotative meaning in the given context. In the previous examples, tirar la casa por la ventana means derrochar (to squander), irse de picos pardos is used to refer to salir de fiesta (to go partying). Contextual cues may possibly assist this interpretation process (e.g., Cooper 1999) or they may at least make the learner realize that a literal reading is not plausible in the given context (but see Martinez and Murphy 2011 for evidence that we cannot take this for granted). After having gathered the idiomatic meaning of the sequence, the next challenge for learners who wish to add the expression to their receptive linguistic repertoire is to remember its idiomatic meaning. In the case where learners also wish to add the expression to their L2 repertoire for productive or interactive use, then remembering its precise formal properties becomes important as well. This includes not only its lexical composition (e.g., rendering tirar la casa por la ventana as *tirar la casa por la puerta results in non-idiomaticity) but also its morphosyntactic peculiarities (e.g., rendering irse de picos pardos, irse de farra, andar de carrete as *irse de pico pardo, *irse de farras, *andar de carretes again results in non-idiomaticity). Although many idiomatic expressions have peculiar formal features, learners nevertheless need to apply their knowledge of regular morphosyntactic patterns as well. In Spanish, for example, grammatical agreement expressed in the morphemes of number and gender may pose difficulties for some learners. Mastering idiomatic expressions in a language such as Spanish at the productive level may, in that regard, be even more challenging than it is in languages with less inflectional morphology, such as English (Stengers et al. 2011). Next in the learning process comes knowledge of the aforementioned variables regarding the pragmatics and sociolinguistic usage distribution (and usage

72  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

restrictions) of the expression (including the register and possibly the dialectal variant of the language in which it is typically used). In summary, the L2 learner needs to decode the idiomatic, figurative meaning of the expression, while calibrating a range of variables related to language use. As demonstrated earlier, the acquisition of idiomatic language requires considerable cognitive effort on the part of the L2 language learner.

4. Integration within Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI) 4.1. The benefits of recognizing the literal underpinnings of idioms Appropriately connecting the figurative meaning of an idiom to its literal meaning is beneficial for learners in several ways. First, awareness of the literal underpinning lends concreteness to the expression by virtue of mental imagery, and this can make the expression more memorable (cf. Dual Coding theory; for example, Paivio 1986). Experiments have indeed shown that learners’ ability to recall L2 idioms is positively influenced by their knowledge of the original context in which the expressions are/were used literally (e.g., Boers 2000; Boers, Demecheleer, and Eyckmans 2004a; see Boers 2013, for a review). Second, it may help learners appreciate the connection between a language’s idiom repertoire and the cultural context of that language (Boers and Littlemore 2003; see, e.g., Liontas 2017, for argumentation). As already mentioned, some idioms originate from specific historical events or stories (including myths, legends, and religion) shared by members of a community that are unfamiliar to L2 learners from different cultural heritages. Learning such idioms may then offer a pathway into that knowledge base. In a broader sense, a language will exhibit clusters of idioms that share the same general “source domain,” and if such a cluster comprises many idioms, this may reflect the importance a language community attaches to a given historical source domain. Boers and Stengers (2008) compared to the repertoires of English and Spanish idioms with a view to finding out if shared, general source domains (e.g., sports, war, food, fauna) had been equally “productive” in terms of generating idioms. This was done by screening comparable idiom dictionaries for expressions whose source domains were either relatively obvious or clarified in etymological notes, and then counting the number of idioms belonging to each of these categories. One finding that emerged from this was that there is a far greater number of idioms derived from religion, for example, colgarle a uno un sambenito (to pin the blame on someone); en un santiamén (in a flash), ser más malo que Caín (to be evil incarnate), in Spanish than in English. Unsurprisingly, Spanish also has a far greater number of idioms derived from bullfighting, ver los toros desde la barrera (to watch from the sidelines), ponerse el mundo por montera (throw caution to the wind), echar un capote (to give a helping hand). By contrast, English has more idioms derived from seafaring and also, for example, from horse racing, hunting, and – unsurprisingly – cricket.

Acquisition of idiomatic language  73

A third, but less straightforward, benefit is that knowledge of the literal underpinning of an idiom can sometimes help learners make a reasoned guess at the type of register where the idiom might be most appropriate. Boers, Eyckmans, and Stengers (2007) found that idioms derived from domains of games, sports and public entertainment were more often labeled “informal” in dictionaries than idioms derived from domains such as war and religion. In an experiment, they then found that learners were better able to identify the informal ones among sets of idioms after having learned the literal underpinning of the expressions. While this is unlikely to suffice for learners to fully grasp the complex pragmatics of idiom use, it can be a useful first step in developing an understanding of usage restrictions. Finally, a motivating factor for learners may relate to the fact that the meaning of many idioms is not totally arbitrary and, instead, can be understood if one knows its literal underpinning. This is because it opens up an avenue for insightful learning as an alternative to laborious rote learning. The fact that many idiom dictionaries now include notes on the origins of idiomatic expressions suggests that lexicographers (or the publishing houses that pay them) also realize that this must have a certain appeal for (some) learners (but see Szczepaniak and Lew 2011, for a nuanced view of the usefulness of such etymological notes). Nonetheless, idiom dictionaries are reference works and whether language learners consult them frequently (if at all) invites some skepticism. It therefore seems justified to assist learners in exploiting the connections between literal and idiomatic meaning as part of instructional materials and classroom activities.

4.2. Why learners need assistance in establishing connections between idiomatic meanings and their literal underpinnings The literal meaning of idioms is of course not always straightforward, and thus requires a certain amount of etymological knowledge that cannot be expected of nonlexicologists. Idiomatic meaning may also be “un-guessable” owing to the elliptic form of many idioms. For example, the original full form of ser un alcornoque (to be a fool) may have been something like ser un cabeza de alcornoque, which makes reference to the hard bark of a species of oak tree, and this fuller form would obviously be a better clue to its meaning “have a thick head.” But even in those cases where the literal underpinning would be relatively obvious to non-specialist native speakers, second language learners are at a disadvantage. For one, they may simply not be familiar with a keyword in a given idiom, and therefore have no access to its literal meaning. This is likely when an idiom contains a low frequency word, for example, sereno in tomar a alguien por el pito del sereno (not to take someone seriously), or tejos in tirarle los tejos a alguien (to make a pass at someone). Also, when the constituent words of an idiom appear familiar, learners may not be aware that these have more than one literal meaning and will activate the meaning they are (most) familiar

74  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

with. This also happens in cases of lexical homonymy and polysemy. For example, blanco in dar en el blanco does not refer to the color white but to a target (in darts, for instance). In addition, learners may mistake unfamiliar words for lookalikes, for example, candelabro (candelabra) for candelero (candlestick) in estar en el candelero (to be in the limelight) (cf. Laufer’s notion of synforms, e.g., Laufer 2013). It is not difficult to imagine how a misinterpretation of the literal meaning of a keyword in an idiom can lead to the misunderstanding of the entire multiword expression. For example, if learners interpret el pistoletazo in dar el pistoletazo de salida as referring to a weapon (rather than the starter pistol that is used in track sports), they are unlikely to see the connection with (let alone guess) the idiomatic meaning “to light the fuse.” Moreover, even if the literal referent is correctly identified, this does not guarantee a correct interpretation of the idiom. For example, one may correctly guess that el sombrero in quitarse el sombrero refers to a hat, but this does not automatically lead to an interpretation of the idiom as “to admire someone.” To arrive at that meaning, the scene conjured up must be one where a man takes off his hat as a sign of respect. This illustrates that an instructional approach that connects idiomatic meaning to the context where the expression is/was used in its literal sense will often require more than simply clarifying the literal referents of content words. Therefore, clarifying the literal sense of an expression can help learners to access its idiomatic meaning. Cultural differences constitute an additional obstacle where learners may need assistance (e.g., Charteris-Black 2002; Boers and Littlemore 2003). One example is the way different communities construe the domains of reason and emotion. In Western culture, the Cartesian division between the mind and the body still reigns and so does the Jamesian view of emotion: The mind (associated with the head) is the seat of reason, while the emotions reside in the body, especially the heart. This is reflected in the high number of heart expressions used to talk about emotions in the idiom repertoires of languages such as English and Spanish. In other cultures, a division between reason and emotion need not correspond to a mind/head versus body division. In Mandarin Chinese, the concept of mind coincides with the concept of heart (xin), and so idioms in Mandarin Chinese with xin (heart) do not correspond to the same metaphor as do English and Spanish idioms with heart (Hu 2002). Unsurprisingly, Chinese EFL learners find it relatively hard to make sense of figurative phrases containing the words heart, mind, and head (Hu and Fong 2010). Conversely, westerners learning Chinese are often puzzled by Chinese idioms containing xin. But cultural variation may hamper L2 idiom comprehension even in the case of closely related languages. Obvious examples are idioms derived from sports that do not share the same popularity across cultures. As already mentioned, the Spanish stock of idioms contains many more expressions derived from bullfighting than, say, the English repertoire. Conversely, the English idiom repertoire contains more expressions derived from ball games such as cricket in British English (e.g., off your own bat and hit someone for six) and baseball in American

Acquisition of idiomatic language  75

English (e.g., go in to bat for someone and touch all the bases). These are often foreign to speakers of language communities where these sports are virtually unknown and, consequently, are difficult to decode and recall – likely because learners find it hard to conjure up a clear image of the scene where these expressions are used in their literal sense (Boers, Demecheleer, and Eyckmans 2004b). Given all of these challenges, it is not surprising that learners often fail to adequately interpret idioms when they encounter them, in spite of the support that context might provide. Furthermore, as already mentioned, there is only a slim chance that learners will encounter the same idiom in authentic discourse several times in close succession to enable them to gradually refine or rectify initial interpretation attempts. For these reasons, it seems justified to invest a minimal amount of time and effort in the intentional learning of idiomatic meaning through explicit clarifications. Of course, this does not preclude contextual learning. Indeed, teachers can signal the nature of idiomatic phrases as they are encountered in reading or listening texts, even though their content is often of primary concern. Also, as mentioned previously, the availability of online corpora now makes it possible to extract several contextualized instances of the same idiom for learners to contemplate. This enables them to deduce its meaning through so-called data-driven learning (see, e.g., MacArthur and Littlemore 2008, for an exploratory study). However, a pedagogical approach that seems to be particularly promising is one where learners combine the two types of clues to help them discover idiomatic meaning given that this combination is likely to improve the outcome of the interpretation process: Information on the literal underpinning of the idiom together with multiple examples of its use in context (Boers et al. 2007). In what follows, we describe three sample activities that raise learners’ awareness of idiomaticity, two of which concern sets of idioms that have been pre-selected for intentional learning with the aid of the aforementioned strategies. The third activity is a description of a more communicative activity where learners are encouraged to recycle expressions encountered in input texts as they relay the content of these texts to others.

5.  Sample activities 5.1. Selecting, organizing, and systematizing the linguistic material Two main stumbling blocks in the teaching of idiomatic language are often: (a) how to approach the selection, organization, and systematization of the linguistic material, and (b) how to make use of this material to design effective language learning activities (see Muñoz-Basols and Gironzetti 2019; Jiménez Calderón and Rufat 2019). Addressing these issues, Liu (2008, 115–117) analyzes different possibilities of organizing idioms for instruction and retention (by grammatical

76  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

structure, function, motivating concept, origin, or source, topic, activity, keywords, and semantics). He concludes that they all have advantages and disadvantages and overlap with one another to some extent. Much of the problem in systematizing idiomatic language lies in the fact that detailed classifications are neither entirely satisfactory nor pedagogical in nature. One possibility is to organize the material by semantic field, that is, focusing on the meaning of the lexical items present in an idiomatic expression while also bearing in mind their structure and function (Muñoz-Basols 2016). In addition, broad but useful “grammatical” categories can be helpful. Four such groupings serve as a starting point: fórmulas rutinarias (routine expressions), locuciones (multiword expressions), expresiones idiomáticas (idiomatic expressions), and proverbios y refranes (proverbs and sayings). Organizing the material according to types of expressions ensures that the learning task appears less daunting and less random for students. Importantly, it can also help teachers to follow a balanced approach when addressing different types of expressions within their courses. The following Figure  4.2. (Muñoz-Basols et  al. 2014) illustrates a program that covers expresiones idiomáticas (1, 2, 3 and 4), grouped according to the meaning of the lexical items they include; locuciones introducidas por preposiciones (5); and proverbios y refranes (6), according to a source domain, that is, based on their overall meaning and etymology. This program covers a varied spectrum of topics and sequences, that is, (1) the environment (food, animals, trees, and plants), (2) the human being (parts of the body), (3) its interaction in its most immediate medium (parts of the house, objects, and clothes), (4) and with society: Culturally-bound expressions (nationalities, languages, and cultures, historical and literary figures, places, and cultural traditions). It also includes (5) multiword expressions introduced by the same preposition, and (6) proverbs and sayings classified around the same topic (love, work, money, the calendar, agriculture, and the weather).

FIGURE 4.2 

A possible structure for organizing idiomatic sequences

Acquisition of idiomatic language  77

While this represents only one possibility for systematizing the material, it aims to equip learners with enough exposure to a variety of semantic fields, as well as to the structures and topics in which idiomatic language can be organized in Spanish. Idiomatic language “[reveals] a great deal about a community’s culture, especially if the link between idiom and culture is made explicit and if instruction is systematically organized” (Lantolf and Bobrova 2014, 54). Organizing idiomatic sequences around a specific theme, which functions as an umbrella term, helps learners to systematically categorize the linguistic material and integrate it into their repertoires (See Figure 4.2.). Also, in terms of intercultural learning, this enables L2 learners to compare and establish connections with their own native languages, ultimately reinforcing learning. More examples for organizing idioms along these lines (but for English) can be found in Boers and Lindstromberg 2008; Lindstromberg and Boers 2008).

5.2.  Applying a constructivist approach To help learners decode the meaning of a new lexical item, teachers and learning content designers essentially have two options. One is to present learners with the meaning of the item from the outset; the other is to encourage learners to guess or infer the meaning (from contextual or other clues). To our knowledge, the jury is still out as to which of these two broad options is preferable (e.g., Mondria 2003). One reason why no consensus has been reached yet on this issue is that it probably matters whether learners’ first guesses or inferences are correct or need to be rectified through feedback, as it cannot be taken for granted that feedback will effectively eradicate the incorrect inferences from memory (Elgort 2017; Strong and Boers 2019). However, in the case of many idioms, teachers and learning content designers can offer crucial assistance to guide learners to correctly inferring meaning. More broadly, we argue that a constructivist and sociocultural methodology (Vygotsky 1987) can serve to raise learners’ general language awareness, while assigning them the role of active agents in the process of learning idioms. This approach promotes discovery learning (Bruner 1961) by helping students make the connection between different pieces of information while the teacher acts as a facilitator. The following three sample activities illustrate how students can be guided to engage with the form-meaning connections of selected figurative expressions. The following activity, extracted from Muñoz-Basols et al. (2014, 28–29), presents newspaper articles that have each been written using an idiomatic expression related to nature (clouds, wind, sky, and so forth) (See Figure 4.3.). First, students need to detect and underline the idiomatic expression, which teaches them to recognize this type of expression. Second, they need to deduce its meaning in context by reading the headline and the opening paragraph. Third, they need to answer a series of questions to double-check that they have understood the meaning of each expression correctly. In the following excerpt from an activity appearing in Muñoz-Basols et  al. (2014, 12–13), which focuses on similes, students first observe a series of images of different animals (4a) and their lexical labels (the majority of which students are likely to be familiar with) (See Figure 4.4.). The simile is then presented to students

78  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

FIGURE 4.3 Sample

activity – idiomatic expressions related to nature (Muñoz-Basols et al. 2014, 28–29)

with a gap where the animal would appear. Students are required to choose the most appropriate animal to complete the simile. In so doing they establish a connection between the expression’s lexical composition and its idiomatic meaning. A  follow-up activity then requires students to explain the expressions used for describing the physical appearance of a person, his/her character, and think of a learning strategy that can serve them to remember the expression. In the second part of the activity (4b) they need to match the expressions with a non-idiomatic equivalent to prove they have understood their meaning. One of the advantages of this procedure is that L2 learners become aware of how key constituent words of the expression contribute to idiomatic meanings. They can be prompted by the teacher to think of a learning strategy to enhance memory retention. For instance, for aburrise como una ostra (to be bored to death)

Acquisition of idiomatic language  79

FIGURE 4.4 Sample

activity – idiomatic expressions with animals (Muñoz-Basols et al. 2014, 12–13)

the learning strategy could be that “oysters do not do move much and just stay in the sea.” For ser el último mono (to be a nobody) a possible explanation could be that “a monkey, as the animal most similar to humans, would only repeat actions, that is, without taking the initiative,” and for estar como una cabra (to be as mad as a hatter) one could argue that “goats would jump from one mountain to another without showing any fear.” When available, this procedure can be complemented

80  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

with the actual etymology of the expression in case students themselves fail to discern the logic of the expression. Finally, the process of sharing these strategies among students as thinking aloud protocols (Spöttl and McCarthy 2004, 193–194) constitutes a method of inquiry that both encourages interaction among L2 learners and reinforces learning. The third sample activity (from Muñoz-Basols et al. 2014, 188–189) focuses on proverbs (See Figure 4.5.). The teacher first explains that proverbs are useful in describing character traits or people’s behavior. This type of exercise is not intended to be used in isolation but after learners have been properly introduced to this type of expression. Learners read the proverbs first and then proceed to match each expression to an appropriate situation; three are included as distractors.

FIGURE 4.5 

Sample activity – proverbs (Muñoz-Basols et al. 2014, 188–199)

Acquisition of idiomatic language  81

Whereas in the previous activity (on similes) the expressions shared the same broad source domain (animals), the situations in the present activity concern the same broad target domain, that is, how a person behaves regarding money: A friend who needs to lend money (1) (g. Quien presta a un amigo); someone who has just won a lot of money (2) (i. La avaricia); a friend who always wants to pay (3) (e. Las cuentas claras); the owner of a company who needs to distribute the company’s profits among the employees (4) (a. El que parte y reparte); a broker who wants to earn more (5) (d. A río revuelto); someone who is a conformist (6) (b. No es más rico quien más tiene). In the process of interpreting these expressions, students need to explain the logic in the configuration of the expressions according to their meaning. As learners have already been introduced to the notion of proverb in Spanish, and are already familiar with some of them, they should be able to recognize and understand them in contextualized, content-based activities. The teacher can decide if there is a need to assist students as they proceed through the exercise. A way of doing this is by drawing special attention to those that are relatively transparent and decompositional, that is, can be divided and understood in different chunks, as they are easier to understand (Liu 2008, 112), for example, the political maxim attributed to King Solomon (Titus 1945, 381), El que parte y reparte, siempre se lleva la mejor parte (He who cuts the cake gets the last piece). Then students need to interpret the proverb and the lesson that can be learned from it. Finally, students match each expression to the specific scenario in which they could use it. In doing the activity, they not only learn the expressions but also acquire a series of cultural parameters reflected in the target language (Randall 2007, 98). While the two sample activities are congruent with published research findings concerning the teaching of idioms (more specifically, research on the mnemonic benefits of associating idiomatic meanings with their literal underpinnings) (Boers, Eyckmans, and Stengers 2007), we need to acknowledge that these activities – along with many others advocated in coursebooks and manuals for teachers – have not yet been put to the test in rigorously designed classroom experiments. The results of such empirical validation efforts could point to ways in which their effectiveness might be enhanced. For example, experiments may point to the advisability of reducing the number of phrases co-presented in a single set that bear semantic resemblance, in case such copresentation increases the risk of inter-item confusion (Nation 2000). An alternative may be to select expressions for inclusion in the exercises that students have previously encountered, so as to ensure a certain exemplar-based familiarity with them. A practical consideration remains, of course, regarding how much time can be devoted to a deliberate focus on idiomatic competence in a language course, given that so many other competences need to be fostered as well. A fourth activity proposed here is of a more integrative nature, where uptake of idiomatic language is a by-product of a text-based communicative activity. It originates from findings of Boers et al. (2006) where it was shown that L2 learners whose awareness of the idiomatic nature of discourse had been enhanced during a proficiency course became inclined to recycle multiword expressions from new texts when they were asked to talk about the content of such texts. This idea was

82  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

pursued further by Hoang and Boers (2016) in a study where learners read and listened twice to a story and subsequently retold the story to a listener who was not yet familiar with it. Almost inevitably, the input text was rich in idiomatic language and so presented an opportunity for the learners to incorporate many expressions in their own rendering of the story. Unfortunately, only limited recycling of multiword expressions was observed in this experiment, but there are several explanations for this. First, the participants had not been told about the relevance of idiomatic language and nor were any steps taken to direct their attention to any of the idiomatic expressions in the text. Second, some of the expressions were semantically non-transparent and in the absence of clarifications, it is to be expected that the learners shied away from using them. Third, the participants had not received any encouragement to recycle language from the original story. All too often, students are told to summarize text content “in their own words,” and this is obviously no incentive for them to try and retrieve the way the content is worded in model texts. Given these considerations, the next sample activity proposed here is as follows: (1) Ask students to read/listen (with a primary focus on content) to a text that is comprehensible and appealing to them (2) Give the students a second opportunity to read/listen to the text and announce that their task will be to relay the contents to a classmate who has not read/listened to the same text. Encourage the students to “mine” the original texts for words and phrases they find useful for the retell task. An additional step here may be to use visual or typographic enhancement of useful idiomatic expressions and to help students grasp their meaning. (3) Divide students into pairs so they can tell each other about their texts; create a purposeful listening activity to make the exchange meaningful (e.g., students need to use the information received from their partners in a subsequent activity). In some ways, this proposed activity is perhaps reminiscent of the so-called dictogloss activity, where students are also asked to reconstruct a text that they have listened to a number of times (e.g., Lindstromberg, Eyckmans, and Connabeer 2016, for an example of using dictogloss with a focus on multiword expressions). However, a retell activity, as proposed, arguably bears a closer resemblance to what people use language for in real life. When repeated regularly with different input texts, students will be exposed to (and encouraged to try and use) a broad range of idiomatic expressions, too.

6. Conclusions To compensate for the lack of visibility of idiomaticity in L2 curricula and textbooks, we have argued that it takes initiative on the part of the teacher to help their students to come to grips with this elusive but vital dimension of language. This is no easy task as it requires familiarity with a wide range of idiomatic sequences and with the variables that influence their use. It also requires the teacher to adopt the role of learner in order to anticipate which idiomatic expressions are likely to pose comprehension problems to students (and why). On a positive note, more pedagogy-oriented publications devoted to the learning and teaching of multiword expressions have become available in recent years and these may assist teachers as

Acquisition of idiomatic language  83

they plan, organize, and systematize the integration of idiomatic language in their L2 classes. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the majority of those publications concern English as the target language. A crucial question that remains regarding the teaching of idiomatic language is how to design effective learning activities. Although considerable empirical research has been conducted in this area in recent years (Pellicer-Sánchez and Boers 2018), there still remains a significant amount to be done, and this also holds true for the activities we have described in this chapter. It may be argued that our call for a sustained focus on idiomatic language throughout the curriculum is quite ambitious. However, from a different perspective, the activities we have described here may in fact be considered relatively unambitious. While they are likely to be efficient at helping learners comprehend and remember a sizable bank of idiomatic expressions, they do not as such provide the kind of practice required to transform this “declarative” knowledge into the procedural or automatized knowledge that fosters fluency in real-time communication (Wood 2015). This raises the question of what communicative needs a learner’s competence in idiomatic language is meant to serve. For those learners aspiring to engage in regular face-to-face interaction with L1 speakers (e.g. in immersion contexts), the challenge is not only to build a large repertoire of idiomatic expression for comprehension purposes but also to learn to use the expressions fluently and in pragmatically appropriate ways, while remaining within the specific L2 community the learners find themselves in. On the other hand, it may be argued that for many L2 learners who will not regularly face the challenge of real-time communication with L1 users, the kind of broad and declarative knowledge fostered by activities such as the ones presented here may suffice to support their understanding of L2 idiomatic discourse and to deploy their productive knowledge of idiomatic expressions in communicative situations and tasks that are not time pressured. Inevitably, given the ubiquity and richness of idiomatic language, an L2 program can only raise awareness of its importance to students, explicitly teach a fraction of it, and promote learning strategies that enhance retention. Nonetheless, the inclusion of such steps in a language program may put learners on a path to autonomous further engagement with this dimension of their target language.

7. Bibliography Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2007. “Las fórmulas rutinarias como unidades fraseológicas.” ELUA 21: 1–13. Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 2008. “Las fórmulas rutinarias en el español actual.” Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Alicante. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012a. ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. www.actfl.org/resources/ actfl-performance-descriptors-language-learners. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012b. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Spanish. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-andmanuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012/spanish.

84  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

Ayto, J., ed. 2016. Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bestgen, Y. 2017. “Beyond Single-Word Measures: L2 Writing Assessment, Lexical Richness and Formulaic Competence.” System 69: 65–78. Boers, F. 2000. “Metaphor Awareness and Vocabulary Retention.” Applied Linguistics 21 (4): 553–571. Boers, F. 2013. “Cognitive Semantic ways of Teaching Figurative Phrases: An Assessment.” In Metaphor and Metonymy Revisited beyond the Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, eds. F. Gonzalvez-Garcia, M. S. Peña Cervel, and L. Pérez Hernández, 229–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boers, F., C. T. Dang, and B. Strong. 2017. “Comparing the Effectiveness of Phrase-Focused Exercises. A Partial Replication of Boers, Demecheleer, Coxhead, and Webb (2014).” Language Teaching Research 21 (3): 362–280. Boers, F., M. Demecheleer, and J. Eyckmans. 2004a. “Etymological Elaboration as a Strategy for Learning Figurative Idioms.” In Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition and Testing, eds. P. Bogaards and B. Laufer, 53–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Boers, F., M. Demecheleer, and J. Eyckmans. 2004b. “Cultural Variation as a Variable in Comprehending and Remembering Figurative Idioms.” European Journal of English Studies 8: 375–388. Boers, F., M. Demecheleer, L. He, J. Deconinck, H. Stengers, and J. Eyckmans. 2017. “Typographic Enhancement of Multiword Units in Second Language Text.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27 (2): 448–469. Boers, F., J. Eyckmans, J. Kappel, H. Stengers, and M. Demecheleer. 2006. “Formulaic Sequences and Perceived Oral Proficiency: Putting a Lexical Approach to the Test.” Language Teaching Research 10 (3): 245–261. Boers, F., J. Eyckmans, and H. Stengers. 2007. “Presenting Figurative Idioms with a Touch of Etymology: More than Mere Mnemonics?” Language Teaching Research 11 (1): 43–62. Boers, F. and S. Lindstromberg. 2008. “From Empirical Findings to Pedagogical Practice.” In Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, eds. F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg, 375–393. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Boers, F. and S. Lindstromberg. 2009. Optimizing a Lexical Approach to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Boers, F., S. Lindstromberg, and J. Eyckmans. 2014. “Some Explanations for the Slow Acquisition of L2 Collocations.” VIAL – Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11: 41–62. Boers, F. and J. Littlemore, eds. 2003. Cross-Cultural Differences in Conceptual Metaphor: Applied Linguistics Perspectives. Special Issue of Metaphor and Symbol 18. Boers, F. and H. Stengers. 2008. “A Quantitative Comparison of the English and Spanish Repertoires of Figurative Idioms.” In Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, eds. Frank Boers and Seth Lindstromberg, 355–374. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bruner, J. S. 1961. “The Act of Discovery.” Harvard Educational Review 31: 21–32. Charteris-Black, J. 2002. “Second Language Figurative Proficiency: A Comparative Study of Malay and English.” Applied Linguistics 23 (1): 104–133. Choi, S. 2017. “Processing and Learning of Enhanced English Collocations: An EyEMovement Study.” Language Teaching Research 21 (3): 403–426. Christiansen, M. H. and N. Chater. 2008. “Language as Shaped by the Brain.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 489–558. Cieślicka, A. 2006. “Literal Salience in On-Line Processing of Idiomatic Expressions by Second Language Learners.” Second Language Research 22 (2): 115–144.

Acquisition of idiomatic language  85

Cobb, T. 2018. “From Corpus to CALL: The Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning Formulaic Language.” In Understanding Formulaic Language: A Second Language Acquisition Perspective, eds. A. Siyanova-Chanturia and A. Pellicer-Sánchez, 192–210. New York: Routledge. Collins COBUILD dictionary of idioms. 2002. 2nd ed. Glasgow: HarperCollins. Cooper, T. C. 1999. “Processing of Idioms by L2 Learners of English.” TESOL Quarterly 33 (2): 233–262. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe. int/common-european-framework-of-referencefor-languages-learning-teaching/ 16809ea0d4. Crossley, A. S., T. Salsbury, and D. S. McNamara. 2015. “Assessing Lexical Proficiency Using Analytic Ratings: A  Case for Collocation Accuracy.” Applied Linguistics 36 (5): 570–590. Davis, P. and H. Kryszewska. 2012. The Company Words Keep: Lexical Chunks in Language Teaching. Peaslake: Delta Publishing. Elgort, I. 2017. “Incorrect Inferences and Contextual Word Learning in English as a Second Language.” Journal of the European Second Language Association 1: 1–11. Erman, B. and B. Warren. 2000. “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle.” Text 20: 29–62. Estévez, K. 2017. “Canarias es un lugar privilegiado como sede para el Diccionario Fraseológico.” Diario de avisos 25 (10). https://diariodeavisos.elespanol.com/2017/10/ canarias-lugar-privilegiado-sede-diccionario-fraseologico. Fernando, C. 1996. Idioms and Idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gairns, R. and S. Redman. 2011. Idioms and Phrasal Verbs: Intermediate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibbs, R. W. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giora, R. 1997. “Understanding Figurative and Literal Language: The Graded Salience Hypothesis.” Cognitive Linguistics 7: 183–206. Godfroid, A., F. Boers, and A. Housen, A. 2013. “An Eye for Words: Gauging the Role of Attention in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition by Means of Eye-Tracking.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35: 483–517. Grant, L. 2005. “Frequency of ‘Core Idioms’ in the British National Corpus (BNC).” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10: 429–451. Grant, L. and L. Bauer. 2004. “Criteria for Redefining Idioms: Are We Barking Up the Wrong Tree?” Applied Linguistics 25 (1): 38–61. Hernández Muñoz, N., J. Muñoz-Basols, and C. Soler Montes. 2021. La diversidad del español y su enseñanza. London and New York: Routledge. Herrera, H. and M. White. 2010. “Canonicity and Variation in Idiomatic Expressions: Evidence from Business Press Headlines.” In Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics, eds. S. De Knop, F. Boers, and A. De Rycker, 167–187. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hoang, H. and F. Boers, F. 2016. “Re-Telling a Story in a Second Language: How Well do Adult Learners Mine an Input Text for Multiword Expressions?” Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 6: 513–535. Hu, Y.-h. 2002. “A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Mandarin Chinese Conceptual Metaphors of Anger, Happiness and Romantic Love.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.

86  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

Hu, Y.-h. and Y.-y. Fong. 2010. “Obstacles to Conceptual-Metaphor Guided L2 Idiom Interpretation.” In Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics, eds. S. De Knop, F. Boers, and A. De Rycker, 293–317. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Instituto Cervantes. 2006. Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Madrid: Instituto Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ENSENANZA/biblioteca_ele/plan_curricular/default.htm. Jiménez Calderón, F. and A. Rufat, eds. 2019. Manual de formación para profesores de ELE. Madrid: SGEL. Kremmel, B., T. Brunfaut, and J. C. Alderson. 2017. “Exploring the Role of Phraseological Knowledge in Foreign Language Reading.” Applied Linguistics 38 (1): 848–870. Lantolf, J. P. and Bobrova, L. 2014. “Metaphor Instruction in the L2 Spanish Classroom: Theoretical Argument and Pedagogical Program.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 1 (1): 46–61. Laufer, B. 2013. “Second Language Word Difficulty.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. Carol A. Chapelle. Hoboken, NJ. Blackwell Publishing. Laufer, B. and T. Waldman. 2011. “Verb-Noun Collocations in Second Language Writing: A Corpus Analysis of Learners’ English.” Language Learning 61 (2): 647–672. Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M., ed. 2000. Teaching Collocations. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lindstromberg, S. and F. Boers. 2008. Teaching Chunks of Language: From Noticing to Remembering. London: Helbling Languages. Lindstromberg, S., J. Eyckmans, and R. Connabeer. 2016. “A  Modified Dictogloss for Helping Learners Remember L2 Academic English Formulaic Sequences for Use in Later Writing.” English for Specific Purposes 41: 12–21. Liontas, J. I. 2017. “Why Teach Idioms? A Challenge to the Profession.” Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 5: 5–25. Littlemore, J., P. Chen, J. Barnden, and A. Koester. 2011. “Difficulties in Metaphor Comprehension Faced by International Students Whose First Language is not English.” Applied Linguistics 32 (4): 208–429. Liu, D. 2008. Idioms. Description, Comprehension, Acquisition and Pedagogy. London and New York: Routledge. MacArthur, F. and J. Littlemore. 2008. “A Discovery Approach to Figurative Language Learning with the Use of Corpora.” In Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology, eds. F. Boers and S. Lindstromberg, 159–188. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Martín Noguerol, M. 2012. “¿Qué se dice en español cuando. . . ? Las fórmulas rutinarias y las situaciones sociales de comunicación en los niveles iniciales.” Actas del III Simposio internacional de didáctica de español para extranjeros del Instituto Cervantes de Argel, ed. Óscar Abenójar Sanjuán, 57–64. Argel: Instituto Cervantes. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/publicaciones_centros/PDF/argel_2012/05_martin.pdf. Martinez, R. and V. A. Murphy. 2011. “Effect of Frequency and Idiomaticity on Second Language Reading Comprehension.” TESOL Quarterly 45 (2): 267–290. McCarthy, M. and F. O’Dell. 2002. English Idioms in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McCarthy, M. and F. O’Dell. 2005. English Collocations in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McPherron, P. and P. T. Randolph. 2014. Cat Got Your Tongue? Recent Research and Classroom Practices for Teaching Idioms to English Learners around the World. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press. Mestre Vives, A. 2018. Me lo ha dicho un pajarito – mit Redewendungen und Quiz spielerisch lernen: Bildhaft sprechen mit 250 spanischen Redewendungen. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

Acquisition of idiomatic language  87

Mondria, J. 2003. “The Effects of Inferring, Verifying, and Memorizing on the Retention of L2 Word Meanings: An Experimental Comparison of the Meaning-Inferred Method and the Meaning-Given Method.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25 (4): 473–499. Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Muñoz-Basols, J. 2016. “Enseñanza del lenguaje idiomático.” In  Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica, ed. J. Gutiérrez-Rexach, 442–453. London and New York: Routledge. Muñoz-Basols, J. 2019. Review of “Diccionario de anglicismos del español estadounidense (DAEE) by Francisco Moreno-Fernández.” Hispania 102 (3): 444–446. https://doi.org/10.1353/ hpn.2019.0089. Muñoz-Basols, J. and E. Gironzetti. 2019. “Selección y elaboración de materiales didácticos significativos.” In Manual de formación para profesores de ELE, eds. F. Jiménez Calderón and A. Rufat, 64–84. Madrid: SGEL. Muñoz-Basols, J., E. Gironzetti, and M. Lacorte, eds. 2019. The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Language Teaching: metodologías, contextos y recursos para la enseñanza del español L2. Londres y Nueva York: Routledge. Muñoz-Basols, J. and N. Hernández Muñoz. 2019. “El español en la era global: agentes y voces de la polifonía panhispánica.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 6 (2): 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2020.1752019. Muñoz-Basols, J. and M. Lacorte. 2018. Lingüística hispánica actual: guía didáctica y materiales de apoyo. London and New York: Routledge. Muñoz-Basols, J., N. Moreno, I. Taboada, and Manel Lacorte. 2017. Introducción a la lingüística hispánica actual: teoría y práctica. London and New York: Routledge. Muñoz-Basols, J., Y. Pérez Sinusía, and M. David. 2014. Spanish Idioms in Practice: Understanding Language and Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Muñoz-Basols, J. y D. Salazar. 2016. “Cross-Linguistic Lexical Influence between English and Spanish.” Spanish in Context 13 (1): 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.13.1.04mun. Muñoz-Basols, J. y D. Salazar. 2019. “¿Nos hacemos un/una selfie con la/el tablet? CrossLinguistic Lexical Influence, Gender Assignment and Linguistic Policy in Spanish.” Revista Signos. Estudios de lingüística 52 (99): 77–108. https://doi.org/10.4067/S071809342019000100077. Nattinger, J. and J. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nation, I. S. P.  2000. “Learning Vocabulary in Lexical Sets: Dangers and Guidelines.” TESOL Journal 9 (2): 6–10. O’Keeffe, A., M. McCarthy, and R. Carter. 2007. From Corpus to Classroom: Language use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paivio, A. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pawley, A. and F. Syder. 1983. “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency.” In Language and Communication, eds. Jack Richards and Robert Schmidt, 191–226. New York: Longman. Pellicer-Sánchez, A. and F. Boers. 2018. “Pedagogical Approaches to the Teaching and Learning of Formulaic Language.” In Understanding Formulaic Language: A  Second Language Acquisition Perspective, eds. A. Siyanova-Chanturia and A. Pellicer-Sánchez, 153– 173. London and New York: Routledge. Peters, E. 2012. “Learning German Formulaic Sequences: The Effect of Two AttentionDrawing Techniques.” Language Learning Journal 40: 65–79. Randall, M. 2007. Memory, Psychology and Second Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

88  Frank Boers and Javier Muñoz-Basols

Rodríguez-Vida, S. 2011. Diccionario temático de frases hechas. Barcelona: Ediciones Octaedro. Ruiz Gurillo, L. 2001. Las locuciones en español actual. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Sánchez Rufat, A. and F. Jiménez Calderón. 2015. “Nuevas perspectivas sobre la adquisición y la enseñanza del vocabulario del español.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 2 (2): 99–111.https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2015.1106123. Saviano, E. 2007. Spanish Idioms. New York: Barron’s. Schmidt, R. 2001. “Attention.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction, ed. P. Robinson, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siyanova-Chanturia, A., K. Conklin, and N. Schmitt. 2011. “Adding More Fuel to the Fire: An Eye-Tracking Study of Idiom Processing by Native and Non-Native Speakers.” Second Language Research 27: 251 − 272. Spöttl, C. and M. McCarthy. 2004. “Comparing Knowledge of Formulaic Sequences across L1, L2, L3 and L4.” In Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use, ed. N. Schmitt, 193–194. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sprenger, S. A., W. J. M. Levelt, and G. Kempen. 2006. “Lexical Access during the Production of Idiomatic Phrases.” Journal of Memory and Language 54 (2): 161–184. Stengers, H. and F. Boers. 2015. “Exercises on Collocations: A Comparison of Trial-andError and Exemplar-Guided Procedures.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 2 (2): 152– 164. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2015.1104030. Stengers, H., F. Boers, A. Housen, and J. Eyckmans. 2011. “Formulaic Sequences and L2 Oral Proficiency: Does the Type of Target Language Influence the Association?” IRAL 49: 321–343. Strong, B. and Boers, F. 2019. “The Error in Trial and Error: Exercises on Phrasal Verbs.” TESOL Quarterly 53 (2): 5–29. Szczepaniak, R. and R. Lew. 2011. “The Role of Imagery in Dictionaries of Idioms.” Applied Linguistics 32 (3): 323–347. Tabossi, P., R. Fanari, and K. Wolf. 2009. “Why Are Idioms Recognized Fast?” Memory & Cognition 37 (4): 529–540. Titus, C. H. 1945. “Political Maxims.” California Folklore Quarterly 4 (4): 377–389. Vygotsky, L. 1987. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, S., J. Newton, and A. Chang, A. 2013. “Incidental Learning of Collocation.” Language Learning 63 (1): 91–120. Weibel, P. 2004. The Big Red Book of Spanish Idioms: 4,000 Idiomatic Expressions. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wood, D. 2015. Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London: Boomsbury. Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5 LEXICOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVES AND L2 SPANISH VOCABULARY Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

Abstract Dictionary use facilitates autonomous language learning. Dictionaries have traditionally been considered a consultation tool rather than a strategic component in language teaching. Hence, dictionary use has not been included in most foreign language teaching and learning methodologies. Within this context, the goal of this chapter to help teachers to implement dictionary use with students of Spanish as Foreign Language/Spanish as a Second Language (SFL/SSL) students within the Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI) methodology. First, a state-of-art review on how dictionaries have been used in SFL/SSL courses is given; second, some suggestions on how to make the most of the dictionary in a SFL/SSL course are offered as well as some solutions to the lack of a genuine online dictionary for SFL/ SSL learners. Finally, some ideas and sample activities related with different types of dictionaries and other products (e.g., online translators) that could be integrated into MOI are described. Using these products may improve vocabulary learning if teachers and learners increase their dictionary skills, if the dictionary is used as a strategic component in language teaching, and if different types of dictionaries are used simultaneously.

1. Introduction The objective of this chapter is to discuss how dictionaries can be used for teaching Spanish as a foreign language or Spanish as a second language (SFL/SSL). It includes some sample activities involving dictionaries and other tools (such as

DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-6

90  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

online translators) that can be used with SFL/SSL learners. These activities, which help users to satisfy their larger communication needs (§5), can be integrated within Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI). Dictionaries allow Spanish learners to consult multiple language data and to find answers to their immediate consultation needs. Depending on the type of dictionary used, learners may get lexicographical information such as spelling, various meanings, role in discourse, and register of language. The widespread effectiveness of using a dictionary as a complementary tool for writing in a non-native language has yet to be demonstrated (see Lew 2016); however, ample research on Spanish pedagogical dictionaries have revealed advantages when including dictionaries in language learning activities (see Table 5.1.). TABLE 5.1  Dictionary advantages in language learning

Dictionaries help to:

1. solve problems during consultations (see Cote-González 2011; Lew 2016). 2. improve vocabulary learning (regarding Spanish, see Fontanillo-Merino 1983; Alvar-Ezquerra 1993a, 1993b, 2003; Ávila-Martín 2000; Hernández-Hernández 2000, among others. 3. maintain vocabulary in long-term memory (see Balteiro 2016).

Nevertheless, the relationship between dictionary use and language learning would be more complementary if: 1. didactic activities including dictionary use were part of a foreign language teaching and learning methodology (§2.1); 2. existing dictionaries fulfilled many of the functions for which they were theoretically conceived and, consequently, satisfy more SFL/SSL learner needs (§2.6). Before presenting a series of dictionary-related activities that Spanish instructors can implement (§5), some questions related to dictionary use for Spanish language learning and the relative adequacy of existing dictionaries for non-native Spanish language learners are considered in §2. Answers to these questions are drawn from existing theoretical and research-based studies on this topic. My 15-years of experience as a Spanish language teacher to foreign language learners and as a lexicographer is also considered. The methodology and techniques applied using the dictionary as a strategic component of language teaching are then described in §3. The subsequent section, §4, then explores the relationship between techniques for using dictionaries and MOI, assessing the extent to which dictionary use is appropriate in MOI and ways in which dictionaries can be used as a part of this approach.

Lexicographic perspectives  91

2.  Theory and research Lexicography as a discipline focuses on dictionaries and other consultation tools designed for retrieving information. Spanish lexicography has a long tradition in dictionary production and publication and an abundant bibliography regarding dictionary production, including research studies, textbooks, handbooks, journals, collective publications, and so forth (see Bosque and Barrios-Rodríguez 2018, 636–637). Creation of the Asociación Española de Estudios Lexicográficos (Spanish Association of Lexicographic Studies) or AELex is an evidence of the relevance of this discipline over the past 20 years. Paradoxically, dictionary production has received little attention during that same time period from publishing houses and institutions financing research projects. Spanish pedagogical lexicography continues to raise interest among lexicography scholars. Renowned researchers and lexicographers, such as Maldonado-González (2003) and Hernández-Hernández (2008), who have focused on improved and improvable issues in this area of inquiry, have pointed out that the road traveled in terms of conception and development of dictionaries for non-native Spanish learners existed long before the 1980s. These authors have addressed issues such as the absence of definitions for targeted users, limited usefulness for production and reception of dictionaries, and the fact that many dictionaries had been made of mere clippings from general dictionaries. Fortunately, advances have been made. After Hernández-Hernández (1989) published studies on existing dictionaries, Spanish lexicographers became aware of the relevance of producing specific dictionaries for users with identifiable needs, which resulted in the publication of DIPELE (1995) and SALAMANCA (1996). In the rest of this section, teaching professionals of Spanish will find answers to the following questions: How has the SFL/SSL dictionary been used in general? How can the dictionary be better used in class? What is the meaning of SFL/SSL learners’ dictionary? Are existing Spanish learners’ dictionaries adequate for users of this nature? What are the characteristics of these type of dictionaries? How do current Spanish learners have access to the dictionary? What are possible solutions to the lack of a real online SFL/SSL dictionary? Each issue is explained in a questionanswer format. Answers include the following information: References about activities using the dictionary for SFL/SSL classes; a critical analysis of the main existing SFL/SSL dictionaries in order to determine which type of dictionaries can be useful for MOI and which are less useful; and some suggestions on (a) when and when not to involve students and teachers in using dictionaries within a MOIbased program, and (2) suggestions on when and how to use Spanish dictionaries.

2.1.  How has the SFL/SSL dictionary been used in general? Dictionaries are consultation tools for users to seek out information to solve problems or to address needs that arise in a given situation or social context, such as when reading, writing, translating, or increasing knowledge about certain topics.

92  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

Dictionaries have been used to find answers to specific queries (as consultation tools) without being integrated in processes and mechanisms users may apply for collecting, storing, retrieving, and using information that could help them achieve their communicative goals, that is, as a part of a strategic component of language learning (see Manchón-Ruiz 2009). Over the last 30  years, substantial research into the use of dictionaries as tools in Spanish language teaching and learning have been published, among them, Fontanillo-Merino (1983), Alvar-Ezquerra (1993a, 1993b), Hernández-Hernández (1989, 1991), Maldonado-González (1998), Martín-García (1999), Prado-Aragonés (1996, 2000, 2005), García-Sanz (2009), Alonso and Palacios (2013), Molinero-Pinto (2016), and Gibert-Escofet and Iglesia-Martín (2017). In these studies, diverse activities have been proposed, such as reading and comprehension to increase vocabulary knowledge, word searching in a newspaper article, and so forth. These exercises can focus on various types of content, such as codes and abbreviations from a dictionary; alphabetical order; word order; orthography; pronunciation; word type; grammar; homonymy (words that are written or pronounced identically but with different meanings, such as haya, meaning “árbol” [tree] or haya, the first and third person form of haber [to have] in the present subjunctive; synonymy (words having the same meaning, such as cabello and pelo for “hair”); antonymy (words with opposite meanings, such as comprar “buy” and vender “sell”); and phraseology. However, activities such as these are not normally included in second/foreign language teaching and learning, thus limiting dictionary use to consulation only.

2.2. How can the dictionary be better used in a spanish class? In order to take advantage of the dictionary in a Spanish (SFL/SSL) class, both teachers and students need to be involved. Teachers need to acquire certain types of competence (see Table  5.2.), undertake similar activities together with the students (see Table  5.3.), and consider the dictionary as a strategic component of language learning. Students should develop skills that allow them to become good dictionary users to support their autonomous learning (see Table  5.4.). Some studies have focused on teacher and student roles when using dictionaries in the Spanish classroom: Hernández-Hernández (1991), Alvar-Ezquerra (1993a, 1993b), Maldonado-González (2003), Azorín-Fernández (2000, 2010), and TABLE 5.2  Types of competence related to dictionary use for Spanish teachers

Spanish teachers need to:

1. know how existing dictionaries function in order to recommend an appropriate dictionary for different learner needs. 2. show how to make best use of dictionaries. 3. know how deliver activities that require a specific use of a dictionary.

Lexicographic perspectives  93

Alonso and Palacios (2013). Some teachers may express indifference toward dictionary use due to a lack of awareness of their potential benefits, but the teacher can become a mediator between the student and dictionary. It is important for teachers to familiarize themselves with existing dictionaries and to teach their students how to consult them. Table 5.2. summarizes some types of competence that teachers need to develop (see Hernández-Hernández 1991, 186; Alonso and Palacios 2013, 75–76). By developing these types of competence, teachers are better equipped to help students improve their independent and language learning skills. Once they have developed the types of competence in Table  5.2., Spanish teachers can carry out different activities that are informative to students, such as those in Table 5.3. TABLE 5.3  Activities for Spanish teachers to promote effective dictionary use

Spanish teachers need to: 1. help students to become aware of the many advantages of using the dictionary by engaging them in different types of activities. 2. teach students how to use the dictionary (Azorín-Fernández 2010, 198). 3. avoid becoming a “translator” or a “dictionary” for the students and, instead, promote autonomous, independent learning. 4. encourage students to see the dictionary as a user-friendly resource (see Whitcut 1986, 111).

If teachers develop competence (Table 5.2.) and implement appropriate activities (Table 5.3.), students are likely to develop the types of skills summarized in Table 5.4., which will allow them to make the most of the dictionary (HernándezHernández 1991, 198) and, hence, become autonomous learners (Béjoint 1989, 209). TABLE 5.4  Skills of Spanish learners who are good dictionary users

Spanish learners develop 1. know how to choose an appropriate dictionary for the type the ability to: of information needed (Hernández-Hernández 1991, 198). 2. find words (Hernández-Hernández 1991, 198). 3. identify the type of data they need (Béjoint 1989, 209). 4. obtain relevant and necessary information, such as understanding defined meanings, choosing most appropriate meanings, and so forth (Hernández-Hernández 1991, 198). 5. know what kind of information they may find or may not find in a given dictionary (Béjoint 1989, 209). 6. acquire knowledge about a specific subject area (see FuertesOlivera 2010).

94  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

It is difficult to determine a specific number of skills because of differences in linguistic competence levels, skills, and needs among learners within the same group. However, the teacher may organize them by using the list of dictionary skills that might be taught at university level established by Nesi (1999), which includes 40 skills divided into six phases: (1) before study; (2) before dictionary consultation; (3) locating the entry information; (4) interpreting entry information; (5) recording entry information; and (6) understanding lexicographical issues. However, if students do not take full advantage of dictionaries, it is often due to a lack of dictionary-related knowledge and skills. This may be due to the fact that some dictionaries do not offer enough data (§2.4) (see Cote-González and TejedorMartínez 1998) or that Spanish dictionaries are not easy to understand or handle. Therefore, it is hoped that from this chapter readers who are Spanish instructors will know what kind of Spanish dictionaries are most suitable for MOI (§2.7) and how these dictionaries can be used effectively in this type of instruction (§4.2).

2.3. What is the meaning of the Spanish learners’ dictionary? A dictionary designed for a foreign language or second language learner is a product “whose genuine purpose is to satisfy the lexicographically relevant information needs that learners may have in a range of situations in connection with the foreign-language learning process” (Tarp 2008, 125). A variety of terms with different meanings have been used, depending on the author, country, and culture. Tarp (2011, 219) provides a list of examples in Spanish including diccionarios pedagógicos (pedagogical dictionaries), diccionarios didácticos (didactic dictionaries), diccionarios escolares (school dictionaries), diccionarios de aprendizaje (learning dictionaries), and diccionarios para aprendices (learners’ dictionaries) (Tarp 2011, 219). Tarp (2011, 227–229) also outlines a new typology for current pedagogical dictionaries that is based on the age of the target user group (its place in the education system), the type of learning that the dictionaries are supposed to facilitate, and the combination of these two criteria.

2.4. What are the characteristics of Spanish learners’ dictionaries? In Spanish learners’ dictionaries we read that they assist learners in text production and reception. However, several studies have demonstrated that these dictionaries are mostly focused on text reception (see Nomdedeu Rull and Tarp 2018; Nomdedeu Rull and Barcroft 2022, in press). In Spanish, these are monolingual dictionaries because of (a) an international tradition toward dictionaries conditioned by the limitations of printed book format; (b) the type of business model designed by publishers where they are elaborated and published (see Nomdedeu Rull and Tarp 2018), and (c) a recommendation from didactic series in favor of the use of monolingual instead of bilingual dictionaries. There are five monolingual dictionaries with these characteristics in Spanish: DIPELE, SALAMANCA, GUDEsA-SGEL, SM, and ESPASA. Table 5.5. summarizes the types of data that should be included in them and, in contrast, what they actually include.

Lexicographic perspectives  95 TABLE 5.5  What Spanish dictionaries are expected to include and what they actually include

Expected to include

Actually include

1. Clear and simple definitions. 2. Grammatical information that indicates lexical grammar and function. 3. Offer clear pragmatic data regarding when a word value is colloquial, formal, familiar, humorous, terminological, vulgar, and so forth. 4. Sufficient representative information related to regional varieties of Spanish.

1. Definitions with problems of opaqueness. 2. Grammatical information that is not designed for production purposes. 3. Insufficient pragmatic and cultural information.

4. Unequal consideration of regional varieties and priority toward Peninsular Spanish.

In order to exemplify these elements, in Table 5.6., consider the word posible “posible” in five Spanish dictionaries and observe the grammatical information provided. TABLE 5.6  The word posible “possible” in five Spanish dictionaries

DIPELE

SALAMANCA SM

GDUEsA-SGEL

ESPASA

po·si·ble 1 adj. Que puede ser, existir u ocurrir; que se puede realizar o lograr: es posible que venga hoy; si es posible hacerlo en menos tiempo, mejor. ANTÓNIMO: imposible. posible adj. 1 (antepuesto/pospuesto) Que puede ocurrir o ser, o que se puede hacer o conseguir. po·si·ble adj. inv. 1 Que puede ser o suceder: No es posible que lo que dices sea verdad. 2 Que se puede realizar o conseguir: Todavía no es posible hacer viajes en el tiempo. po·si·ble I. adj 1. Se aplica a lo que puede suceder o haber sucedido: Es posible que ya haya llegado. Con frecuencia se usa antepuesto: Hay que evitar un posible error. 2. Se aplica a lo que se puede hacer: la obra es posible. SIN I. Realizable, factible, probable, viable. po·si·ble adj. 1 Que puede ser o suceder; que se puede ejecutar: Es que llueva/que lleguemos a tiempo. SIN. 1 probable. ANT. 1 imposible, improbable.

As can be seen here, examples of prenominal and postnominal adjectives are poor even though information of this nature is relevant for a Spanish learner interested in communicating different types of messages. SALAMANCA points out “antepuesto/pospuesto” (prenominal/postnominal) but does not explain the rationale behind this placement. GDUEsA-SGEL indicates that posible as an adjective is frequently placed before the noun (con frecuencia se usa antepuesto) in defined meaning 1. Obviously, this information is insufficient because it is necessary to point out how posible as an adjective is used in both pronominal and postnominal positions. The other three dictionaries do not offer any information on the matter.

96  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

There are other monolingual Spanish dictionaries on the Internet that are very popular among Spanish learners in spite of the fact that they were not created for foreign/second language learning. One example is the monolingual dictionary that accompanies Google Translate. This dictionary can be consulted for translating a word or when one selects a word for translation (for more information about the translation tool, see §2.7). Data from definitions, examples, and synonyms (Google takes these from the monolingual Spanish dictionary found at Oxford Dictionaries website www.oxforddictionaries.com/) are not designed for Spanish (SFL/SSL) learners but for general users. Figure 5.1. (retrieved 05/20/2019) shows the entry for posible; the format of the entry and access to it are the result of the current trend

FIGURE 5.1 

Definition of posible in the monolingual dictionary used in Google Translate

Lexicographic perspectives  97

of offering information in this type of tool, that is, clear, easy, fast, and with the possibility of interacting with the tool through the keyboard or voice. However, content and data offered are not adapted to the specific needs of non-native Spanish learners. One type of relevant data from posible is related to its placement within the sentence and the change of meaning determined by that placement. Dam-Jensen and Tarp (2018, 39) have offered some ideas for dealing with syntactic combinations in future dictionaries for foreign learners to assist them when writing texts in Spanish. For this specific adjective, the authors propose the following lexical entry that appears in Figure 5.2., which includes an explanation about prenominal and postnominal placement.

properties and definition of posible as suggested by Dam-Jensen and Tarp (2018)

FIGURE 5.2 Syntactic

This proposal is based on syntactic aspects only; therefore, other important categories are not included  – inflection, synonyms, antonyms, collocations, and fixed expressions. Dictionaries such as the one inserted in GT do not offer information about these categories, rendering these products inadequate for

98  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

non-native Spanish learners, particularly for learners who need to produce spoken language or written texts.

2.5.  How do Spanish learners gain access to the dictionary? Spanish learners gain access to dictionaries by using Internet-enabled devices. Consultation of printed dictionaries has been substituted almost completely by online dictionary consultation (Egido-Vicente and Meliss 2017, 33) because of: (a) the difficulties associated with consulting printed dictionaries as just mentioned; (b) the cost of printed dictionaries; and (c) difficulties with handling printed dictionaries. Some studies have provided information about the role played by the user during the consultation process of the lexicographic product, studies such as those by Welker (2010), Chen (2011), Tono (2011), Domínguez-Vázquez and Valcárcel-Riveiro (2015), Egido-Vicente and Meliss (2017), and Nomdedeu Rull (2019). If the searching process is slow and ineffective, the user tends to consult other tools, regardless of their quality and prestige. Important elements such as rapidness, immediacy, free access, access from anywhere, multimedia and/or hypertextuality, and participatory and collaborative environment are key features required by users when consulting any lexicographical tool (see Domínguez-Vázquez and Valcárcel-Riveiro 2015; Egido-Vicente and Meliss 2017). Some digital dictionaries, other than Spanish ones, include these elements (see Nomdedeu Rull and Tarp 2018). However, existing online dictionaries are not completely advantageous. They can be unreliable because of the ease with which the contents can be published on the web without strict editing procedures. Also, their contents can be obsolete because they are simply digital versions of printed dictionaries that cannot be updated (DIPELE or DISALE). Therefore, “one of the many current challenges is to rethink the whole process which people traditionally follow when they look for information” (Tarp 2017, 495).

2.6. Are existing Spanish dictionaries designed for learners adequate? Spanish (SFL/SSL) learners’ dictionaries often include useful content; nonetheless, there is often room for improvement (see Nomdedeu Rull and Tarp 2018). For example, the information included in a dictionary is not generally adapted to the needs of its users. Indeed, dictionaries are often aimed at more than one group of users – primarily foreign speakers and, albeit to a lesser extent, native speakers – for reasons of higher economic profitability. Also, authors of these dictionaries usually state that the dictionary includes the largest number of words of Spanish language even if they do not offer explanations about the methodology employed to verify such a statement. A more precise user’s definition and a more complete and transparent data selection would permit these types of dictionaries to become more adequate for their target group. Despite now being two decades into the 21st century, we still cannot confirm that we have an adequate learner (SFL/SSL) dictionary in Spanish (§2.5).

Lexicographic perspectives  99

2.7. What possible solutions are there to reverse the lack of adequate online dictionaries? The solution to this problem lies in learning design; teachers who wish to use dictionaries in learning sequences should consider (a) the use of various tools simultaneously to achieve specific learning outcomes, whether or not they were created for their user’s profile; and they should adopt (b) a critical, analytical, and constructive vision regarding the object that we have come to know as “dictionary.” There are monolingual online dictionaries such as CLAVE (Maldonado-González 1995) and web portals with multiple types of dictionaries from which one can find monolingual solutions. Among these dictionaries are WordReference, Wikcionario, Glosbe, Español Oxford Living Dictionaries, and so on. There are also bilingual, synonym and antonym dictionaries such as WordReference (www.sinonimo.es or www. sinonimosonline.com/) that complement information from existing monolingual dictionaries; however, page layouts as word lists require the user to have a high level of communicative competence to understand the differences in meaning and usage from the various possibilities offered. In short, decontextualized language is not usually useful for a language learner when they try to get familiarized with synonyms and antonyms. The list of available Spanish bilingual dictionaries in combination with other languages is long (particularly the combination español + inglés) and often exist in different formats such as those which are printed (e.g., CSP or OLSD; OLSD was designed “from those just starting out all the way up to those preparing for exams,” OLSD 2017, IV) or digital versions on websites with multiple bilingual dictionaries, such as WordReference, Larousse, Van Dale, and so on. Online translator tools, such as Google Translate, and other products showing key words in context, such as Linguee or ReversoContext, are also helpful. Nonetheless, instructors need to consider the purpose of all these products. Google Translate is one of the most popular translation tools used by language learners even though it was not created to satisfy the needs of non-native Spanish language learners (as explained in §2.4). Here, its usefulness as a didactic tool in Spanish (SFL/SSL) classes is not discussed, as shown by O’Neill (2019). Nonetheless, however useful these tools are, they are no substitute for Spanish (SFL/SSL) learner dictionaries due to several common issues including the translation of the subjunctive mood, the preferential use of the pronoun tú over usted regardless of the context, and aspects related to usage from a cultural perspective (see Nomdedeu Rull 2018, 2020). As for the case of the monolingual Spanish dictionary inserted in Google Translate, the information offered about Matusalén (Methuselah) in the phrase ser más viejo que Matusalén (“to be older than Methuselah”) is useful only in English. In the English dictionary the entry reads “(in the Bible) a patriarch, the grandfather of Noah, who is said to have lived for 969 years,” while in Spanish, the entry is much more limited: “Hombre muy viejo” (“a very old man”). There is no reference to Methuselah and an explanation as to why it is included in the phrase (see Nomdedeu Rull 2018).

100  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

In spite of the problems found in existing SFL/SSL dictionaries, and in the absence of a real online monolingual learner dictionary, I recommend the use of SFL/SSL dictionaries as a consultation and as a learning tool within the methodological framework of MOI (§5). This can be done simultaneously with bilingual dictionaries, synonym and antonym dictionaries, online translation tools, and products specialized in showing keywords in context. Considering variables such as the language level of the users or type of problem (e.g., having a doubt about the use of a word in a specific context), the need to consult a given type of dictionary varies because every user has different problems and lexicographic needs in varying degrees of frequency over time (see Nomdedeu Rull and Tarp 2018). The analytical, critical, and constructive vision that the teacher may develop when using a dictionary will help the learner develop their own critical awareness to help them decide which of the tools available serves their need best based on their needs at a given point in time. Instructors with knowledge about the functions of different types of dictionaries can reflect on the kinds of dictionaries they should use in their classes. They can consider (a) if, on one hand, they should prioritize elements such as speed, immediacy, free access, multimedia and/or hypertextuality in dictionaries not made for their students’ profile and with questionable quality and (b) if, on the other, they should work with a printed Spanish (SFL/SSL) dictionary despite its disadvantages. The decision is not easy. The position defended here is to favor the teacher’s decision who, in view of the emerging needs of their students and the functions of the dictionary, selects the most appropriate tools to use. In the end, the teacher is the person who understands their teaching-learning context the best and who can make decisions in light of variables such as class setting, learning culture, and students’ skills.

3.  Methods and techniques As mentioned earlier, the methodology proposed here is to consider the dictionary not only as a consultation tool but also as a strategic component of language learning (§2.1). In communicative situations (such as text reception and production) the dictionary is an auxiliary tool because the main interest of language learners is communication. They expect fast and easy answers when consulting the dictionary in order to arrive at a solution to a communication problem. Using the dictionary in the classroom also may help improve communicative competence because of its potential role as another source of authentic input, that is, its use cannot be restricted to meaning decodification. Activities should be learner-oriented other than dictionary-oriented (Béjoint 1989). Students should be advised to do motivating activities in which the dictionary may be another source of information for the generation of hypotheses and language learning while working cooperatively with other students. From this perspective, using different types of dictionaries in the classroom (§2.7) should be seen as equivalent to work with different text types in textbooks.

Lexicographic perspectives  101

MOI includes communicative, task-based, and content-based language teaching. Therefore, the dictionary may be useful if oriented toward the meaning and the content of different types of messages. Activities proposed in §5 are based on (a) semantic relationships such as hypernymy, hyponymy, synonymy, antonymy, and polysemy and (b) lexical aspects such as when considering cognates and idioms, which are mostly found in the semantic section of monolingual dictionaries (definition, synonymy/antonymy) and in the section(s) related to word usage. These activities can help students learn and manage dictionaries in support of communicative development, a central focus of MOI, by means of tasks that promote the development of fluency, knowledge of content, and linguistic production. The activities also help students to develop autonomy in their learning process to decode and produce meaning in L2. Therefore, production becomes the priority, though reception and translation are not excluded, because these two elements are used in written and oral communication. One example would be when users read a text (reception), translate a text (mediation such as written translation), do an interpretation (mediation such as oral translation or interpreting), revise a text (revision), and follow activities based on production such as writing a text or preparing an oral presentation (see Fuertes-Olivera and Bergenholtz 2018, 267). The activities may be completed by consulting different types of tools, including dictionaries, textbooks, handbooks, scientific journals, and the Internet. The nature of the development of the sample activities is connected to the IBI (input-based incremental) approach, which is designed to promote vocabulary development by focusing on the manner in which target words are presented in the input and the progressive but thorough development of multiple aspects of vocabulary knowledge over time (Barcroft 2015). Relatedly, the activities are intended to involve students in the text, by highlighting their participation in the tasks they must face, in the production of texts (statements), in meaning negotiation, and in the use of different types of dictionaries. Their objectives are to increase vocabulary of Spanish language, to refine the dictionary skills described in §2.2, and to help students solve lexical problems by consulting the dictionary. More details of this methodology within MOI are provided in §4 followed by the sample activities in §5.

4.  Integration within MOI The methodology described in §3 is consistent with MOI in that Spanish (SFL/ SSL) learners may take full advantage of using different consultation tools to promote different types of meaning-focused exchanges. MOI emphasizes the use of many communication activities that can be enhanced with the use of authentic materials. In this way, it is designed to promote the development of communicative competence among students (see Richards and Rodgers 1986). Particular attention is also paid to: (a) authentic language use; (b) activities that promote meaning negotiation among students and between students and teacher; (c) the role of effective communication, especially communication about content instead of focus

102  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

on form in a manner that is divorced from meaning, which means that less, if any, attention is devoted to “correct” language use and rules about language; (d) ways of helping students to concentrate on language and the learning process; (e) meaning negotiation among students and risk taking; (f) emphasis on the process; (g) focus on fluency, which means giving more attention to language production rather than correction; and (h) development of learner autonomy (see Asassfeh, Alshaboul, and Alodwan 2012, 79; Asassfeh, Alshaboul, Alshboul et al. 2012, 526). In doing so, MOI focuses on: (a) what the student tries to communicate; (b) in content (message or reference), rather than in form (channel, code, or aesthetic functions); (c) in probable intention rather than literal meaning; (d) and in communication in the sense of something that is set up actively (Baleghizadeh 2010, 119). By communicating, we learn to communicate. Thus, following MOI, students learn by engaging in meaningful activities and in transactional and interpersonal conversations. In consideration of MOI, one might also reflect on issues such as (a) the extent to which the four main language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) are represented in different types of activities; (b) the manner in which students learn to participate in decision-making, such as when choosing reading materials and topics for writing; (c) the amount of time learners have opportunities to produce texts and spoken language; and (d) techniques for choosing vocabulary that is meaningful and authentic. Activities that involve dictionaries should contribute to developing learners’ communicative competence. As such, they should include open tasks that facilitate meaning negotiation and that encourage students to probe their knowledge (Asassfeh, Alshaboul, Alshboul et al. 2012, 526).

4.1.  Should dictionaries be used within MOI? There is no reason to reject dictionary use as part of the language learning and teaching process. As explained in §1, dictionaries can solve problems punctually at moments of consultation, and can favor vocabulary learning in many ways, including by reinforcing processing of form and meaning of novel vocabulary reinforcement and encouraging retention of different aspects of vocabulary knowledge in long-term memory. Considering the main characteristics of MOI and in spite of the drawbacks described in §2.5, the most adequate dictionary is a monolingual one if used simultaneously with other dictionaries (bilingual, synonyms and antonyms, etc.). This position is consistent with literature maintaining that monolingual dictionaries are the best for learners in a MOI program, in which L2 is used consistently. A monolingual Spanish dictionary also makes sense if one considers other factors such as distance between a learner’s L1 and Spanish, learning culture, age, level of communicative competence, learning methodology, and so on. If L1 is avoided to a sufficient degree, the L2 learning process may be faster and more thorough, and, consequently, interference may be reduced. However, supporters of bilingual dictionaries defend an opposing point of view (see Augustyn 2013; Adamska-Salaciak y Kernermann 2016). Note, for example,

Lexicographic perspectives  103

that using a monolingual dictionary is not an easy task and that non-native Spanish language learners prefer to use the bilingual dictionary (Nomdedeu Rull 2019; see also Tomaszczyk 1979, 1983 on English language learners) because they think this tool will help them resolve their doubts faster. Monolingual dictionaries offer more information about word contexts though interpretation may be more difficult. However, bilingual dictionaries show word meaning-related problems; that is, problems regarding the choice of equivalents, meaning discrimination and word family (see Al-Kasimi 1977, 58).

4.2.  How can dictionaries be used effectively within MOI? Within MOI, dictionaries may be used effectively if they are considered more as a learning tool than only as a consultation tool. This point is particularly applicable to activities in which the dictionary may be used as a means to generate hypotheses and a source of language learning when dictionaries are used cooperatively in motivating activities. I also support the idea of combining intentional and incidental learning that can emerge from dictionary use: “[R]eading comprehension, writing, oral production and comprehension, translation, and other activities such as meaning validation, orthography, definitions, register, pronunciation, idioms, synonyms and antonyms, etc.” (Balteiro 2016). Using a monolingual dictionary within MOI in a variety of different activities, such as those proposed in §5, is consistent with the nature of MOI. Having considered these points, let us also consider in which situations dictionaries can provide the most benefit. The issue is not a simple one. Generally, dictionaries can be used in whatever activity is planned within the Spanish classroom, such as (a) when a known word appears within a context where its meaning is not clear, (b) during free reading when unknown vocabulary can be looked up, (c) as part of an effort to improve grammatical or semantic knowledge of a known word at any given point in time, and (c) when problems or difficulties need to be solved as one is writing a text in foreign language. At what moment in the class should students consult the dictionary while working on different activities? Some specialists maintain, for example, that it may be better achieved once the student has finished a production-oriented activity and starts revising their work (see Carstens 1995, 114) because any interruption to these activities may inhibit creative thinking or change the focus of a narrative structure. Likewise, frequent use of the dictionary during reception activities can become an obstacle that blocks the connection the student may build between the word and its context. In any case, before doing the activities, such as those shown in §5, the teacher and their students should be sufficiently competent in the use of the dictionaries (§2.2) beforehand.

5.  Sample activities In this section, sample activities are presented that integrate the use of different dictionaries. These activities are designed to help SFL/SSL learners within

104  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

the teaching approach described in §3 and integrated into the MOI approach, as explained in §4. The objective of the sample activities is twofold: The teacher may decide (a) to use them all at the same time by doing some practice with the dictionary for solving problems and learning Spanish language or (b) to select only a few activities occasionally within a larger program of effective MOI. Depending on the activity chosen, the targeted proficiency range goes from the B1 to C1 level, according to the descriptors of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (Council of Europe 2001, 57–63) and its Companion Volume (Council of Europe 2020, 48–68) in oral production (speaking) and in written production (writing) activities. If the teacher decides to use all of the activities, they would also be suitable for a C1 level. For more effective use of these sample activities, which are based on the use of texts, it is important to understand reading as a process and, for example, the role of schemata in reading comprehension. Contemporary reading tasks involve threephase procedures: Pre-reading, while-reading (guided interaction), and post-reading stages. Therefore, such activities may be done at the post-reading stage during a reading class. The first four activities are related to the vocabulary of personality traits. From the fifth activity onwards, a dictionary is used. For each activity, the statement conveyed to students appears within quotation marks. Recommendations to the teacher (after each “NOTE”) are also included.

5.1.  Activities to familiarize the students with the text 1. “Lee el siguiente texto de la BBC Mundo.” ¿Por qué la gente quiere más a Lionel Messi que a Cristiano Ronaldo? Redacción BBC Mundo, 14/07/2016 [www.bbc.com/mundo/deportes-36794584]

NOTE: This text includes some personality traits. To help motivate students, you can choose one personality from a list of world-famous soccer players. 2. “¿Te sientes identificado con alguno de estos rasgos de personalidad? Coméntalo a tus compañeros de clase siguiendo el esquema de los ejemplos siguientes.” NOTE: Make questions about text content and have students comment on the text to their classmates. Here are two examples: a) Yo me considero trabajador y humilde, aunque en algunos momentos puedo ser arrogante. b) Pues yo, en cambio, suelo ser bastante arrogante y engreído con algunas personas . . . 3. “¿Identificas los rasgos de personalidad de Messi o Ronaldo con alguien que conozcas?” NOTE: For semantic association, have students relate personality traits from the text with those observed among family or friends. “Sin diccionario, añade otras palabras que conozcas relacionadas con los rasgos de personalidad que tengan sentidos similares a las del texto”.

Lexicographic perspectives  105

NOTE: Have students work on synonymy. If they have difficulties finding synonyms, suggest a list adapted to their needs. In this way, semantic and associative fields can be explored as meaning is negotiated. 4. “Separa las palabras relacionadas con los rasgos de personalidad (las del texto y las que has incorporado) que presentan connotaciones positivas de las que presentan connotaciones negativas. Luego, contrástalas entre todos los compañeros”. NOTE: Once some words suggested by the teacher are included, students may work further on semantic associations (synonymy and antonymy).

5.2.  Activities involving dictionaries 5. “Compara con el uso del diccionario (de sinónimos) las palabras relacionadas con los rasgos de personalidad marcadas en negrita en el texto con las que has incorporado y asegúrate de que son sinónimas”. NOTE: The students use the dictionary in this activity. The goal is for them to continue to explore semantic associations (synonymy, antonymy, or hypernymy and hyponymy) by using a dictionary of synonyms and antonyms (e.g., WordReference). 6. “¿Has encontrado varios sinónimos de las palabras referentes a los rasgos de personalidad y no sabes cuál es el más adecuado? Si este ha sido el caso, busca las palabras dudosas en un diccionario monolingüe. ¿Has tenido problemas para encontrar la acepción adecuada? Una vez despejadas todas las dudas y seleccionadas las palabras, construye un diálogo con ellas”. NOTE: Students continue to work with the content of the text by exploring the monolingual dictionary (e.g., SALAMANCA, Wikcionario, CLAVE, or the dictionary inserted in Google Translate). They may analyze semantic features from the definitions and from sections about word usage and then do contrastive analysis of words. Open spoken interaction is suggested as the teacher may lead the dialog with attention to the level and the particular needs of the students. 7. “Práctica con las palabras mediante la descripción oral de una persona conocida por todos.” NOTE: Once similarities and differences among the words in question have been identified, students may do an oral description of one of the other students in the class and other members of the class guess who they are. 8. “Contrasta los rasgos de tu descripción con los que Google imágenes muestra cuando buscas a esa persona”. NOTE: It is recommend that students search for famous people who are easy to identify. In this way, they may draw semantic associations between known people from those retrieved by the search engine (e.g., Google). 9. “Busca las palabras con las que has trabajado en Google imágenes y pon la primera foto que aparezca de un personaje conocido al lado de cada uno de los adjetivos”.

106  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

NOTE: Have the students choose a photo from someone they know and whose facial expression may match the meaning associated to the word studied. Students may keep working on semantic association. 10. “Busca si las palabras trabajadas tienen otros sentidos no aplicables a la personalidad de alguien”. NOTE: Have the students go back to the monolingual dictionary in order to work with polysemy of certain words (e.g., bruto, chiflado, chulo, soso, etc.). In this way, they may detect new senses thanks to the semantic features found in the definitions of the words suggested for the activity. 11. “Contrasta los usos de estas palabras no aplicables a la personalidad entre español y tu L1, primero sin diccionario y después con la ayuda del diccionario bilingüe. Luego construye frases con ellas”. NOTE: Students reflect on their L1 for the first time with regard to whether the words studied are used or not in the same contexts. To do this, the students may write the Spanish words in a table with two columns. In one column, they write the L1 words and the Spanish in another column in order to reinforce knowledge of words and their senses, which may facilitate some aspects of usage. 12. “Escribe modismos que contengan algunas de las palabras trabajadas con los sentidos iniciales y contrástalas con las propias en tu L1”. NOTE: Once students know how to use the words in question, they may make lexical and semantic associations through idioms, if known. They may then look up L1 equivalents. If students do not know any Spanish idioms, the teacher may suggest some examples (más chulo que un ocho, ser el malo de la película o pronóstico reservado, etc.). 13. “Busca en el diccionario monolingüe los modismos que has escrito y valora, en el caso de que estén en el diccionario, si contiene los datos adecuados para su comprensión y uso”. NOTE: Students go back to the monolingual dictionary to look up idioms for the words previously studied. If they do not know idioms in L2, they can find some with the help from the teacher. This activity constitutes a critical approach to the dictionary because the students learn to value its usefulness.

6. Conclusions The objective of this chapter has been to discuss dictionary use and to suggest some sample activities involving the dictionary that might be implemented within the MOI framework. Some suggestions for the use of dictionaries have been. included – and sometimes suggestions for not using certain dictionaries – through a brief critical analysis of the main existing tools to determine which dictionaries may be more useful than others within the MOI approach. Likewise, the aim has been to show how by using a dictionary, instructors can help Spanish language learners to become more autonomous in their learning and improve their dictionary skills to support them to find better solutions for their communicative needs. To

Lexicographic perspectives  107

this end, emphasis has been placed on increasing awareness among teachers about the relevance of knowing how to use the dictionary. Teachers should know the dictionary, how it works, and how to make use of it. The methodology suggested here is to use dictionaries as a strategic component of language teaching instead of merely as a periodic tool for brief consultation. In other words, dictionaries can be a source of multiple types of information, something that is directly meaningful to learners, and in that sense, very much consistent with the goals of MOI. In order to make the most of dictionaries, students should acquire the required skills for dictionary use (§3.2), which, if accomplished, creates space for a better language learning experience overall. In cases when a fully adequate dictionary for SFL/SSL learners is not available, it is advisable to combine dictionaries by paying special attention to their different functions and different advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the interdisciplinary approach adopted in this chapter is not without its challenges. For the L2 Spanish teacher, one challenge is to develop sufficient background in lexicography and to help students utilize dictionaries by teaching them skills that allow them to become autonomous learners. For L2 Spanish students, there are challenges inherent to the acquisition of skills required to use dictionaries properly. For the lexicographer, focusing on Spanish, two main challenges are (a) finding ways to elaborate dictionaries with concrete functions in consideration of information and communication technologies that are already in use for other languages, such as Danish and English, and (b) improving understanding of the dictionaryuser consultation practices and learning habits as these develop over time.

7. Bibliography Adamska-Salaciak, A. and I. Kernermann. 2016. “Introduction: Towards better Dictionaries for Learners.” International Journal of Lexicography 29 (4): 271–278. Al-Kasimi, Ali M. 1977. Linguistics and Bilingual Dictionaries. Leiden: Brill. Alonso, E. and J. M. Palacios. 2013. “El uso del diccionario en el aula de ELE.” In Centro Virtual Cervantes, 74–78. https://cvc.cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/publicaciones_centros/PDF/manchester_2013-2014/08_alonso-palacios.pdf. Alvar-Ezquerra, M. 1993a. “Función del diccionario en la enseñanza de la lengua.” In Lexicografía descriptiva, ed. M. Alvar-Ezquerra, 165–175. Barcelona: Bibliograf. Alvar-Ezquerra, M. 1993b. “Enseñar, ¿con un diccionario?” In Lexicografía descriptiva, ed. M. Alvar-Ezquerra, 177–180. Barcelona: Bibliograf. Alvar-Ezquerra, M. 2003. La enseñanza del léxico y el uso del diccionario. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Asassfeh, S. M., Y. M. Alshaboul, and T. A. Alodwan. 2012. “In-Service EFL Teachers’ Views of Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) and Communicative Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI): The Case of Jordan.” European Journal of Social Sciences 30 (1): 78–91. Asassfeh, S. M., Y. M. Alshaboul, S. S. Alshboul, and F. M. Khwaileh. 2012. “Communicative Language Teaching in an EFL Context: Learners’ Attitudes and Perceived Implementation.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research 3 (3): 525–535. Augustyn, P. 2013. “No Dictionaries in the Classroom: Translation Equivalents and Vocabulary Acquisition.” International Journal of Lexicography 26 (3): 362–385.

108  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

Ávila-Martín, M. C. 2000. El diccionario en el aula: Sobre los diccionarios escolares destinados a la enseñanza del español como lengua materna. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. Azorín-Fernández, D. 2000. “Los diccionarios didácticos del español desde la perspectiva de sus destinatarios.” ELUA 14: 19–44. Azorín-Fernández, D. 2010. “Perspectivas en la investigación sobre el uso del diccionario en el ámbito docente.” In Estudis de lexicografia 2003–2005, eds. E. Bernal, S. Torner, and J. DeCesaris, 179–202. Barcelona: UPF. Baleghizadeh, S. 2010. “Focus on Form in an EFL Communicative Classroom.” Novitas Royal (Research on Youth and Language) 4 (1): 119–128. Balteiro, I. 2016. “El uso del diccionario en el aprendizaje del léxico en inglés como LE.” In XIV Jornadas de redes de investigación en docencia universitaria. Investigación, innovación y enseñanza universitaria: enfoques pluridisciplinares, coords. M. T. Tortosa Ybáñez, S. Grau Company, and J. D. Álvarez Teruel. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. Barcroft, J. 2015. “El método IBI en la enseñanza del léxico: teoría, investigación y nuevas perspectivas.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 2 (2): 112–125. Doi: 10.1080/23247797.2015.1105512. Béjoint, H. 1989. “The Teaching of Dictionary Use: Present State and Future Tasks.” In Worterbücher/Dictioraries/Dictionnaires, eds. F. J. Hausmann, O. Reichmann, H. E. Wiegand, and L. Zgusta, 208–215. Berlin: De Gruyter. Bosque, I. and A. Barrios-Rodríguez. 2018. “Spanish Lexicography in the Internet Era.” In The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography, ed. P. A. Fuertes-Olivera, 636–660. London and New York: Routledge. Carstens, A. 1995. “Language Teaching and Dictionary Use: An Overview.” Lexikos 5: 105–116. http://lexikos.journals.ac.za/pub/article/view/1059. Chen, Y. 2011: “Studies on Bilingualized Dictionaries: The User Perspective.” International Journal of Lexicography 24: 161–197. [CLAVE] Maldonado-González, C., dir. 1995 and 2006. CLAVE. Diccionario de uso del español actual. Madrid: Ediciones SM. http://clave.smdiccionarios.com/app.php. Cote-González, M. 2011. Lexicografía pedagógica bilingüe: el diccionario como recurso de aprendizaje en la clase de lengua extranjera inglés. Alcalá: Universidad de Alcalá. Cote-González, M. and C. Tejedor-Martínez. 1998. “La enseñanza de vocabulario y el uso del diccionario.” Encuentro. Revista de Investigación e Innovación en la Clase de Idiomas 10: 26–35. www.encuentrojournal.org/textos/La_Ense_anza_de_Vocabulario_y_el_Uso_ del_Diccionario.pdf. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https:// rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-referencefor-languages-learningteaching/16809ea0d4. [CSP]. 2006. Collins Spanish Dictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers. Dam-Jensen, H. D. and S. Tarp. 2018. “El tratamiento de adjetivos en diccionarios para aprendices extranjeros de español.” Revista Internacional de Lenguas Extranjeras (RILE) 10: 13–47. https://revistes.urv.cat/index.php/rile/article/view/2552/2522. [DIPELE] Alvar-Ezquerra, M., dir. 1995 y 2000. Diccionario para la enseñanza de la lengua española. Barcelona: Bibliograf y Universidad de Alcalá de Henares. www.diccionarios. com/. [DLE] Real Academia Española. Diccionario de la lengua española. http://dle.rae.es/.

Lexicographic perspectives  109

Domínguez-Vázquez, M. J. and C. Valcárcel-Riveiro. 2015. “Hábitos de uso de los diccionarios entre los estudiantes universitarios europeos ¿nuevas tendencias?” In Lexicografía de las lenguas románicas. Aproximación a la lexicografía moderna y contrastiva, eds. M. J. Domínguez-Vázquez, X. Gómez-Guinovart y C. Valcárcel-Riveiro, 165–191. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [DRAE] Real Academia Española. 2001. Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa – Calpe. Egido-Vicente, M. and M. Meliss. 2017. “¿Cómo usar diccionarios bilingües en línea? Ejemplos para el desarrollo de las competencias lexicográficas en la enseñanza del alemán como lengua extranjera.” Revista Internacional de Lenguas Extranjeras (RILE) 7: 31–53. https://revistes.urv.cat/index.php/rile/article/view/1911/1837. [ESPASA] Villar, C. Coord. 2002. Diccionario de la lengua española para estudiantes de español. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Fontanillo-Merino, E. 1983. Cómo utilizar los diccionarios. Madrid: Anaya. Fuertes-Olivera, P. A., ed. 2010. Specialised Dictionaries for Learners. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. and H. Bergenholtz. 2018. “Dictionaries for text production.” In The Routledge Handbook of Lexicography, ed. P. A. Fuertes-Olivera, 267–283. London and New York: Routledge. García-Sanz, E. 2009. El diccionario: su utilidad en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de ELE. Una vuelta más de tuerca. Madrid: Universidad Antonio de Nebrija. [GDUEsA-SGEL] Sánchez, A., dir. 2001. Gran diccionario de uso del español actual. Madrid: SGEL. Gibert-Escofet, M. I. and S. Iglesia-Martín. 2017. “El uso del diccionario como componente estratégico en las clases de ELE para alumnado sinohablante.” Foro de profesores de ELE 13. Glosbe. El diccionario online multilingüe. https://es.glosbe.com/. Hernández-Hernández, H. 1989. Los diccionarios de orientación escolar. Contribución al estudio de la lexicografía monolingüe española. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Hernández-Hernández, H. 1991. “De la teoría lexicográfica al uso del diccionario: el diccionario en el aula.” In El español como lengua extranjera: de la teoría al aula, eds. S. MontesaPeydró and A. Garrido-Moraga, 189–200. Málaga: ASELE. Hernández-Hernández, H. 2000. “El diccionario en la enseñanza de E.L.E. (Diccionarios de Español para Extranjeros).” In ¿Qué español enseñar? Norma y variación lingüísticas en la enseñanza del español a extranjeros, ed. M. A. Martín-Zorraquino, 93–103. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. Hernández-Hernández, H. 2008. “Retos de la lexicografía didáctica española.” In El diccionario como puente entre las lenguas y culturas de mundo. Actas del II Congreso Internacional de Lexicografía Hispánica, ed. D. Azorín Fernández, 22–32. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. Lew, R. 2016. “Can a Dictionary Help You Write Better? A  User Study of an Active Bilingual Dictionary for Polish Learners of English.” International Journal of Lexicography 29 (3): 353–366. Linguee www.linguee.es/. Maldonado-González, C. 1998. El uso del diccionario en el aula. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Maldonado-González, C. 2003. “La lexicografía didáctica monolingüe en español.” In La lexicografía hispánica ante el siglo XXI. Balance y perspectivas, eds. M. A. Martín-Zorraquino and J. L. Aliaga-Jiménez, 129–150. Zaragoza: Sansueña Industrias Gráficas. Manchón-Ruiz, R. M. 2009. “La evaluación del componente estratégico del aprendizaje de lenguas.” Marcoele 8: 151–165.

110  Antoni Nomdedeu Rull

Martín-García, J. 1999. El diccionario en la enseñanza del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Molinero-Pinto, E. 2016. Aplicación práctica del diccionario en la enseñanza-aprendizaje del español 2/L. Madrid: UNED. Nesi, H. 1999. “The Specification of Dictionary Reference Skills in Higher Education.” In Dictionaries in Language Learning. Recommendations, National Reports and Thematic Reports from the TNP Sub-Project 9: Dictionaries, ed. R. R. K. Hartmann, 53–66. Berlin: Thematic Network Project in the Area of Languages. https://pure.coventry.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/ portal/3940949. Nomdedeu Rull, A. 2018. “El desafío del tratamiento de los datos culturales en un diccionario en línea para aprendices de español como LE/L2.” Revista de Filología de la Universidad de La Laguna 36: 279–308. Nomdedeu Rull, A. 2019. “Hábitos de consulta de diccionarios en estudiantes universitarios chinos de español.” In La investigación en lexicografía hoy: diccionarios bilingües, lingüística y uso del diccionario, eds. C. Calvo y F. Robles, en Anejo n.° 85 de Quaderns de filologia, 143–164. Nomdedeu Rull, A. 2020. “How to Select and Present Cultural Data: A Challenge to Lexicography.” Lexicographica. International Annual for Lexicography 36: 39–57. Thematic section in Metalexicography, Dictionaries and Culture. www.degruyter.com/document/ doi/10.1515/lex-2020-0003/html. Nomdedeu Rull, A. and J. Barcroft. 2022. “Los diccionarios de ELE.” In Lexicografía hispánica/The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Lexicography, ed. S. Torner, P. Battaner, and I. Renau. London and New York: Routledge. Nomdedeu Rull, A. and S. Tarp. 2018. “Hacia un modelo de diccionario en línea para aprendices de español como LE/L2.” Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 5 (1): 50–65. Routledge. Doi: 10.1080/23247797.2018.1459279. [OLSD] Rollin, N. and J. Brough eds. 2017. Oxford Learner’s Spanish Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. O’Neill, E. M. 2019. “Online Translator, Dictionary, and Search Engine Use Among L2 Students.”  CALL-EJ 20 (1): 154–177. www.researchgate.net/publication/331132546_ Online_Translator_Dictionary_and_Search_Engine_Use_Among_L2_Students. Prado-Aragonés, J. 1996. Tu diccionario. Descúbrelo y aprende a manejarlo. Huelva: Junta de Andalucía-El Monte, Caja de Huelva y Sevilla. Prado-Aragonés, J. 2000. “El diccionario y la enseñanza de la lengua.” In Tendencias de la investigación lexicográfica del español. El diccionario como objeto de estudio y didáctico, eds. S. Ruhstaller and J. Prado-Aragonés, 171–191. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva. Prado-Aragonés, J. 2005. “Estrategias y actividades para el uso del diccionario en el aula.” Kañina, Revista de Artes y Letras de la Universidad de Costa Rica, XXIX (special): 53–71. Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [SALAMANCA] Gutiérrez-Cuadrado, J., dir. 1996. Diccionario Salamanca de la lengua española. Madrid: Santillana/Universidad de Salamanca. http://fenix.cnice.mec.es/diccionario/. [SM] Maldonado-González, C., dir. 2002. Diccionario de español para extranjeros. Madrid: Editorial SM. Tarp, S. 2008. Lexicography in the borderland between knowledge and non-knowledge. General lexicographical theory with particular focus on learner’s lexicography. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Tarp, S. 2011. “Pedagogical Lexicography: Towards a New and Strict Typology Corresponding to the Present State-of-the-Art.” Lexikos 21: 217–231.

Lexicographic perspectives  111

Tarp, S. 2017. “L2 Writing Assistants and Context-Aware Dictionaries: New Challenges to Lexicography.” Lexikos 27: 494–521. Tomaszczyk, J. 1979. “Dictionaries: Users and Uses.” Glottodidactica 12: 103–119. Tomaszczyk, J. 1983. “On Bilingual Dictionaries: The Case for Bilingual Dictionaries for Foreign Language Learners.” In Lexicography: Principles and Practice, ed. R. R. K. Hartmann, 41–51. London: Academic. Tono, Y. 2011. “Application of Eye-Tracking in EFL Learners. Dictionary Look-up Process Research.” International Journal of Lexicography 24: 124–153. Welker, H. A. 2010. Dictionary Use. A General Survey of Empirical Studies. Brasilia: Author’s Edition. Whitcut, J. 1986. “The Training of Dictionary Users.” In Lexicography. An Emerging International Profession, ed. R. Illson, 111–122. Manchester: University Press. WordReference www.wordreference.com/es/.

6 QUALITY OF LEXICOSEMANTIC REPRESENTATIONS IN L2 SPANISH Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

Abstract Learning new words in a second language (L2) entails building a strong lexicosemantic representation to successfully retrieve these words from the developing lexicon. Current psycholinguistic research on bilingualism overwhelmingly supports the notion that lexical access is non-selective in nature, meaning that words from both languages are active and competing for selection (e.g. Dijkstra and Van Heuven 1998). As a result, overlapping orthographical, phonological, and semantic lexical features come into play during lexical activation, causing bilinguals to simultaneously excite multiple words from different languages, regardless of a speaker’s intention to use a particular language (e.g. Marian and Spivey 2003; Van Heuven, Dijkstra, and Grainger 1998). The degree and nature of overlap can promote or hinder lexical retrieval. Words that share form and meaning between languages, such as cognates, can be easier for bilinguals to recognize. (Schwartz, Kroll, and Diaz 2007). In second language pedagogy, cognates have long been perceived as a powerful tool intended to aid lexical acquisition precisely because of the processing benefits of form and meaning overlap. However, many of the cognate-driven pedagogical practices are based on explicit form-focused aspects of cognate relationships (e.g. Molnár 2010; Nagy et al. 1993) and do not address cognates within the larger frame of meaning-oriented language instruction. In this chapter, we discuss the nature of the lexicosemantic representation of cognates and describe a type of psycholinguistically-motivated cognate instruction (Structured Cognate Instruction) within meaning-oriented instruction. Sample activities that promote the development of a richer and more cognitively accessible lexicosemantic representation will be presented.

DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-7

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  113

1. Introduction The development of the bilingual lexicon is an area of interest to psycholinguists and language instructors alike, but for very different reasons. Psycholinguists are driven by questions related to the underlying representation of words in the lexicon and how lexical retrieval takes place. Language instructors are driven by pedagogical questions of how best to facilitate language learning and help learners develop a rich knowledge of new vocabulary. The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive, and each can, and should, inform the other. In order to develop effective pedagogical interventions, a thorough understanding of how words are represented and retrieved is needed. In this chapter, we begin by presenting a model of lexical representation and describing how form and meaning are mapped within the model. We focus our discussion on cognates, or translation pairs that overlap in form and meaning in two languages. Cognates are both a powerful psycholinguistic tool to investigate the bilingual lexicon and a salient, yet often overlooked, focus of teachers. In other words, cognates are seen as “easy” to learn because of the similarities to the learner’s first language (L1). However, as we will discuss, this is not always the case, especially given what we know of how learners process lexical input (Barcroft 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). At the end of the chapter, we present a pedagogical cognate intervention that reflects a nexus of the two perspectives. We term this pedagogical technique Structured Cognate Instruction (SCI).

2.  Theory and research 2.1. Cognates and cognate facilitation: Definitions and empirical evidence What exactly is a cognate? In slightly different wording styles, scholars seem to agree on overall notions of what a cognate word can be. They generally define cognates as translations which share both lexical form and meaning (or a large part of their phonological and/or orthographic form) with their translation in another language (De Groot 2011; Grosjean and Li 2013; Hermans et al. 2011; Kroll and De Groot 2005; Kroll, Bobb, and Hoshino 2014; Kroll et al. 2015; Schwartz, Kroll, and Diaz 2007; Sunderman and Schwartz 2008). Slightly different definitions of cognates can lead to varying interpretations of results. Therefore, it is imperative to clearly define the compositional factors of a cognate. In what follows, we review the definition of cognates and the empirical findings from several key cognate studies. This discussion will serve to elucidate the complexity of cognate representations, along with providing a brief overview of psycholinguistic research examining the cognate facilitation effect. While it is clear that cognates often share form overlap, not all languages share the same script. Comesaña et al. (2015) state an important distinction by referring to their definition of cognates when encompassing only alphabetic languages. They

114  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

claim cognates are words from alphabetic languages that are equivalent translations and share orthographic and phonological form besides meaning. Such overlap can either compose an identical cognate or semi-identical cognates if partial orthographical-phonological overlap is present (p. 1). Studies exploring cognates in languages who differ in their alphabet, showed phonologic codes were present and active even with the absence of total or partial orthographic overlap. Based on these findings, cognates do not always share their orthographic features. However, it is often unclear how these scholars agree on the degree of orthographical and phonological overlap among cognates. Cognates may indeed present total or partial orthographical overlap among lexical translations in different languages, but they infrequently present a total phonological overlap among these words. Schwartz, Kroll, and Diaz (2007) state: While it is possible to find words across languages that share identical orthography, it is almost never the case that the same type of identical overlap exists for the phonology (Schwartz, Kroll, and Diaz 2007, 109). That being said, it is possible to say not all cognates are created equal. Two words can resemble each other (with total or partial overlap between their translation equivalents, such as train and tren in Spanish) but they can rarely be oversimplified as “identical” words across languages. If psycholinguistic bilingual models of lexical processing include phonological features as a determinant factor in lexical activation, then cognate words that differ in their degree of phonological overlap will likely be processed differently. In order to create a more homogenous global notion of cognates, it is imperative to either expand or delimit its main concept. For this chapter, we define cognates as the following: Cognates are words in alphabetic languages that can share all or a large part of their orthographic form and part of their phonological features with their translation in another alphabetical language. Now, after defining the notion of cognates, it is relevant to examine empirical research investigating how identical and semi-identical cognates are processed in the bilingual mind. A robust compilation of studies from the past 30  years, exploring the cognate advantage in L2 learning with different participant backgrounds and tasks, has revealed an overall cognate advantage in lexical processing in terms of speed and accuracy when studied in isolation or within a context (Comesaña et al. 2015). However, as mentioned previously, such general and rather inclusive report on cognate research can lead to simplistic and misleading interpretations on the meticulous nature of cognates. Comesaña et al. (2015) state that prior studies fall into two distinct categories with regards to the ways to account for the cognate effect. There are studies that view identical and semi-identical cognates in a shared-morpheme fashion (Cristoffanini, Kirsner, and Milech 1986; Davis et al. 2010; Sánchez-Casas and García-Albea 2005) that are processed jointly in the mind, and studies who perceive only identical cognates in a shared-morpheme form and semi-identical

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  115

cognates as well as non-cognates as holding separate two-morpheme forms (Dijkstra et al. 2010; Dijkstra and Van Heuven 2002; Lam and Dijkstra 2010; Van Heuven and Dijkstra 2010) that are consequently processed separately in the mind. Such cognate categorization follows the notion that cognate processes are ultimately moderated by their orthographical-phonological overlap and task types (Comesaña et  al. 2015). The degree of the orthographical-phonological overlap between equivalent translations in different languages will dictate the way processing takes place in the bilingual mind. Comesaña et al. (2015) claim that the interaction between orthography and phonology has not yet been fully explored, especially because a variety of studies manipulate cognates in general terms without considering views that semi-identical cognate words are accessed (i.e. comprehended) similarly to non-cognates (Dijkstra et al. 2010; Duyck et al. 2007). In fact, Comesaña et  al. (2015) says only four studies have systematically controlled for the presence of phonological features of cognates (Comesaña et al. 2012; Dijkstra, Grainger, and Van Heuven 1999; Dijkstra et al. 2010; Schwartz et al. 2007). In addition, some of these studies have shown cognate processing is not always facilitative (Comesaña et al. 2012 and Dijkstra et al. 2010). For example, Schwartz, Kroll, and Diaz (2007) investigated cross-linguistic phonological and orthographic overlap between cognates. A  group of 18 EnglishSpanish bilinguals named visually presented cognate and non-cognate words aloud in each language. The cognates used in the study were also manipulated to vary in their degree of orthographic and phonological similarity (orthogonally). Results show that cognate naming latencies were both speeded and delayed by similar orthography and dissimilar phonology respectively. The study supports bilingual non-selective access and presents evidence towards feed-forward activation from orthography to phonology across languages. Most importantly, it indicates the orthographic and phonological constancy between cognates do influence cognitive competition during bilingual lexical processing regardless of the nature of the task (comprehension or production). While the studies discussed above have shown that the overlap in form and meaning impact cognitive processing, we must also examine how the overlap in form and meaning are represented in terms of psycholinguistic models of the lexicosemantic representation. We turn to this discussion in the next section.

2.2  Psycholinguistic perspective Kroll and De Groot (1997) proposed the distributed lexical/conceptual feature model that captures the form-meaning mappings of a lexical entry. See Figure 6.1. The model depicts an array of lexical feature nodes that are language independent and separate level of conceptual feature nodes that are also language independent. These two levels are connected by a lemma level that is language specific, representing one lemma entry for the L1 and one for the second language (L2). The lemma is defined as containing some syntactic and semantic information and mediates the relationship between form and meaning. The level of activation of the

116  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini Lexical Features

Lemmas

L1

L2

Conceptual Features FIGURE 6.1  The

Distributed Lexical/Conceptual Feature model for a typical noncognate translation pair such as “cat” and “gato” in English and Spanish. Adapted from Kroll and De Groot (1997).

nodes and the strength of the connections are indicated by filled circles and thicker lines respectively. L1 lemmas have stronger connections to the conceptual features whereas L2 lemmas have weaker connections that are still developing. Figure 6.1. displays the Distributed Lexical/Conceptual Feature model for a typical noncognate translation pair such as “cat” and “gato” in English and Spanish respectively. The two lemmas share some lexical overlap as indicated by the gray filled circles, whereas the two lemmas share strong conceptual overlap as indicated by the black filled circles. Cognates within this model would share both lexical and conceptual features and it is this overlap that has been proposed to explain the “cognate facilitation effect” in psycholinguistic research. Cognate facilitation refers to the fact that in various psycholinguistic experiments, cognates are recognized faster than non-cognates (Costa, Caramazza, and Sebastian-Galles 2000; Dijkstra, Grainger, and van Heuven 1999; Schelletter 2002; Van Helll and De Groot 1998, etc.). The facilitation has widely been attributed to the form and/or meaning overlap between the two words. However, Sánchez-Casas, Igoa, and García-Albea (2003) demonstrated that form or meaning similarities alone could not account for facilitation in processing. They argue that cognate status is a special type of morphological information that is encoded separately from lexical and conceptual information. Sánchez-Casas and GarcíaAlbea (2005) modified Kroll and De Groot’s (1997) model to account for and include a separate morphological level between the lexical and lemma levels of representation. For example, cognate words (such as “education” and “educación”) would share lexical and conceptual features but would also share a common morphological root (EDUCA). In contrast, non-cognate words (such as “cat” and “gato”) would share only conceptual features but would have little overlap at the lexical level and would have separate morphophonolgical representations. Put another way, at the

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  117

level of representation and access within this modified model, cognates have one language non-specific morpheme unit, whereas non-cognates have two separate language-specific morpheme units. Cognate facilitation is thus explained by the special morphological representation of cognates. While debating whether cognate facilitation is purely due to form/meaning overlap or due to a joint morphological root is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, it is important to understand how psycholinguists understand the nature of the bilingual lexicosemantic representation. For individuals whose focus is to acquire a second language, the focus shifts to building that lexicosemantic representation. How do learners negotiate lexical and conceptual overlap? Do learners process cognates as morphologically similar units? Or do learners overlook certain aspects of cognates simply because they are processing L2 input in a very constrained way? In the next section we turn to second language processing perspectives on lexical acquisition.

2.3.  Second language processing perspective Language acquisition can be promoted by different kinds of interactions and activities. What all cognitive environments, that successfully foster language acquisition have in common, is the presence of comprehensible input. Input has a fundamental impact on a learner’s linguistic system (VanPatten 2002). Comprehensible input enables learners to create meaning connections and to encode information linguistically. Input Processing (IP) is a theory of second language acquisition that delineates a series of principles that describe how L2 learners attempt to make connections between form and meaning as they are being exposed to input (VanPatten 2002). When learners attempt to encode semantic and linguistic information from the input, a series of cognitive processes come into play. At the lexical level, and within visual word recogntion, these processes include decoding and retrieving lexical features that map out to stored information in a learner’s mind. If learners can match semantic, orthographical, and phonological mentally represented lexical items with target words they see, then lexical activation takes place successfully. VanPatten’s  (2004) IP model and its Primacy of Meaning Principle can shed light on the specifics of cognates processing. The Primacy of Meaning Principle suggests that learners process input for meaning before processing it for form. When learners process a word root for meaning, its suffixation may become redundant and discarded as it is not needed anymore to achieve the goal of processing lexical meaning. Learners focus on lexical items to extract most of meaning and consequently may not need to process grammatical markers at all. Therefore, if the primacy of meaning is applied toward cognates, it is possible to say learners will focus primarily on meaning (either conceptual information or joint morphological information as described earlier) and will consider lexical forms as a secondary source to aid lexical comprehension. This may prove problematic in the acquisition of cognates, particulary when the lexical form is known.

118  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

Assuming L2 learners encounter a cognate for the first time, the overlap in lexical features will initially serve as the basis for processing a cognate word in L2. Thus, if an L2 learner processes the word educación (education), given that both words share most features except for the suffix “-ción,” “-tion,” learners may not face any issues processing the meaning of the word, but the subtle formal lexical features may go unnoticed. As a result, non-processed and unnoticed units don’t make the “cut” to become L2 acquired forms. The effortlessness of processing cognates may actually be hindering developing strong representations. Thus, in terms of cognates, the learners are behaving according to the Primacy of Meaning Principle and focusing on meaning, not form. Indeed, studies on lexical acquisition and production have also shown that L2 learners sometimes fail to perceive formal features cognates share between languages (Ecke 2004; Lightbown and Libben 1984; Otwinowska 2015; Singleton 2006). Why learners are failing to perceive formal lexical features may be explained by other processing accounts. Barcroft (2002) proposed the TOPRA model (Type of Processing-Resource Allocation), which is based on this interface between semantic and structural memory processes from Craik and Lockhart (1972) and transfer appropriate processing (TAP) from Morris, Bansford, and Franks 1977. The model assumes that overall processing demands are sufficiently high so as to necessitate trade-offs between qualitatively different (dissociable) types of learning (form versus meaning versus mapping). Barcroft states that because processing sources are limited, processing demands are allocated and accommodated. Semantic, form and mapping processes and learning “take turns” either by exhausting memory and processing limitations or by allowing other processing to allocate more resources. For example, when semantic processing and/or learning takes places, there is less memory allocated for form processing. However, with identical or semi-identical cognates, given the overlap in form and meaning, the processing load is arguably lessened. Perhaps it is more that learners are failing to allocate any resources to the actual lexical level features, since it is somewhat unnecessary. However, to have a fully developed lexicosemantic representation, a learner must pay attention to the form as well. Learners must be pushed to overcome the automatic focus on meaning. Therefore, the need for structurally oriented tasks may be preferred with cognates, as they demand lexical mappings to take place. If cognate formal relationships are not explicitly shown, learners may not be able to make successful form-meaning connections. A few empirical studies have investigated the role of explicit instruction and its influence in lexical (specifically cognate) transfer and acquisition. Nagy et al. (1993) focused on investigating if L1 to L2 lexical knowledge was transferred through reading and if such transfer was a product of an overall learner’s ability to recognize cognates. A total of 74 Spanish-English biliterate learners were asked to read four texts in English that contained Spanish cognates and subsequently answered a multiple-choice test asking them to recognize the relationship between cognate words in both languages. Results show learners could recognize cognates in English based on their knowledge of these words in Spanish. Rodríguez (2001) also explored L2 acquisition through reading and learners’ L1 cognate knowledge

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  119

to interpret readings in L2. By compiling a series of supporting ideas for the implementation of cognates, Rodríguez favors stimulating L1-L2 lexical connections in order to promote literacy. A content-based methodology could be applied so that learners not only advance their reading skills in L1 but also expand their analytical view of their own L1. Three studies (Caplan-Carbin 1995; Dressler 2000; Molnár 2010) have included an extra explicit component in order to analyze cognate transfer and acquisition among bilingual speakers of different languages. Caplan-Carbin (1995) and Dressler (2000) observed groups of English-German and Spanish-English bilinguals respectively. Participants in the training group, when explicitly instructed about cognates, performed better when inferring meaning from unknown cognates while reading (Caplan-Carbin 1995) and speaking (Dressler 2000). The authors argue that such ability is directly associated with the historical/systematic and phonological transparency of cognate pairs. Similar to Dressler (2000) and Caplan-Carbin (1995) Molnár (2010) also includes explicit instruction on cognates’ structural similarities; however, trilingual speakers (high school learners) of Hungarian (L1), Romanian (L2), and English (L3) were included this time. Explicit instruction on the L2–L3 lexical structural similarities was also beneficial as participants performed better in the vocabulary test than the control group. L2 proficiency was also an important factor in Molnár’s study as it was positively correlated to higher L3 vocabulary test scores. Molnár (2010) argues that cognate-based instruction prepares trilingual learners to use their previously acquired lexical knowledge actively in favor of their latest vocabulary acquisition. Explicit vocabulary training builds cognitive lexical connections and can facilitate vocabulary acquisition. Nagy et al. (1993) also claims cognate instruction can assist learners overcome difficulties they face while reading in L2. It is important to mention that although previous studies (Caplan-Carbin 1995; Dressler 2000; Molnár 2010) included an extra explicit component, the instruction component per se lacks a detailed description. In addition, these studies explored cognate-based instruction in younger L2 learners, whose L2 languages were German, Romanian, or English. Different from previous studies, the present instruction plan focuses on adult L1-English L2-Spanish learners. It also aims to present a detailed instruction plan, the focus of which is to incorporate both structural and semantic oriented tasks into cognate-driven vocabulary learning.

3.  Methods and techniques The main goal of this chapter is to introduce a new vocabulary instruction plan for the teaching of Spanish semi-identical cognates. It seeks to propose a vocabulary instruction practice that combines comprehensive input principles into a structuraldriven approach. SCI focuses on suffixation patterns that cognates in English and Spanish share. It seeks to build learners’ awareness (Schmidt 1990, 1993, 1995) of these similarities while promoting form-meaning connections of newly acquired vocabulary words. Drawing attention to different aspects of word knowledge will enable learners to become autonomous word builders in a new language. That

120  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

means, as learners perceive lexical suffixation patterns between L1-L2, future lexical recognition will be facilitated. In general terms, vocabulary acquisition in L2 entails presenting new structures whose meaning is often known by a learner in their L1. As a result, there is a reassociation of forms in L2 and a reappropriation or repurposing of meaning in L1. For example, learners would begin to link words like “actividad” and “activity” in order to extract the pattern that words that end in – ity map on structurally to the suffix – idad in Spanish. As mentioned previously, cognates have long been perceived as a powerful tool intended to aid lexical acquisition precisely because of the processing benefits of form and meaning overlap. However, many of the cognate-driven pedagogical practices are based on explicit form-focused aspects of cognate relationships (e.g. Molnár 2010; Nagy et  al. 1993) and do not address cognates within the larger frame of Meaning-Oriented Language Instruction (MOI). For that reason, allowing learners to process L2 words within its different layers of lexical processing will facilitate lexical learning conditions. It takes into account lexical processability principles and initial processing limitations in order to unfold vocabulary information. Consequently, it avoids relying on intuitive activities that might limit instructional practices to vocabulary presentation, translation, and non-semantically driven repetition. Furthermore, it contributes to a stronger L2 Spanish representation among English-Spanish bilinguals as it strengthens lexical mappings that can accelerate lexical retrieval and production processes. The SCI presented in this chapter has been developed after taking into account previously stated vocabulary instruction practices such as the Input-Based Incremental (IBI) approach to L2 vocabulary instruction (Barcroft 2012). To recall, the IBI approach considers a learner’s limited processing resources. It seeks to provide comprehensible input vocabulary exposure to allow learners to make formmeaning vocabulary connections. It also allocates sufficient time for learners to produce words when ready, as shown to be beneficial in previous research (Barcroft 2007; McNamara and Healy 1995; Royer 1973). Therefore, it allows learners time and opportunities to process words in the input by promoting meaning-oriented situations. These opportunities promote lexical connections, allowing for vocabulary acquisition to become essentially long-lasting. In contrast to the IBI approach, whose focus is not specific to L2 words that overlap structurally, SCI focuses on words that share structural and semantic overlap (cognates) and uses such similarities as pedagogical tools for vocabulary instruction. Before presenting sample activities, it is important to present the main principles that guide the SCI plan.

Principles of SCI vocabulary instruction 1. Present new words in conjunction with their corresponding visual and/or aural representation. 2. Focus on equivalence relations of certain structural properties of target vocabulary.

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  121

3. Engage in meaning-bearing comprehensible tasks in order to strengthen lexicosemantic mappings in the bilingual mind. 4. Constrain forced output and especially linguistically demanding output tasks while lexical input is presented and interpreted. 5. Extend vocabulary situational properties. Engage learners in different tasks and prepare to use the target vocabulary words in different circumstances, in gradually more demanding tasks.

4.  Integration within MOI The present instruction plan has been designed for intermediate-low on the ACTFL scale for L2 learners of Spanish whose L1 is English. L2 learners who have been taking regular language (Spanish) classes for three semesters or more will receive explicit vocabulary instruction based on formal features of cognate formation. As discussed previously, the goal of explicit vocabulary instruction is to give learners the opportunity to transfer their L1-cognate-structural knowledge to L2 vocabulary in order to build their lexical representation in L2-Spanish. Subsequently, learners will engage in follow-up vocabulary activities whose focus is to generate connections between formal and semantic features of cognate items. The proposed instruction plan is integrated with the core principles of MOI as it promotes pedagogical practices where learners are given a task to accomplish and use the target language to be able to complete it. As seen next, in the comprehensible input sample questions (6a); learners are encouraged to practice the usage of a subset of cognate words in the target language (Spanish) by actually using the language. By doing this, learners will be incorporating novel L2 vocabulary forms by engaging in meaning-oriented and contextualized practices in the classroom. As a result, these pedagogical L2-language practices also align with the principles of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) as well as Task-Based Instruction (TBI).

5.  Sample activity The following activity intends to use the semantic and structural overlap between English (L1) and Spanish (L2) semi-identical cognates as a processing tool that can facilitate lexical retrieval and ultimately acquisition. If manipulated correctly, vocabulary instruction can have a positive impact on L2 cognate processing and improve the quality of lexicosemantic representation. The degree of the orthographicalphonological overlap between cognates are key to facilitate or hinder lexical processes in the bilingual mind, especially since not all cognate processes have been shown to be facilitative. Thus, caution should be exercised when assuming all cognates can serve as beneficial pedagogical tools in L2 vocabulary acquisition. The present instruction involves different types of activities (see part A). The instruction does not focus on a single theme per se as each target word represents a sub-theme alone. Because the starting point of the instruction plan is the structural patterns of the target vocabulary, instructors are encouraged to select vocabulary

122  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

that share formal features first and then explore thematic choices later if possible, taking into consideration the proficiency level of their learners. In other words, this instruction plan can be easily adapted to different L2 level learners. The number of L2 target words can vary from 5 to 12 words presented per class time, but it also depends on instructors to determine if the course syllabus allows for extra vocabulary practice and/or introduction of words. It is important to note that this approach goes against meaning-oriented instruction for which themes might guide choice of lingusitic forms. The rationale is simply that it is precisely becuase of the formal overlap that cognates require this specialized instruction.

Part A Step 1. Select L2 target words and structural formation patterns. Prepare a computer-based presentation containing one or two pictures related to each target word. Present pictures along with the visual and aural representation. The target words selected for this sample instruction plan are the Spansih words for: Activity (actividad), anxiety (ansiedad), celebrity (celebridad), community (comunidad), creativity (creatividad), curiosity (curiosidad), difficulty (dificultad), generosity (generosidad), personality (personalidad), university (universidad). At first glance, it may seem difficult to find pictures of abstract terms such as “activity.” However, if two pictures are presented side by side, one with a person sleeping and one with a person playing soccer, then “activity” is clearly captured by the second photo. Step 2. Students see pictures again. Now their task is to match target vocabulary words with corresponding pictures. The instructor can display the pictures on a computer and ask students to match pictures with a list of words (right and left displayed). Students can also receive copies of the activity and work in pairs or small groups. Step 3. Provide definition of target words. Students should try to come up with the target word. In step 3, students can write the target words on a paper individually. However, this step can also be completed electronically. A fun way to engage learners in step 3 is to promote this activity using clickers or their cell phones. There are game-based learning platforms that allow instructors to design interactive classroom language activities online. After instructors feed the host website with questions and answers, students can access the activity online using an access code on their own phones. That way each student can answer on their phones and their responses appear on the screen in real time, as the class plays together. The benefits of playing interactive games online is that each student receives immediate feedback on their vocabulary learning while having fun in class. Step 4. Show the same Spanish words on the screen and ask learners to analyze what these words have in common. For cognate words such as actividad, “activity,” students should either answer that they all share roots activi- with English words, or that they have different word endings (the corresponding English -ty and Spanish -dad suffixes). Step 4 is key because it prompts learners to critically look at language

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  123

structures and assign a pure, semantically driven role, as in the lexical root activi- or a derivational suffixation role for lexical units as in -ty and -dad suffixes. Creating such lexicosemantic connections will enable learners encode words linguistically. Words encoded linguistically become readily available in L2 as they have become interconnected within all semantic, phonological, and morphological L1 lexical layers needed for L2 lexical processing. Step 5. Present comprehensible input activities. In what follows you will find a sample of comprehensible input questions that help learners to start brief oral conversations in pairs or small groups. Learners can take turns asking each other questions. They can also write their partners’ answers in order to compare and contrast with their own. After the activity ends, instructors can use this moment to ask a few learners to report their findings in order to set up a language accountability and verify whether learners were able to complete the activity successfully and achieve the proposed linguistic (lexical) goals. As a follow-up task and if learner’s proficiency in the target language allows, have a more detailed discussion involving the use of target words.

Comprehensible input sample questions Target word pair: activity – actividad ¿Qué actividad te gusta hacer más con tu familia? ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que la hiciste? “What activity do you like to do with your family? When was the last time you did this activity?” Target word pair: celebrity – celebridad ¿Ya hablaste con o viste a alguna celebridad? ¿Quién? ¿Admiras a esta persona? ¿Por qué? “Have you ever seen or talked to a celebrity? Who was it? Do you admire him/ her? Why/Why not?” Target word pair: university – universidad Piensa en tres cosas que te gustan y que te molestan en tu universidad. “Thing about three things you like or dislike about your university.” Me gusta(n) . . . “I like” Me molesta(n) . . . /Me molesta cuando . . . “. . . annoys me/It annoys me when . . .” Step 6a. Structural practice. Present different words without suffixes. Students have to complete each word using the correct suffix. Step 6b. Scrambled words. Students have to unscramble words in order to form the correct word. For example, if the students were presented with activ- they would need to complete the word with -idad. This could be chosen from a list of potential suffixes. In terms of the word scramble, the students would be presented with a series of letters T V A C D D A I I and the students would unscramble the letters and produce actividad.

124  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

Part B (Steps 7, 8, 9) Part B of SCI can complement part A, but it is not a requirement. Specific classroom needs and proficiency levels will determine whether there is time or a need to develop more structured cognate instruction (SLI) practices. Part A can be repeated using different words and focusing on different suffixation patterns. Part B can also be used as a way to review learners’ overall knowledge of cognate suffixation patterns in Spanish. Step 7. Boost learners’ suffixation awareness and repertoire. Present visually possible noun-suffixations and their correspondence in English and Spanish. Table 6.1. presents 12 English-Spanish suffixation patterns that can be used to promote cognate-driven instruction practices. TABLE 6.1  Selected English-Spanish morphological suffixation patterns

Morphological suffixation patterns

ENG Patterns

SPA correspondence

Examples ENG

Examples SPA

cognates ending in “ct” cognates ending in “nt” cognates ending in “ical” cognates ending in “ist” cognates ending in “ve” Cognates ending in “ce” Cognates ending in “tion” cognates ending in “ous” cognates ending in “ty” cognates ending in “y” cognates ending in “gy” cognates ending in “ly”

add “o” to cognate word add “e” to cognate word substitute “ical” for “o” add “a” to cognate word change “e” for “o/a” change e for “ia”

architect compact elegant restaurant identical biológical capitalist

arquitecto compacto elegante restaurante idéntico biológico capitalista

comparative educative distance fragrance composition education delicious curious activity reality salary vocabulary biology energy possibly

comparativo educativo distancia fragrancia composición educación delicioso curioso actividad realidad salario vocabulario biología energía posiblemente

change “tion” for “ción” change “ous” for “oso” change “ty” for “dad” change “y” for “io” change “gy” for “ia” change “ly” for “mente”

Step 8. Present different words and distinct suffixes separately. Students have to match each root with their corresponding suffix. Step 9. Present different words without suffixes. Students have to complete each word using the correct suffix.

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  125

Follow-up tasks (optional) Steps 10–14 are considered optional. Each instruction will determine if the syllabus allows for extra time spent specifically on vocabulary or if learners are proficiently capable of engaging in specific and more linguistically advanced activities. It is important to remember that although steps 10–14 are numerically ordered, they do not have to be presented in order. They can also be presented separately. Each instructor will determine, based on students’ performance, pedagogical needs, and personalities, what activities best suit their L2 Spanish classes. Step 10. Provide a sheet of paper with definitions of target words. Students should try to write the target word. (individually). This step can also be assigned as a homework task, so students reinforce the acquisition of words seen in class by reviewing them outside the classroom and consequently refresh their formal compositions by seeing these words again. Step 11. Complete a charade-based game. Students play a game trying to guess the target word. This game can be played in small or large groups. The rules of this game can be set beforehand and stated in the target language. Students can use mimics, drawings, descriptions to complete their charades. Step 12. Revisiting formal cognate structures in L2. Based on the suffixation patterns presented in class. Students can come up with words that use the same suffixation in Spanish. They can use dictionaries, their language materials (textbooks, previous classroom notes), or look up online for new words. It is important to limit the number of words students can try to find. That way there is a sense of accomplishment in the end of activity. In addition, students will focus on a smaller set of new words and consequently will not exhaust their processing capabilities. Step 13. Students can create their own definitions for words from the words found in step 10. Step 14. Create a short story with the target words.

6. Conclusions The processes of learning new words in a second language involves creating a strong lexicosemantic representation that enables lexical retrieval from a developing L2 lexicon. Vocabulary instruction, if implemented appropriately, can assist L2 learners in building a sturdy cognate-semantic representation so they can control for the magnitude of lexical activation among cognates during lexical processes. Because cognates have long been perceived as a powerful tool intended to aid lexical acquisition, a type of psycholinguistically-motivated cognate instruction (Structured Cognate Instruction) within meaning-oriented instruction was proposed. Activities that seek to promote the development of a richer and more cognitively accessible lexicosemantic representation were introduced in order to control for the quality of lexicosemantic representation throughout L2-Spanish vocabulary acquisition as well as to guarantee the advantageous outcomes of including cognates.

126  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

It is still an open question as to whether SCI is effective at promoting a strong lexico-semantic representation. To that end, Forcelini (in progress) seeks to explore the impact of different types of instruction, such as processing instruction (PI), SCI and traditional instruction (TI), on lexical processes and vocabulary learning (cognates). This study will examine the nature of vocabulary instruction and its possible contribution to a stronger L2 Spanish representation among English-Spanish bilinguals. Additionally, this study will investigate whether different degrees of overlap between English (L1) and Spanish (L2) cognates, can have an impact in L2 cognate processing. After psycholinguistically-motivated cognate instruction (Structured Cognate Instruction, SCI) on formal features of cognate formation is administered, Forcelini (in progress) hypothesizes that SCI will have a positive impact on L2 vocabulary acquisition. It will possibly show that it strengthens learners’ L2 representation, as demonstrated by performance on a lexical decision task that will assess the magnitude of the cognate effect. SCI will likely assist learners to process L2 cognate words faster and more accurately when engaging in (cognate) lexical comprehension tasks. Specially, tasks that involve target vocabulary as well as lexical items that share similar suffixation patterns. The results will test previous claims that promoting explicit awareness on the subtle differences between cognates, they can stimulate stronger lexical representation in L2 (Nagy et al. 1993; Nation 2001).

7. Bibliography Barcroft, J. 2002. “Semantic and Structural Elaboration in L2 Lexical Acquisition.” Language Learning 52 (2): 323–363. Barcroft, J. 2004a. “Promoting Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition during Reading: Some Pivotal Issues and Eight Instructional Techniques.” The Southern Journal of Linguistics 26 (2): 94–114. Barcroft, J. 2004b. “Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Research on Semantic and Structural Elaboration in Lexical Acquisition.” In Form-meaning Connections in Second Language Acquisition, eds. B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, and M. Overstreet, 219– 234. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barcroft, J. 2004c. “Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Lexical Input Processing Approach.” Foreign Language Annals 37 (2): 200–208. Barcroft, J. 2007. “Effects of Opportunities for Word Retrieval During Second Language Vocabu-lary Learning.” Language Learning 57 (1): 35–56. Barcroft, J. 2012. Input-based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association. Caplan-Carbin, L. 1995. “Diachronic Linguistics in the Classroom: Sound Shifts and Cognate Recognition.” Seminar in Second Language Acquisition, University of South Florida. http://webgerman.com/caplan/. Comesaña, M., R. Sáchez-Casas, A. P. Soares, A. P. Pinheiro, A. Rauber, S. Frade, and I. Fraga. 2012. “The Interplay of Phonology and Orthography in Visual Cognate Word Recognition: An ERP Study.” Neuro-Science Letters 529: 75–79. Comesaña, M., P. Ferré, J. Romero, M. Guasch, and A. P. Soares. 2015. “Facilitative Effect of Cognate Words Vanishes When Reducing the Orthographic Overlap: The Role of

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  127

Stimuli List Composition.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, And Cognition 41 (3): 614–635. Costa, A., A. Caramazza, and N. Sebastian-Galles. 2000. “The Cognate Facilitation Effect: Implications for the Model of Lexical Access.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26: 1283–1296. Craik, F. I. M. and R. S. Lockhart. 1972. “Levels of Processing: A Framework for Memory Research.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11: 671–684. Cristoffanini, P., K. Kirsner, and D. Milech. 1986. “Bilingual Lexical Representation: The Status of Spanish – English cognates.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 38A: 367–393. Davis, C., R. Sánchez-Casas, J. E. García-Albea, M. Guasch, M. Molero, and P. Ferré. 2010. “Masked Translation Priming: Varying Language Experience and Word Type with Spanish – English Bilinguals.” Bilingialism: Language and Cognition 13 (2): 137–155. De Groot, A. M. B. 2011. Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge. Dijkstra, A. and W. J. B. Van Heuven. 1998. “The BIA Model and Bilingual Word Recognition.” In Localist Connectionist Approaches to Human Cognition, eds. J. Grainger and A. M. Jacobs, 189–225. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dijkstra, T., J. Grainger, and W. J. B. van Heuven. 1999. “Recognition of Cognates and Interlingual Homographs: The Neglected Role of Phonology.” Journal of Memory and Language 41 (4): 496–518. Dijkstra, T., K. Miwa, B. Brummelhuis, M. Sappelli, and H. Baayen. 2010. “How CrossLanguage Similarity and Task Demands Affect Cognate Recognition.” Journal of Memory and Language 62 (3): 284–301. Dijkstra, T. and W. J. B. Van Heuven. 2002. “The Architecture of the Bilingual Word Recognition System: From Identification to Decision.” Bilingualsim: Language and Cognition 5: 175–197. Dressler, C. 2000. “The Word-Inferencing Strategies of Bilingual and Monolingual Fifth Graders: A  Case Study Approach.” Unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA. Duyck, W., E. Van Assche, D. Drieghe, and R. J. Hartsuiker. 2007. “Visual Word Recognition by Bilinguals in a Sentence Context: Evidence for Nonselective Access.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33: 663–679. Ecke, P.  2004. “Language Attrition and Theories of Forgetting: A  Cross-Disciplinary Review.” International Journal of Bilingualism 8 (3): 321–354. Grosjean, F. and P. Li. 2013.  The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Herrmans, D.,  E. Ormel,  R. Besselaar,  and G. J. Van Hell. 2011.  “Lexical Activation in Bilinguals’ Speech Production is Dynamic: How Language Ambiguous Words Can Affect Cross-language Activation.” Language and Cognitive Processes 26 (10):  1687–1709. Kroll, J. F., S. C. Bobb, and N. Hoshino. 2014. “Two Languages in Mind: Bilingualism as a Tool to Investigate Language, Cognition, and the Brain.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 23 (3): 159. Kroll, J. F. and A. M. B. De Groot. 1997. “Lexical and Conceptual Memory in the Bilingual: Mapping Form to Meaning in Two Languages.” In Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, eds. A. M. B. De Groot and J. F. Kroll, 169–199. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Kroll, J. F. and A. M. B. De Groot. 2005. Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

128  Gretchen Sunderman and Jamile Forcelini

Kroll, J. F., W. G. Jason, M. Rhonda, and R. Eleonora. 2015. “Selection and Control in Bilingual Comprehension and Production.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingual Processing, ed. J. W. Schwieter, 485–507. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lam, K. J. and T. Dijkstra. 2010. “Word Repetition, Masked Orthographic Priming, and Language Switching: Bilingual Studies and BIA+ Simulations.”  International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13 (5): 487–503. Lightbown, P. M. and G. Libben. 1984. “The Recognition and Use of Cognates by L2 Learners.” In Second Languages, ed. R. W. Anderson, 393–417. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Marian, V., M. Spivey, and J. Hirsch. 2003. “Shared and Separate Systems in Bilingual Language Processing: Converging Evidence from Eyetracking and Brain Imaging.” Brain and Language 86 (1): 70–82. McNamara, D. S. and A. F. Healy. 1995. “A Generation Advantage for Multiplication Skill Training and Nonword Vocabulary Acquisition.” In Learning and Memory of Knowledge and Skills: Durability and Specificity, eds. A. F. Healy and L. E. Bourne, Jr.,132–169. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Molnár, T. 2010. “Cognate Recognition and L3 Vocabulary Acquisition.” Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Philologica 2: 337–349. Morris, C. D., J. D. Bransford, and J. J. Franks. 1977. “Levels of Processing Versus Transfer Appropriate Processing.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16: 519–533. Nagy, W., G. García, A. Durgunoglu, and B. Hancin-Bhatt. 1993. “Spanish-English Bilingual Students’ Use of Cognates in English Reading.” Journal of Literacy Research 25 (3): 241–259. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Otwinowska, A. 2015. Cognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use: Attitudes, Awareness, Activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Rodríguez, T. A. 2001. “From the Known to the Unknown: Using Cognates to Teach English to Spanish-speaking Literates.” The Reading Teacher 54 (8): 744–746. Royer, J. M. 1973. “Memory Effects for Test-Like Events during Acquisition of Foreign Language Vocabulary.” Psychological Reports 32: 195–198. Sánchez-Casas, R. and J. E. García-Albea. 2005.  “The Representation of Cognate and Noncognate Words in Bilingual Memory: Can Cognate Status be Characterized as a Special Kind of Morphological Relation?” In The Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, eds. J. F. Kroll and A. M. B. De Groot, 226–250. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sánchez-Casas, R., J. M. Igoa, and J. E. García-Albea. 2003. “On the Representation of Inflections and Derivations: Data from Spanish.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 621–668. Schelletter, C. 2002. “The Effect of Form Similarity on Bilingual Children’s Lexical Development.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5 (2): 93–107. Schmidt, R. W. 1990. “The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning.” Applied Linguistics 11: 129–158. Schmidt, R. W. 1993. “Awareness and Second Language Acquisition.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 206–226. Schmidt, R. W. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention and Awareness in Learning.” In Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, ed Richard Schmidt, 1–63. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.

Quality of lexicosemantic representations  129

Schwartz, A. I., J. F. Kroll, and M. Diaz. 2007. “Reading Words in Spanish and English: Mapping Orthography to Phonology in Two Languages.” Language and Cognitive Processes 22: 106–129. Singleton, D. 2006. “Lexical Transfer: Interlexical or Intralexical?” In Cross-linguistic Influence in the Second Language Lexicon, ed. Janusz Arabski, 130–143. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Sunderman, G. and A. Schwartz. 2008. “Using Cognates to Investigate Cross-Language Competition in Second Language Processing.” TESOL Quarterly 42 (3): 19–33. Van Hell, J. G. and A. M. B. de Groot. 1998. “Conceptual Representation in Bilingual Memory: Effects of Concreteness and Cognate Status in Word Association.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1 (3): 193–211. Van Heuven, W. J. B. and T. Dijkstra. 2010. “Language Comprehension in the Bilingual Brain: FMRI and ERP Support for Psycholinguistic Models.” Brain Research Reviews 64 (1): 104–122. Van Heuven, W. J. B., T. Dijkstra, and J. Grainger. 1998. “Orthographic Neighborhood Effects in Bilingual Word Recognition.” Journal of Memory and Language 39 (3): 458–483. VanPatten, B. 2002. “Processing Instruction: An Update.” Language Learning 52 (4): 755–803. VanPatten, B. 2004. “Input Processing in Second Language Acquisition.” In Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, ed. B. VanPatten, 5–32. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

7 TESTING L2 SPANISH VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

1. Introduction In this chapter we propose an integrative approach to vocabulary knowledge assessment that involves elements of traditional classroom-based assessment, performance descriptors, and corpus-based tools. In Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI), classroom assessment is normally considered part of the learner’s formative process. The combination of classroom evaluation with independent quantitative assessment can provide both overall (holistic, general, macro) and in-depth (analytical, detailed, micro) insights into the intricacies involved in the vocabulary learning process. The structure of the chapter is as follows. In section  2, we introduce some basic concepts regarding the dimensions to be considered for testing, classic vocabulary tests (Yes/No tests and lexical profiles) and examples of basic computerbased assessment. In section 3, we present the most well-known proficiency guidelines regarding vocabulary testing; namely, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the ACTFL Performance Descriptors. Examples of classroom-based assessment methods then follow this. Section 4 discusses how lexis cannot be considered as separate from grammar and how learner corpora can facilitate assessing proficiency. Section 5 provides an example of a Yes/No test designed to gauge incidental vocabulary gains in specialist areas. Provisions regarding an integrative approach of vocabulary assessment are then summarized in the conclusion.

2.  Theory and research To begin, let us consider some tools and techniques that can be used to assess vocabulary knowledge quantitatively. In order to contextualize them, we first refer

DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-8

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  131

to the dimensions of vocabulary knowledge and then enlist some analytic tools of that can be employed to assess that knowledge. Current trends in language testing research deal with automated measures of different components of vocabulary knowledge, such as vocabulary size, depth, and lexical diversity, as well as other automated measures presently in development. Although some teachers use the word “assessment” as a euphemism for testing and exams, assessment is the process used by teachers use to check what students have learned in a formative, holistic, and descriptive way; assessment takes place in the classroom, informs better teaching, allows immediate feedback and involves collaboration. On the other hand, testing is a summative, analytic, and evaluative outcome that often takes place on a large scale and is often unrelated to teaching. The feedback that it provides is normally numeric (it just ranks individuals). A particular technique (say, a multiple-choice test) could be part of the assessment process if teacher and students interact regarding its content and its results; this very same multiple-choice test could be just a testing exercise when students just get a mark as feedback of their performance.

2.1.  Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge Researchers in second language vocabulary acquisition have provided dimensions and specific lists of features involved in what knowing a word is. It is helpful for language instructors to keep these features in mind when deciding which components of word knowledge are to be taken into account in the preparation of materials or classroom instruction. Nation’s (1990, 2001) definition of what it means to know a word has been strongly influential among language teachers and researchers. The knowledge components listed in Table 7.1. reflect how rich and varied input provided to the learner has to be. Consider the word hojaldre “puff pastry,” for example. Regarding form, knowing how this word is pronounced as /oxáldre/ does not imply that a learner necessarily knows the word’s spelling, which includes a silent h in Spanish that speakers of other languages may find unusual. Regarding meaning, the learner may know that the word form in question refers to puff pastry but lack the sociocultural knowledge of the range of specific pastries to which this word refers, including potential associations in this regard when it comes to the different types of pastries consumed in different Spanish-speaking countries. Lastly, regarding use, a learner may know various aspects of the form and meaning of the word hojaldre but lack sufficient development of knowledge of the collocational properties of this word, such as that it is frequently preceded by the preposition de “of ” and can co-occur with words such as masa “dough,” relleno “filling,” and canutillo “horn.” A learner cannot acquire all of these types of knowledge from a simple translation pair (hojaldre = puff pastry) or word-picture pair only; other types of input are also required (see Table 7.1.). In addition to the breakdown of the components of vocabulary knowledge, Meara (1996, 2005) has suggested that the following three dimensions may account for overall vocabulary competence: (1) size (i.e., how many words the learner knows); (2) organization (i.e., how are those words related to each other); and

132  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez TABLE 7.1  What it is to know a word (Nation 2001)

Form

spoken written word parts

Meaning

Use

R P R P R P

form and meaning

R P

concepts and referents associations

R P R P

grammatical functions collocations

R P R P

constraints on use (register, frequency)

R P

What does the word sound like? How is the word pronounced? What does the word look like? How is the word written and spelled? What parts are recognizable in this word? What word parts are needed to express the meaning? What meaning does this word form signal? What word form can be used to express this meaning? What is included in the concept? What items can the concept refer to? What other words does this make us think of? What other words could we use instead of this one? In what patterns does the word occur? In what patterns must we use this word? What words or types of words occur with this one? What words or types of words must we use this one? Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this word? Where, when, and how often can we use this word?

(3) accessibility (i.e., how quickly word knowledge is accessed). Other researchers such as Chapelle (1998), Henriksen (1999), and Qian (1999) have suggested similar dimensions. In section 3, we will see that some standard scales of defining vocabulary knowledge use these elements. For instance, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), size refers to broad lexical repertoire, organization might be included in the concept of circumlocutions, and accessibility seems to be strongly related to the presence/absence of hesitation.

2.2.  Some measures of vocabulary knowledge In this section we examine three main examples of vocabulary assessment tools used to measure some aspects of vocabulary knowledge: Yes/no tests, vocabulary profiles, and depth of knowledge.

2.2.1.  Yes/No tests This tool, which is normally used as a placement test, was developed for English by Meara and Buxton (1987). There are several implementations of it in Spanish,

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  133

including (among others) those of Fairclough (2011), who provides a version based on the frequency list by Davies (2006), and two basic online versions, one developed at the Lancaster site for language Dialang (https://dialangweb.lancaster. ac.uk/) and the other at the University of Ghent and the Basque Center for Cognition, Brain and Language (http://vocabulario.bcbl.eu/vocabulario/start). Frequency counts can be sampled to create a Yes/No test. Around 150–200 words might be enough to establish vocabulary size. Ideally, such tests can be administered at regular intervals, such as at the end of a semester or academic year, to measure incidental vocabulary learning. Davies (2006) is a lemmatized list (lemma referring to a canonical word form or “head word” in a dictionary) containing only the first 5000 most frequent words in a language, words that would be suitable for beginner and low-intermediate learners. Other suitable alternatives include the wordlists supplied by the CREA (Real Academia Española 2008) and the CORPES (Real Academia Española 2018). In these corpora, peninsular Spanish is overrepresented, but the lists are useful and freely available. The CREA frequency list is not lemmatized (therefore, one finds trabajaré, trabajaríamos, and trabajaste in the same list), and the CORPES list has several versions, including one that is lemmatized (where only the infinitive trabajar appears). Thanks to these databases, words can be sampled and basic pen-and-paper versions created.

2.2.2.  Vocabulary profiles Vocabulary profiles, which were first developed by Laufer and Nation (1995), are based on the distribution of words in a text by frequency bands. Frequency bands are normally groups of 1000 words sorted by their frequency (the first frequency band, often called 1K band, includes the most 1000 common words in a language; the 2K band includes the second thousand most common words, and so on). Texts described by percentage of words in each frequency band show their degree of difficulty. For instance, a text for a beginner level should include mostly words in the 1K and 2K bands whereas an intermediate-level text may contain a bigger proportion of words included in the 4K, 5K, and 6K bands. Graded readers are based upon this principle. Vocabulary profiles describe the sophistication of a text produced by a learner and also the degree of difficulty that a learner might find when encountering a text. AntWordProfiler (Anthony 2021) is a vocabulary profile software. It works with any language, providing wordlists of frequency counts. An online version of a vocabulary profiler includes the Spanish Vocabulary Online Profiler (http://tenney.biz/svop/). However, one main limitation of the Online Profiler is that there is a large loss of information in grouping word families and bands. An alternative method of establishing text difficulty is count-based word frequency. An example is provided in Table 7.2. According to this method, the average frequency of words in a text is calculated. For instance, the average frequency of the sentences Me levanto por la mañana y me tomo un café “I get up in the morning, and I drink a cup of coffee” and Ayer caminé treinta kilómetros y ahora tengo el cuerpo dolorido “Yesterday I walked thirty kilometers, and now my body is aching”

134  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez TABLE 7.2 Example of count-based word frequency (using CORPES raw unlemmatized

frequency list) Sentence 1

Frequency

Sentence 2

Frequency

me levanto por la mañana y me tomo un café AVERAGE FREQ

1,088,303 1,368 2,643,229 11,027,573 59,942 7,914,906 1,088,303 2,219 3,225,645 29,619 2,708,111

ayer caminé treinta kilómetros y ahora tengo el cuerpo dolorido AVERAGE FREQ

92,130 1,292 12,344 25,282 7,914,906 219,625 76,022 8,392,505 85,856 269 1,682,023

is 2.7 million and 1.7 million, meaning that the first sentence is easier to read and produce than is the second sentence. A  spreadsheet with the frequency counts, the text to be analyzed arranged in columns, and a VLOOKUP formula linking simplify this process. According to research on English texts (Crossley, Cobb, and McNamara 2013), difficulty established by the average frequency method is more precise than the frequency band method. However, both methods can establish text difficulty. As underlined in previous chapters of this book, a key issue in MOI is to provide learners with input that is appropriate to their age, stage, ability, and existing knowledge. Therefore, these methods can be helpful when assessing how appropriate a text could be in a meaning-focused teaching environment in Spanish, such as when learners communicate different types of information among themselves, complete specific tasks, or learn new content, such as Hispanic linguistics or literary and cultural studies in the Spanish-speaking world.

2.2.3.  Depth of knowledge According to Read (2000, 180), word association tests measure relationships that can be considered (a) paradigmatic (words are synonyms or at least similar in meaning, e.g., resumen, sumario), (b) syntagmatic (words often co-occur, that is, they are collocates), and (c) analytic (the associate represents one aspect, or component, of the target word and is likely to form part of its dictionary definition; e.g., “team  – together”). Qian and Schedl (2004) developed a test of evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary designed to measure two aspects of depth of vocabulary knowledge: (1) word meaning, particularly polysemy and synonymy, and (2) word collocation. An example of the format developed by them is provided in Table  7.3. Participants have to find two synonyms from the left box and two collocations from the items in the right box. The format is a mixture

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  135 TABLE 7.3 Sample of depth vocabulary test

(D. D. Qian and Schedl 2004) poderoso (A) potente (B) seguro (C) influyente (D) cabal

(E) estímulo (F) motor (G) repetición (H) ejército

of the multiple-choice and the matching-items formats. Apart from the Spanish corpora freely available (www.corpusdelespanol.org/ and www.rae.es/recursos/ banco-de-datos), the Spanish combinatory dictionaries (Bosque 2004, 2006) are invaluable resources for devising this type of tests. There is also a Spanish collocations dictionary online (Alonso Ramos 1999).

2.2.4.  Other tools and measurements Xi (2010, 2017) has noted a trend toward automatizing classic and recent measures of lexical proficiency. Although the major developments in language testing research are related to English (see www.linguisticanalysistools.org/), it is just a matter of time before the same tools are adapted for Spanish, as reflected by recent Vocabulary Levels Test for Spanish by Chandler (see Chapter 8 in this volume). Crossley et al. (2011) tested word length scores, lexical diversity values, word frequency counts, hypernymy values, and other features of vocabulary knowledge. Crossley, Salsbury, and McNamara (2012) later reported that word frequency, lexical diversity, word imageability, and word familiarity are strong predictors of an individual’s lexical level. Tools designed to help writing in Spanish could also be used in a classroom context. Still at an early stage of development, Estilector (www. estilector.com/) is a potentially useful tool being developed by Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso in Chile. HARTA is another lexical tool designed to support academic writing which is being developed in Spain (García Salido et al. 2018).

3.  Methods and techniques When reading this section, it should be helpful to keep in mind the differences between assessing and testing described at the beginning of section 2. Moreover, we want to introduce the concept of washback, which is the learning effect that tests can have as classroom activities in and of themselves. Teachers sometimes feel negative emotions about testing, such as when they feel pressure to teach to the test, but washback effects can be very positive and empowering. Students can also benefit greatly from knowing recognized proficiency guidelines and incorporating them as part of their self-assessment toolbox. Being familiar with these guidelines might help them to develop new abilities that they are expected to accrue over time. In

136  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

addition to proficiency guidelines, teachers may also consider potential benefits of different types of commonly used traditional classroom activities described later in this section (in 3.3.3) as blueprints for testing instruments. In both cases, increased familiarity on the part of both teachers and students in a variety of formats and using a variety of tools and techniques can be advantageous when working within a meaning-focused program of language instruction.

3.1.  Proficiency guidelines used in vocabulary testing Practitioners of content-based instruction, task-based instruction and communicative language teaching who assess vocabulary knowledge may rely on guidelines for vocabulary provided by organizations focused on language instruction. Among the sets of guidelines are (a) the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) (Table 7.4.) and (b) the ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (ACTFL 2012) (Table 7.5.). TABLE 7.4  Competence in vocabulary CEFR (Council of Europe 2001)

Vocabulary range C2

C1

B2

B1

A2

A1

Has a good command of a very broad lexical repertoire including idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms; shows awareness of connotative levels of meaning. Has a good command of a broad lexical repertoire allowing gaps to be readily overcome with circumlocutions; little obvious searching for expressions or avoidance strategies. Good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. Has a good range of vocabulary for matters connected to his field and most general topics. Can vary formulation to avoid frequent repetition, but lexical gaps can still cause hesitation and circumlocution. Has a sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some circumlocutions on most topics pertinent to his everyday life such as family, hobbies, and interests, work, travel, and current events. Has sufficient vocabulary to conduct routine, everyday transactions involving familiar situations and topics. Has a sufficient vocabulary for the expression of basic communicative needs. Has a sufficient vocabulary for coping with simple survival needs. Has a basic vocabulary repertoire of isolated words and phrases related to particular concrete situations.

Vocabulary control C2 C1 B2 B1

A2 A1

Consistently correct and appropriate use of vocabulary. Occasional minor slips, but no significant vocabulary errors. Lexical accuracy is generally high, though some confusion and incorrect word choice does occur without hindering communication. Shows good control of elementary vocabulary but major errors still occur when expressing more complex thoughts or handling unfamiliar topics and situations. Can control a narrow repertoire dealing with concrete everyday needs. No descriptor available.

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  137

Presentational

Interpretive

Interpersonal

TABLE 7.5  ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners (ACTFL 2012)

Novice range

Intermediate range

Advanced range

Able to understand and produce a number of high frequency words, highly practiced expressions, and formulaic questions.

Communicates using high frequency and personalized vocabulary within familiar themes or topics.

Comprehends some, but not all of the time, highly predictable vocabulary, a limited number of words related to familiar topics, and formulaic expressions. Produces a number of high frequency words and formulaic expressions; able to use a limited variety of vocabulary on familiar topics.

Comprehends high frequency vocabulary related to everyday topics and high frequency idiomatic expressions. Produces vocabulary on variety of everyday topics, topics of personal interest, and topics that have been studied.

Comprehends and produces a broad range of vocabulary related to school, employment, topics of personal interest, and generic vocabulary related to current events and matters or public and community interest. Comprehends generic and some specific vocabulary and structures, specialized and precise vocabulary on topics related to one’s experience, and an expanding number of idiomatic expressions. Produces a broad range of vocabulary related to topics of personal, public, and community interest, and some specific vocabulary related to areas of study or expertise.

CEFR and ACTFL guidelines are taken into account by teachers and administrators when a general assessment of learners when a international recognition is required. Normally, language samples produced by the learners are assessed by two examiners. These two ratings must agree and must have a level of statistical significance as established by an interrater reliability measures like Cohen’s Kappa (Fulcher 2015, 81–86). In what follows we consider each of these two options for assessment (CEFR and ACTFL) in turn. CEFR does not consider vocabulary as an isolated construct; it evaluates lexicon as part of different communicative linguistic activities, seeking authentic evaluation of the oral and written expressions of the examinees bearing in mind their ability to interact in the real world. It does not focus on the evaluation of vocabulary within a single activity but, instead, on the overall result of the sum of activities included in the test. The framework refers to lexical competence, or the knowledge of the vocabulary of a language and the ability to use it. It includes both lexical and grammatical elements, such as fixed expressions, idioms, fixed frames, collocations, phrasal verbs, and polysemy. CEFR describes competence in vocabulary using a domain scale to assess knowledge

138  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

and use through richness and control of lexical elements. The CEFR (Council of Europe 2001, 112) scales used for the different competence levels for vocabulary can be found below. The ACTFL descriptors are organized according to three ranges of performance (novice, intermediate, and advanced), three modes of communication (interpersonal, interpretive, and presentational) and several domains of performance, one of which, as summarized, is vocabulary. A word of caution is in order regarding the guidelines provided in this section. First, the definition of the rubrics at all levels (advanced, intermediate, low) is normally subjective. It is, for instance, very difficult to pin down what “variety” and “accuracy” and even “expressions” might exactly mean in statements like “the learner uses a variety of vocabulary and expressions accurately.” Second, when teachers use these guidelines, they are strongly advised to write down samples used by students illustrating these concepts. Lastly, it has to be acknowledged that these guidelines require resources (time, intensive teacher training, and so forth) that may be absent in normal teaching environments. For instance, in order to calculate interrater reliability (how similar the judgments of examiners are quantitatively), at least two examiners are needed, and the statistical knowledge and tools needed are not always available to those responsible for the test implementation. Brindley (2012) has reflected upon these shortcomings with regard to the relationship between CEFR and ACTFL guidelines and taskbased instruction.

3.2.  Classroom-based assessment 3.2.1.  Peer or self-assessment Self- and peer-assessment are probably the most common methods used to establish learner proficiency. It relies on a range of tasks that vary in difficulty and whose successful completion is assessed subjectively. The following examples are samples of tasks taken from the Interagency Language Roundtable (2011) for self-assessment of speaking proficiency. These self-assessment statements are quite varied. Whereas the first statements refer to single communicative scenarios, the more advanced selfassessment statements tend to refer to more to metalinguistic awareness. Two shortcomings of the task list are the following. (1) Learners are not necessarily aware of their lexical knowledge, and that awareness does not imply correction. (2) As in the case of the rubrics, some of the statements of self-assessment are imprecise. Limitations such as these favor the case of not relying on any one assessment method alone.

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  139

Level S-1

S-2

S-3

S-4

S-5

I can tell/ask someone how to get from here to a nearby hotel, restaurant, or post office. I can arrange for a hotel room or taxi ride. I can buy a needed item such as bus or train ticket, groceries, or clothing. I can handle conversations about familiar topics in an organized way. I can describe my present or most recent job or activity in some detail. I can give detailed information about my family, my house, and my community. I can give a brief autobiography including immediate plans and hopes. I feel that I have a professional command, rather than just a practical one, of the language. I rarely find myself unable to finish a sentence because of linguistic limitations (grammar or vocabulary). I can speak to a group of educated native speakers on a professional subject and be sure I am communicating what I want to, without obviously irritating them linguistically. I can, on a social occasion, defend personal opinions about social and cultural topics. I consistently use the language in a sophisticated and nuanced way to effectively communicate with great precision. I can carry out any job assignment as effectively as if in my native language. I naturally integrate appropriate cultural and historical references in my speech. I can lead the direction of the discussion (friendly, controversial, collaborative). My language proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of a highly articulate well-educated native speaker and reflects the cultural standards of a country where the language is natively spoken. I can use the language with complete flexibility and intuition, so that speech on all levels is fully accepted by well-educated native speakers in all of its features, including breadth of vocabulary and idiom, colloquialisms, and pertinent cultural references. My vocabulary is extensive and precise, allowing me to consistently convey complex ideas and details.

Yes

No

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

3.2.3.  Traditional vocabulary assessment Instructor assessment or testing of how well a task or teaching unit has been achieved is normally based upon traditional exercises. Here are some typical examples. •

Fill the gap. This exercise implies deleting target words and asking learners to guess which words were deleted and where were they placed. Target words might be facilitated as a list. Completa los espacios con una de las siguientes palabras: fundada, declarada, expuestas, diseñada, construidos a. Cordoba, ________ en el siglo II a. de C por los romanos, fue la capital de la Hispania ulterior. b. La Pedrera, ________ por el famoso arquitecto Gaudí, es una joya de la arquitectura modernista. c. La Plaza Mayor de Salamanca, ________ monumento histórico-artístico en 1973, es el centro de la vida social de la ciudad d. Las obras de Zurbarán ________ en el museo del Prado suponen tal vez la mayor colección del pintor. e. Los jardines del parque del laberinto de Horta, ________ en el norte de Barcelona, son una de las zonas de recreo menos conocidas de la ciudad.

•

Cloze test. This test is based upon the deletion of part of a word, leaving one or few initial letters. Deletion every nth word is a standard procedure. Completa los espacios. De Francisco Toledo pueden decirse muchas cosas incluso d_______ de su muerte, pues su legado abarcó un s_______ de actividades; destacó en escultura, pintura, promoción cultural, e_______ de libros, enseñanza, activismo . . . mucho. De complexión delgada, c____ cabello desaliñado, barba descuidada, ojos cafés y una v_______ común que a simple vista lo hacía ver c___ uno más del pueblo, pero su mirada y su actividad lo hacían resaltar. Abarcó diversas técnicas durante su v_______: la escultura en piedra, la madera, el diseño de tapices, la acuarela, el grabado sobre linóleo y m______, el fresco, el gouache, el óleo y la l_______.

•

Identify vocabulary in a text. Encuentra los siguientes verbos de movimiento o que señalan cambio de postura de una persona en un texto. acercarse alejarse aproximarse arrodillarse bajar

caerse darse la vuelta inclinarse girarse levantarse moverse

pararse ponerse de pie/ . . . sentarse subir acostarse

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  141

•

Multiple choice. Después de escuchar la grabación sobre la representación de la obra de teatro “La casa de Bernarda Alba” contesta las preguntas. 1. En la obra el color negro representa: a) la libertad y la vida. b) la muerte y el fanatismo. c) el destino de una persona. 2. La influencia de la protagonista hacia sus hijas está basada en: a) el orgullo. b) la opresión. c) el entusiasmo.

•

Transform sentences. Cambia las oraciones a la forma pasiva. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

•

Marsé publicó la novela Últimas tardes con Teresa en 1966. Los alumnos leyeron la novela. Juan escucha el relato de los actores. Isabel visitó varios museos el sábado. Los turistas recorren las calles del centro histórico.

Write a summary. Vas a escuchar a dos personas implicadas en un suceso. Toma notas de los datos relevantes que creas necesario incluir. Explica: ¿qué ocurrió?, ¿quién estuvo implicado? ¿cuándo? ¿por qué? ¿cuándo?

•

Produce a fictional narrative in the target language Narra un sueño, un acontecimiento, una noticia, un accidente. Explica los sentimientos de las personas involucradas en esa situación usando adjetivos que los describen. • • • • •

desolado/a impaciente asustado/a morado/a tímido/a

• • • • •

fastidiado/a entusiasmado/a nervioso/a angustiado/a alarmado/a

• • • • •

contrariado/a sorprendido/a alegre triste alterado/a

• Matching. Relaciona los elementos de las columnas de forma coherente. Fíjate en los verbos que expresan emociones. 1. Tomás se lamentó de 2. El ayudante secretaria se preocupa por 3. Los visitantes se quejaron del 4. Nos extrañamos ante 5. Te asustaste por 6. Carlos y Alfonso se entristecieron ante 7. El enfermo se alegró con

a) la fuerte lluvia. b) tus bromas. c) la situación que vivió el niño. d) el mal servicio del hotel. e) pésimo transporte. f) las malas noticias. g) su mala suerte.

142  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

•

Create sentences following a model/pattern. Escribe opiniones respecto a un tema de tu elección con las siguientes estructuras. • • • • • •

•

Creo que . . . (Yo) Pienso que . . . Considero que . . . A mí me parece que . . . Está claro que . . . Es cierto que . . .

True or false. Escucha el siguiente texto. Marca verdadero (V) o falso (F) en las oraciones que siguen. Comenta tus respuestas con un compañero. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

•

La pirámide de El Pueblito es admirada por los turistas. El Museo Regional fue visitado por mi grupo. La Galería Libertad fue recorrida por mis compañeros de clase. La iglesia de San Francisco es fotografiada por los turistas. El convento de La Cruz conserva el lugar donde fue confinado Maximiliano.

Match definitions/synonyms with words. Relaciona las columnas de acuerdo con su significado. a) b) c) d) f)

•

implicar difundir por ende asumir alusiones

() () () () ()

divulgar por tanto envolver, encerrar referencias aceptar

Recalling content of a story or narration based on a stimuli: Comic strip, film, picture, etc. Vas a escuchar a dos personas implicadas en un suceso. Toma notas de los datos relevantes que creas necesario incluir en la crónica. Explica: ¿qué ocurrió?, ¿quién estuvo implicado? ¿cuándo? ¿por qué? ¿cuándo?

Traditional assessment methods might benefit from the use of exercise and quiz software like Hot Potatoes, course management systems like Moodle or GoogleForms. Scores are normally stored in formats compatible with spreadsheets. This facilitates the calculation of reliability indexes that in turn helps to determine the usefulness of the materials. Are these traditional exercises effective? Their main advantage is how they are formative in nature; that is, learners can actually learn and practice vocabulary and other linguistic features while completing the exercise. The exception, for which this is only partially true, are multiple-choice tests in that distracters provide, by definition, incorrect input. Additionally, one should bear in mind that classroom assessment cannot be compared to testing activities and should never replace institutional or large-scale testing because its formative (not summative) nature.

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  143

3.3.  Eight recommendations Some general recommendations for language teachers regarding testing in MOI are: 1. Successful outcome in a communicative situation is the main measure of attainment. 2. Incorporate several assessment methods, not just one. Share testing guidelines with students and ask them to use them to provide feedback to fellow students. 3. If the goal is determining the students’ proficiency, use tests with which students are familiar. 4. Always avoid input that is not real (even as in multiple-choice tests as distracters). 5. Collect written data from students’ production activities to create corpora that help you to compare your student, class, or cohort’s performance to that of students in other learner corpora. 6. Create an exercise data bank. Build upon successful items and discard items that were too easy or too difficult. 7. Administer a vocabulary size test at the beginning and the end of courses in order to measure incidental and intentional vocabulary learning. 8. Maintain active interaction with other teachers as changes in assessment tools are likely to be very fast.

4.  Integration within MOI In MOI, teachers present natural input, adjusting activities and content to students’ abilities and needs. Apart from the tools and techniques presented earlier, other activities, such as creating lists, charts, outlines, tables and quizzes, are often used in task-based instruction. Typical activities in communicative instruction and assessment are conducting interviews (structured or unstructured) and discussions, and brainstorming (Fulcher and Davidson 2007, 33). Instructors can carefully select and prepare input in order to help understand the elements involved in these tasks. All tasks can also become assessment methods. The main measure of attainment in all cases is successful outcome in a communicative situation, which results from all combined linguistic elements (pronunciation, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic) being used successfully. This combination of linguistic elements is a very complex process that must be acquired gradually over time. Moreover, student performance on testing and assessment needs to be accompanied by realistic expectations. In this regard, learner corpora, instead of only comparisons to native speaker performance, might provide more apt comparisons with which to estimate the quality of the student performance.

4.1.  The inextricability of vocabulary and grammar Most language professionals agree that lexis and syntax should not be considered completely separate areas and that a research agenda encompassing both linguistic

144  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

subsystems in tandem should be developed. Lexis and grammar are not separate concepts. A basic example of this notion would be the use of shell nouns (e.g., tema, problema, cuestión, asunto), which has been related to a student’s ability to develop cohesive texts (Schmid 2000; Flowerdew and Forest 2015). A  teacher wants to make sure that shell words are recognized and understood with respect to their use in appropriate and functional ways. Another example of the inextricability of vocabulary and grammar concerns the argument structure of verbs, which is not only a lexical but also a syntactic issue. Testing the knowledge of words like culpar, acusar, insinuar, reprochar or regañar should involve verifying their meaning, their usage in context, and their grammar. Treatment of vocabulary and syntax as interdependent has been accomplished to some degree with new approaches to language description, like for instance Gries and Stefanowitsch (2006), Hunston and Francis (2000), and underlined more recently by other leading researchers like Alderson and Kremmel (2013), and Römer (2017) who writes: “Within more recent integrative and functionally oriented approaches to language learning, scholars have begun to look at language proficiency more holistically and consider lexicogrammatical knowledge (capturing forms and functions of words, phrases and utterances) as a single category” (p. 478). As is consistent with general premises of MOI and Input-Based Incremental (IBI) instruction (Barcroft 2012) in particular, testing should be meaning-focused with syntactic projections as being part of the “full meaning” of any vocabulary item. That is why the first item of the list of eight recommendations in section  3.3 refers to successful (meaningful) outcome in a communicative situation as the main measure of attainment. Note also that MOI and the IBI approach require adapting input to the needs of the students, which implies that any given testing tool or technique might be appropriate to a particular moment for students. In this vein, context-dependent and controlled exercises in which the accurate use of an item is being observed within a largely formative context may be helpful at all stages of the learning process, but especially so at the early stages.

4.2.  Comparing proficiency with learner corpora In language testing theory, a basic distinction is drawn between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing (Bachman 1990, 7, 2004, 300). Norm-referenced testing compares learners scores to those of other learners (especially those who took the very same test); whereas criterion-referenced testing compares a learner performance to the yardstick of some guidelines like the ones just described and used in high stakes testing. The distinction between these two ways of testing has been considered largely obvious. However, recent reevaluation of the “native speaker norm” has been taking place, questioning the extent to which performance of native speakers’ performance should or should not be considered to be the most appropriate (A. Davies 2003; Fulcher 2015, 45). Cook (2008) also questions this assumption in terms of its implications on the learning process (“we can never regard an L2 user as an unsuccessful native speaker”). Thus, if we are to establish

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  145

levels of attainment, we might find it more relevant to compare learners’ performance just to other learners’ performance as opposed to that of native speakers. Teacher intuition can benefit from and be refined by developing and consulting learner corpora. As Jarvis (2017) describes it, learner corpora are “a natural domain for exploring the relationship between learners’ patterns of vocabulary use and various aspects of their language knowledge and proficiency.” Learner corpora is also a very useful tool to develop vocabulary assessment materials, in that it allows the teacher to provide specific interventions in the class to deal with specific issues. In sum, learner corpora should be an essential element of a complex, all-encompassing way of assessing learners’ proficiency (Alonso-Ramos 2016; Callies and Götz 2015). Apart from the classic learner corpora held at the University of Louvain, other pioneering learner corpora are the Spanish Learner Language Oral Corpora of the University of Southampton, the Corpus de Lenguaje Académico en Español (2009), and the Corpus de Aprendices de Español como Lengua Extranjera (CAES) (Instituto Cervantes 2018). Learner corpora are essential for researchers and developers of automated scoring software. The Spanish Corpus Proficiency Level Training (www.laits.utexas.edu/spt/intro) is also an excellent tool developed at the University of Texas to train teachers to assess Spanish proficiency levels.

5.  Sample activity In addition to traditional vocabulary assessment, in this section we present an innovative tool that can be used to measure vocabulary knowledge acquired over time, following suggestion 7 in the do’s and don’ts list in section 2.3. It can help instructors and language program directors to compare vocabulary gains of learner groups at different levels or across multiple semesters and to facilitate the development of students’ awareness of their vocabulary learning processes. Let us imagine that we are in charge of a combined university degree of teaching Spanish and education. Our students need to become proficient in Spanish, and we want to measure their receptive knowledge of specialized Spanish vocabulary within the field of education. How can we do that? It might sound like a daunting task, but the creation and use of a specialist-focused corpus-based checklist is one relatively straightforward and time-saving way of testing this type of (specialist) vocabulary knowledge. A concrete example is presented here. 1) Design your specialized corpus. Go to a directory with academic journals in Spanish such as Latindex or Dialnet (https://www.latindex.org/latindex/inicio or https://dialnet.unirioja. es/). Check for journals of your area of interest. In our first search in the education field, both sites indexed a list of several hundred journals. Take your time to choose your sample (country and topic might be initial appropriate criteria). Check that a Creative Commons license is granted by the publisher. Alternatively, gather the course materials, digitalize them, and use them as a corpus.

146  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

2) Process your corpus. a. Download. If the texts that you are interested in are in pdf format, it would be useful to transform the text into plain text format using a tool like AntFileConverter. If they are in html format you can download the plain text via BootCat (Baroni and Bernardini 2004). b. It is advisable to clean the text by removing undesired information: Headings and footnotes, page numbers, bibliography, texts of figures, tables, captions, and so forth. 3) Select vocabulary items for your test. a. Find a reference corpus list with frequencies. The CREA and CORPES are large corpora, although Eurocentric in their design, but their frequency lists are freely available from the RAE website. You will have to adapt the format of this list to the requirements of the lexical processing software (it will not work as downloaded neither in AntConc nor in Wordsmith). An adaptation of the CREA frequency list with AntConc (you can download it from https://tinyurl.com/crealist55) is one reliable option. b. Use a lexical processing corpus tool to calculate and extract keywords. AntConc is a free, very reliable tool. In AntConc, go to Tool Settings/ Keywords and load your reference corpus. In the main screen load your specialized corpus. If you are new to these kinds of tools, AntLab YouTube channel has tutorials on how to use the software. c. When checking the keyword list results, you might like to focus on the first few hundred keywords or in the less frequent words (say from 200 to 500), depending on the level of your students or the purpose of your test. You might like to choose your words taking into account your knowledge of the discipline (or that of an expert), both keyness statistics, frequency count, and dispersion (for instance, that they occur in at least four different texts). 4) Make up distracters to build your yes/no test. In the previous do’s and don’ts list, we suggest never using input that is not real. Therefore, instead of using traditional non-words, in the checklist we can include words that do not correspond to the area of specialization that is being measured (e.g., gatillo, uña, festín, pétalo, etc.) Once the database of specialist vocabulary is created you can compile your test first version, have it checked by colleagues and field specialist, run pilot tests, and refine it. Next is a list of 50 keywords obtained from a corpus of education-related texts for which students can be instructed: Señala las palabras cuyo significado conozcas y que pertenezcan al ámbito de la educación. Si no conoces la palabra y su ámbito con seguridad, no la señales “Indicate words whose meaning you know and that relate to field of education. If you do not know the word or and its field association with certainty, don’t mark it”:

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  147

acreditación actividad análisis aprendizaje aprobar asignatura autoevaluación autónomo capacidad carrera compromiso comunidad curricular

derecho desarrollo desempeño dimensión disciplinar diseñar docente documentar egresar enfoque enseñanza estrategias facultad

formación generación gestión habilidades indicadores información innovación institucional mecanismo mejoramiento método modelo necesidades

niveles norma oportunidades perfil planeación procesos promedio proyecto reconocimiento seguimiento vinculación

6. Conclusions Traditional ways of assessing vocabulary – classroom-based assessment and largescale testing – are increasingly being complemented by, on the one hand, comparison of learner performance to learner and specific corpora and, on the other hand, automatized scoring methods. Although these products have been developed primarily for the assessment of English to date, they can also be adapted for assessment in Spanish (see Chapter 8 in this volume). Nevertheless, it is still difficult to foresee how the assessment of oral production and interaction in real-life contexts can be operationalized beyond extant observations of successful outcomes in communicative situations (Higgins, Ramineni, and Zechner 2015; Callies and Götz 2015). Traditional methods that do not have negative impacts in assessment, such as those that do not provide incorrect input, need not disappear; instead, they will be further complemented and enhanced as new tools and techniques emerge. Looking toward the future, both the digital and the analogic are likely to continue to be part in language classes, including those that adhere to MOI by maintaining a consistent focus on meaning. Finally, as new constructs and foci continue to emerge in research on assessment of language proficiency, contributions from language teachers are going to be particularly important, such as when it comes to (a) interpreting outcomes produced by analytical tools and (b) describing processes that will be apparent in longitudinal measurements. Increased integration of this nature between researchers and teachers will imply challenges, but the potential advantages of this endeavor to improve the understanding of everyone involved about language learning processes and effective ways of engaging them is undeniable.

7. Bibliography ACTFL. 2012. ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Alderson, J. C. and B. Kremmel. 2013. “Re-Examining the Content Validation of a Grammar Test: The (Im)Possibility of Distinguishing Vocabulary and Structural Knowledge.” Language Testing 30 (4): 535–556.

148  Ignacio Rodríguez Sánchez

Alonso-Ramos, M., ed. 1999. “DICE, Diccionario de Colocaciones Del Español.” www. dicesp.com/paginas. Alonso-Ramos, M. 2016. Spanish Learner Corpus Research: Current Trends and Future Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anthony, L. 2021. AntWordProfiler (1.5.1) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antwordprofiler/. Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bachman, L. F. 2004. Statistical Analyses for Language Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barcroft, J. 2012. Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction. Alexandria, VA: TESOL International Association. Baroni, M. and S. Bernardini. 2004. “BootCaT: Bootsrapping Corpora and Terms from the Web.” In Proceedings of LREC 2004, 1313–1316. Lisbon: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Bosque, I. 2004. Redes. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM. Bosque, I. 2006. Diccionario combinatorio práctico del español contemporáneo: las palabras en su contexto. Madrid: Ediciones SM. Brindley, G. 2012. “Task-Based Assessment.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Carol Chapelle, 1–6. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Callies, M. and S. Götz, eds. 2015. Learner Corpora in Language Testing and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chapelle, C. 1998. “Construct Definition and Validity Inquiry in SLA Research.” In Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research, eds. L. F. Bachman and A. D. Cohen, 32–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. “CLAE: Corpus de Lenguaje Académico En Español.” 2009. UCMexus-CONACYT. www.lenguajeacademico.info Cook, V. 2008. “Multi-Competence: Black Hole or Wormhole for Second Language Acquisition Research?” In Understanding Second Language Process, eds. Z. H. Han, E. S. Park, A. Révész, C. Combs, and J. H. Kim, 16–26. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossley, S. A., T. Cobb, and D. S. McNamara. 2013. “Comparing Count-Based and BandBased Indices of Word Frequency: Implications for Active Vocabulary Research and Pedagogical Applications.” System 41 (4): 965–981. Crossley, S. A., T. Salsbury, and D. S. McNamara. 2012. “Predicting the Proficiency Level of Language Learners Using Lexical Indices.” Language Testing 29 (2): 243–263. Crossley, S. A., T. Salsbury, D. S. McNamara, and S. Jarvis. 2011. “Predicting Lexical Proficiency in Language Learner Texts Using Computational Indices.” Language Testing 28 (4): 561–580. Davies, A. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Davies, M. 2006. A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish: Core Vocabulary for Learners. London and New York: Routledge. Fairclough, M. 2011. “Testing the Lexical Recognition Task with Spanish/English Bilinguals in the United States.” Language Testing 28 (2): 273–297. Flowerdew, J. and R. W. Forest. 2015. Signalling Nouns in English: A Corpus-Based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fulcher, G. 2015. Practical Language Testing. London and New York: Routledge. Fulcher, G. and F. Davidson. 2007. Language Testing and Assessment. London and New York: Routledge.

Testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge  149

García Salido, M., M. García, M. Villayandre-Llamazares, and M. Alonso-Ramos. 2018. “A Lexical Tool for Academic Writing in Spanish Based on Expert and Novice Corpora.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2018). Miyazaki: European Languages Resources Association (ELRA). www.aclweb.org/anthology/L18-1039. Gries, S. T. and A. Stefanowitsch. 2006. Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Henriksen, B. 1999. “Three Dimensions of Vocabulary Development.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 (2): 303–317. Higgins, D., C. Ramineni, and K. Zechner. 2015. “Learner Corpora and Automated Scoring.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research, eds. S. Granger, G. Gilquin, and F. Meunier, 587–604. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunston, S. and G. Francis. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Instituto Cervantes. 2018. “Corpus de Aprendices de Español Como Lengua Extranjera (CAES). Version 1.2.” http://galvan.usc.es/caes. Interagency Language Roundtable. 2011. “Self-Assessment of Speaking Ability.” www. govtilr.org/Skills/speakingassessment.pdf. Jarvis, S. 2017. “Grounding Lexical Diversity in Human Judgments.” Language Testing 34 (4): 537–553. Laufer, B. and P. Nation. 1995. “Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2 Written Production.” Applied Linguistics 16 (3): 307–322. Meara, P. M. 1996. “The Dimensions of Lexical Competence.” In Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition, eds G. Brown, K. Malmkjaer, and J. Williams, 35–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meara, P. M. 2005. “Designing Vocabulary Tests for English, Spanish and Other Languages.” In The Dynamics of Language Use. Functional and Contrastive Perspectives, eds. C. Butler, M. A. Gómez-González, and S. M. Doval Suárez. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meara, P. M. and B. Buxton. 1987. “An Alternative to Multiple Choice Vocabulary Tests.” Language Testing 4 (2): 142–154. Nation, I. S. P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York, NY: Newbury House. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Qian, D. 1999. “Assessing the Roles of Depth and Breadth of Vocabulary Knowledge in Reading Comprehension.” Canadian Modern Language Review 56 (2): 282–308. Qian, D. and M. Schedl. 2004. “Evaluation of an In-Depth Vocabulary Knowledge Measure for Assessing Reading Performance.” Language Testing 21 (1): 28–52. Read, J. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Real Academia Española. 2008. “Banco de Datos (CREA) Corpus de Referencia Del Español Actual v.3.2.” www.rae.es. 2008. Real Academia Española. 2018. “Banco de Datos (CORPES XXI) Corpus Del Español Del Siglo XXI. Versión 0.91.” 2018. http://web.frl.es/CORPES/view/inicioExterno. view. Römer, U. 2017. “Language Assessment and the Inseparability of Lexis and Grammar: Focus on the Construct of Speaking.” Language Testing 34 (4): 477–492. Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Xi, X. 2010. “Automated Scoring and Feedback Systems: Where Are We and Where Are We Heading?” Language Testing 27 (3): 291–300. Xi, X. 2017. “What Does Corpus Linguistics Have to Offer to Language Assessment?” Language Testing 34 (4): 565–577.

8 NEW VOCABULARY LEVELS TESTS FOR L2 SPANISH Paul Chandler

Abstract One particularly neglected area in the teaching and learning of vocabulary in Spanish as a foreign language (SFL) classes is testing. Since vocabulary is essential in meaning-oriented language instruction, a potential benefit to the field is to develop new testing instruments to support vocabulary learning and instruction. After discussing several tests from the English as a Second Language (ESL) field, we share two Spanish vocabulary tests, one receptive and one productive, which are based on successful ESL tests. The tests were created using vocabulary drawn from 1000word frequency levels in A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish (Davies 2006).

1. Introduction Spanish as a foreign language (SFL) vocabulary instruction, particularly in a meaningbased curriculum, has been somewhat overlooked from a research perspective. In fact, both the teaching and testing of Spanish vocabulary still appear to be dealt with rather randomly, relying on discrete-point items in traditional formats such as matching, multiple choice, and definitions. In English as a second language (ESL) contexts, however, vocabulary has assumed a more central role: “Lexis is at the heart of language acquisition” (Pérez Basanta 2010, 176). Simultaneously, we have witnessed the development of several ESL vocabulary tests (for overviews see Read 2000; Nation 2008; Milton 2009; Meara and Miralpeix 2017; Webb 2020). Unfortunately, the teaching and assessment of vocabulary knowledge in SFL situations have not kept pace, even though vocabulary has begun to garner more attention.

DOI: 10.4324/9781315100364-9

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  151

Nonetheless, ESL vocabulary research can inform similar approaches to vocabulary assessment in SFL contexts. Most Spanish learners in the US occupy beginner and intermediate courses. If one major goal of these courses is to help learners achieve more advanced levels then increasing their vocabulary is central to this, which, in turn, will help them perform better in class, the workplace or overseas. If we know how much vocabulary learners know, we can better plan instruction. By periodically taking “snapshots” of learners’ vocabulary knowledge, we can discuss with them how much they have grown and encourage them to achieve more. Tests of vocabulary breadth can help determine where additional review and practice are needed. In addition, vocabulary assessments may serve as advising tools when considering which courses learners should take (e.g., conversation, advanced placement). While all the questions surrounding vocabulary instruction and assessment cannot be answered here, we hope to provide a starting point to work with the instruction, learning, and assessment of vocabulary. Spanish practitioners and students at various levels need vocabulary tests that are easy to use (and reuse) periodically. In other words, tests should inform learning and instructional practices. To that end, this chapter presents two Spanish vocabulary levels tests that may be used to estimate learners’ vocabulary knowledge at the end of a year, semester, or overseas program.

2.  Theory and research The instruction and assessment of Spanish vocabulary have not received enough attention. Numerous formats exist for researching and assessing vocabulary in ESL. For example, see Meara and Miralpeix (2017), Milton (2009), Nation (2008), Read (2000) and Webb (2020). Many of the English tests can be adapted for SFL contexts. Abbreviations follow for several tests to be discussed. FPT – Free Production Test (Meara and Miralpeix 2017) VLT – Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation 1983) VKS – Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Wesche and Paribakht 1996) WAT – Word Association Test (Read 2000) PVLT – Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (Laufer and Nation 1999) OLVLT – Online Vocabulary Levels Tests (Hacking andTschirner 2017) SVLT – Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test (Chandler) SPVLT – Spanish Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (Chandler)

List of acronyms for sample of vocabulary tests Free production tests (FPT) of vocabulary (i.e., list all the words you know) can be time-consuming and learners may have only partial recall of many words (Meara and Miralpeix 2017). Learners may not recall some words without some form of stimulus.

152  Paul Chandler

Still, if learners produce long lists, we can study how much vocabulary they seem to know “beyond” a certain threshold (e.g., words beyond the most frequent 2000). In one attempt to study the depth and breadth of ESL learners’ knowledge, Wesche and Paribakht (1996) created the VKS. The VKS asks learners to demonstrate their vocabulary knowledge, providing more information at levels three, four, and five to confirm their self-assessment. Learners may not remember vocabulary for which they possess partial knowledge and may only know some words passively, while they know others actively (i.e., use them in speech or writing). A learner may recall one meaning, but not others. Sometimes a learner cannot retrieve a word from memory, let alone use it. Often learners do not recall words that they have seen. Also, they may not be able to verbalize responses for some words.

VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE SCALE

I. I don’t remember having seen this word. II. I’ve seen the word, but don’t remember what it means. III. I’ve seen the word. I  think it means _______________ (synonym or translation). IV. I  recognize the word; it means __________________ (synonym or translation). V. I can use the word in a sentence (Also complete Step IV.) (M. Wesche y T.S. Paribakht 1996, 30) In the WAT (Read 2000), learners attempt to demonstrate three types of associated knowledge: Words related as synonyms, words that appear together in collocations or words that share definitional traits. The test includes distractors to discourage guessing. Learners may demonstrate knowledge in more than one of these areas, showing both broader and deeper vocabulary knowledge.

WORD ASSOCIATIONS TEST

Choose the word best associated in each of the three categories. 1. Synonym 2. Collocation 3. Part of the word’s definition Edit: math, movie, stick, publish, revise, risk, surface, text (Read 2000) In this example, the verb edit has a synonym, revise. Two collocations are easily identified: Edit a movie and edit a text. Finally, the words edit and publish share definitional traits. The remaining words are distractors. Learners may not be aware of

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  153

collocates of specific words, which are not taught systematically, unless they are made available in the input. Unless paraphrasing is taught and practiced, or bilingual dictionary use is rehearsed, students may struggle with synonyms. In the WAT, the importance (frequency) of some of the tested items may not be appropriate. Thus, the frequency levels of the words (and the distractors) might be checked to improve the test items. The WAT is a valuable tool that explores three aspects of vocabulary knowledge. Nation’s (1983) Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) has been through several iterations. It is intended as “a practical instrument for classroom teachers to encourage them to take a more systematic approach to identifying their learners’ existing word knowledge and planning their vocabulary learning program” (Read and Chapelle 2001, 18). The VLT draws English words from 1000-word frequency bands through the 10,000-word level, plus an academic word list. Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham (2001) developed two updated versions and, more recently, Webb, Sasao, and Balance (2017) created new versions, providing two options to avoid priming effects with students that have good memories. If the most frequent levels (through the 1–5000 bands) are tested, one gets an overall estimate of how much vocabulary the learner knows. Laufer and Nation (1999) created a productive vocabulary levels (PVL) test for English that is useful for examining learners’ active knowledge. By using a word completion task within a sentence, they examine learners’ ability to produce appropriate words in context. The test provides enough letters of the missing word so that native speakers agree on the same completion. This test illustrates learners’ knowledge at 1000-word frequency levels and provides an estimate of a learners’ overall knowledge. Recently, 15 online vocabulary (frequency) level tests (OLVLT) became available (cited in Hacking and Tschirner 2017, https://itt-leipzig.de/?lang=en). The tests include receptive and productive vocabulary level tests for each language. The tests were recently edited and improved. Note that the sentences used in the productive tests were not constructed like the original PVLT by Laufer and Nation (1999). Most provide the first letter of the missing word, which may allow for multiple responses. Will those responses automatically be marked as incorrect? Future versions should be corrected and reviewed by native speakers. These tests are timed and easily taken online. The reliability of a test is important. Is the test accurate and consistent? If a test is reliable, a student should be able to retake the test (without additional study) and be able to score similar results (Milton 2009, 17). Having more than one version of a test can be beneficial, as long as the results are similar (Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham 2001; Webb, Sasao, and Balance (2017). Validity is also important; a test is considered valid if it tests what it is supposed to measure. Both the VLT and the PVLT test vocabulary knowledge of several 1000-word frequency levels. No one would expect the VLT or PVLT to be used to test grammar or writing, for example. Of the various options examined, the VLT and PVLT lend themselves to adaptation for other languages. Future research efforts should explore the adaptation of other tests.

154  Paul Chandler

The research mentions several forms of assessment; however, consequently, several questions also come to mind. Why is vocabulary so important in language acquisition? How much vocabulary should students learn per year? How much time should be spent on vocabulary? Is vocabulary instruction organized, neglected, or random? How many contact hours or class meetings deal with vocabulary each week, semester, or year? This chapter explores some of these questions, examines some of the terminology mentioned in the research literature, and considers some of the key challenges to learning vocabulary in SFL contexts: Cognates (e.g., adore/adorar), metaphors, and guessing word meaning in context. The amount of vocabulary students learn varies according to instruction, materials, practice, and individual factors. But learning large amounts of vocabulary should be an important goal. Measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge are increasingly seen as reflecting the most essential component of L2 proficiency underlying successful lexical inferencing while reading (Henrikson, Albrechtsen, and Haastrup 2004). Milton suggests that beginners transition to the intermediate level with knowledge of between 2000 and 2500 words “where language use can start to become independent” (2009, 250). With knowledge of about 2000 words students should be able to use basic conversational abilities, while with knowledge of about 3000 word families, they can attempt simple texts and grader readers; with knowledge of 5000 words students show fuller comprehension (Huckin and Coady 1999, 185); at 10,000 words they can attempt academic texts (Schmitt 2000, 157). Laufer (1996) also converges on 3000 words as the threshold for learners to take advantage of learning strategies. McGavigan’s (2009) research of idiomatic language use implies that 3000 may be the threshold for learners to acquire idiomatic expressions. Finally, Milton claims that “the more vocabulary that is presented in course books, the more vocabulary learners seem to acquire. Learners do not appear to get overloaded in this area of acquisition” (2009, 207). These are encouraging words to teachers and learners. One shared goal is to help learners shift from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” to allow increased incidental vocabulary learning. From the angle of reading exposure, Nation (2014, 8) estimates that ESL learners would need to read 200,000 words (33 minutes/5 days per week) to gain approximately 12 exposures to 805 words in the 1001–2000 frequency band. In reality, novice and low-intermediate learners are not yet capable of reading the equivalent of two novels without enormous amounts of simplification and assistance. First year Spanish students should attempt to learn many of the 1000 most frequently used Spanish words, which will help them during the beginning stages of speaking and reading. A quick perusal of the vocabulary listed in one widely used elementary Spanish textbook includes about 1080 words in the first ten chapters. About 110 words and expressions are marked as “Review” items from previous chapters. Interestingly, only 36 words are listed as cognates in those ten chapters. But most textbooks teach fewer than 1000 words per year. Of course, textbook vocabulary lists do not equate learning, and students may learn other words. Comparisons with previous instructional efforts may help set vocabulary learning goals.

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  155

For example, the Collins COBUILD English course was developed to teach a good number of vocabulary words at each level: 850 words in level 1, 850 words in level 2, and 950 words in level 3 (Willis and Willis 1988). This would get learners close to the 3000-word threshold and into the intermediate level (Milton 2009). Vocabulary growth may vary by context. Working with elementary students, Lervåg and Aukrust (2010, 612) found that vocabulary was a predictor of the early development of reading comprehension skills in both L1 and L2 learners. For young learners, they propose oral vocabulary training techniques such as vocalization or sub-vocalization to support L2 learners’ vocabulary acquisition (e.g., through songs, stories, rhymes). These techniques build phonological knowledge, which is activated before lexical knowledge. Agustín-Llach and Terrazas Gallego (2012, 53) report on a six-year longitudinal study of English students’ vocabulary learning in Spain. Using the VLT (Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham 2001), they found that by the end of the fourth grade, primary students on average knew more than 350 (17.5%) of the 2000 most frequently used English words. By the end of the ninth grade, those students knew on average more than 1200 (60%) of the most frequent 2000 English words. Sparks, Luebbers, and Castañeda (2017) point out that the learning of foreign language vocabulary continues to lag behind other aspects of foreign language learning due to the lack of instruction, citing that third level college learners barely reached the vocabulary knowledge of native Spanish speakers of age five. Milton and Meara (1995 cited in Schmitt 2000, 149) found that exchange students learned about 275 English words in a half year when studying at home, while their vocabulary increased on average 1325 words during six months of study at a British university. Since most Spanish language learners in the US are at the novice and intermediate levels, their incidental vocabulary learning through reading is usually minimal. Therefore, intentional vocabulary instruction is crucial. Large amounts of input are required to provide enough review and recall of words to help transfer them to their long-term memory. In fact, multiple exposures may be needed for learning to occur (Huckin and Coady 1999, 185). Paribakht and Wesche elaborate that “each meaningful exposure will contribute to fuller comprehension and more elaborated word knowledge in the mental lexicon” (2006, 129). Once learners have mastered the 3000 most frequently used target words, incidental learning may potentially impact their vocabulary development. Work with novice learners might include texts that have been written with beginners in mind: Short media pieces, graded readers (Nation 2014, 8), text sets, and narrow reading. Paribakht and Wesche note the value of “intensive, thematically related reading” to support vocabulary growth (2006, 128). Narrow reading (i.e., several passages on the same topic) can help beginning and intermediate students make more meaning with text, while facilitating vocabulary growth due to multiple exposures to target words. In text sets (by the same author) material may gradually become familiar to support more accurate guessing of word meanings, since “theme-related words will appear more than once  – signaling their

156  Paul Chandler

importance, providing associations with slightly different contexts, and encouraging deeper processing of form, meaning, and contextual relationships” (Paribakht and Wesche 2006, 128–129). Importantly, learners need to know 98–100% of the running words of a text to read unassisted and to be able to infer contextual meaning during reading (Nation 2006, 13). Instructional decisions have an impact on vocabulary learning. Nation points out that “A well balanced program provides opportunities for vocabulary growth through the four strands of meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, language-focused learning, and fluency development” (2008, xii). Milton suggests that learners appear to gain about four words per hour from regular classroom contact (2009, 89). Laufer, however, claims that learners may learn only two or three words per class hour (2010, 15). Practitioners should consider how vocabulary is treated in the course materials, as they plan instruction. Nation summarizes four duties for the teaching of vocabulary: (1) plan and implement an appropriate vocabulary learning program for learners, (2) train learners in useful vocabulary learning strategies, (3) test and monitor learners to ensure that they are receiving an appropriate program, and (4) teach high frequency vocabulary (2008, xii). Barcroft (2012, 2015) discusses research-supported guidelines for input-based incremental L2 vocabulary instruction that are useful to classroom teachers and materials developers. The suggestions include use vocabulary frequently and repeatedly in the input, move from simpler to more complex information, and use practice vocabulary quizzes to provide additional retrieval opportunities. Schmitt (2010) describes how different types of words may require various instructional approaches and learning strategies. For example, a profession like “carpenter” may be described through a definition or explanation: “someone who builds things with wood.” Visual images and gestures are helpful with actions: “cut” can be illustrated with a motion or by a drawing. Adjectives may be described using synonyms or descriptions: “spotless” means that “something is very clean.” Sometimes antonyms work well to explain meaning: “rich” is the opposite of “poor” and it refers to “someone who has lots of money.” Specific examples are useful: “canine” can be described by listing “retriever, chihuahua, and German shepherd.” More abstract concepts often require description within a context: Describe a situation in which you feel “pride” about “someone’s positive behavior or accomplishments.” (See Schmitt 2010, 39 for additional examples.) Deficiencies in both ESL and Spanish textbooks may hamper vocabulary learning. One analysis (López-Jiménez 2010) found that ESL and Spanish course materials do not necessarily provide the kinds of practice or assessment needed. She analyzed beginning, intermediate, and advanced Spanish and ESL textbooks and identified several weaknesses, though to a lesser degree in the ESL textbooks: 1. 2. 3. 4.

a lack of systematic work with vocabulary little or infrequent recycling of vocabulary no systematic teaching of collocations a general lack of learning strategy instruction

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  157

Notably, the advanced Spanish materials fared somewhat better than the beginning and intermediate Spanish textbooks. Cohen cites research that supports “the value of metacognitive strategies in enhancing vocabulary learning, whether in an L2 or an FL context” (2011, 181). Notably, reading increases vocabulary knowledge, but reading practice plus vocabulary instruction proved significantly better than reading alone (Huckin and Coady 1999, 188). To offset the deficiencies of textbooks, we can look to frequency dictionaries, corpus studies, and recently developed ESL assessment tools to help improve how Spanish vocabulary is taught and tested. Another problem with foreign language textbooks is the overdependence on semantic vocabulary sets. Based on research in semantic grouping, Barcroft concludes that “target vocabulary should be presented on a thematic basis or on some other basis that does not result in the presentation of sets of target vocabulary within the same semantic field” (2015, 138). The “listing” of similar vocabulary items does not reflect real-life language needs or usage and may cause confusion rather than enhance learning. In practical terms, textbooks should not present together every body part, all food, every article of clothing, etc. Rather, vocabulary items should be introduced as needed according to themes, tasks, or projects in meaning-based classrooms. Webb and Nation (2016) caution against “cross-association” with opposites, since learners may become confused when both words are presented together. They recommend teaching one of the words first, perhaps the more common of the two. Spanish learners can be exposed to “right” (mano derecha/right hand, a la derecha/on the right) in several classrooms activities, task instructions, etc., before “left” (izquierdo/a) is taught a week or two later. Even advanced Spanish learners are poor guessers. Frantzen (2003, 2010) found that advanced university Spanish learners guessed the meaning of unknown words incorrectly 70% of the time. Still, Frantzen noted that learners often corrected their initial guesses when asked to reanalyze them in context. Some of their first guesses relied on word similarities, while the search for logical meaning in context helped them rethink their choices. Laufer (1988) has classified similar words as “synforms,” while L1 researchers have reported such “clang” effects in research with children. Paribakht and Wesche call such guesses – which are not meaning-based – “homonymy” (2006, 129). Meara (1984) noticed that extraneous phonological factors may overpower semantic factors for L2 learners. Similarly, Gu and Leung (2002, 121) report high numbers of errors due to phonological or orthographic confusions. Two other terms of interest from the vocabulary research literature should be mentioned: depth and breadth. Most of the vocabulary assessments developed thus far look at the breadth or size of learners’ knowledge because we want to know how many words a student knows. When we examine learners’ depth of vocabulary knowledge, we explore whether they know more than one meaning, different shades of meaning, meanings in specific contexts or other collocations (RoblesSaez 2011). Novice learners may learn one “lemma” or base meaning during the first few years of study. This begs the question: What does it mean to know a word?

158  Paul Chandler

There are more (and less) detailed descriptions, but Nation (1990) suggests that knowing a word includes at least the following types of knowledge. (The Spanish word house/casa is included as an example.) 1. Form (spoken and written) la casa [la-´ka-sa] 2. Position (in what grammatical patterns does it occur, what are its collocations) en la casa-in the house/gran casa-great house/casa grande-large house/ but not *casa una gran- *house a great) 3. Function (what is its frequency, when is it appropriate to use) casa is the 106 most frequently used Spanish word (Davies and Hayward Davies 2018, 266); appropriateness: casa-house, casita-little house, piso-flat, mansión-mansion) 4. Meaning (the concept of the word, its associations) casa = donde vives-where you live, techo y paredes-ceiling and walls, cuartos-rooms; its associations: hogar-home, familia-family)

3.  Methods and techniques Since the items for the Spanish vocabulary tests are drawn from Davies’ frequency dictionary, we should keep in mind how frequency dictionaries are developed. While laudable for their painstaking work, early frequency dictionaries primarily relied on written samples (Juilland and Chang-Rodriguez 1964). In his introduction, Davies (2006, 1–10) describes the care taken to prepare the volume, which is based on a 20-million-word corpus of spoken and written Spanish from a variety of dialects and genres. His frequency dictionary describes how many times a word appears in each 200,000 block of words, as well as the total number of occurrences in the entire 20-million-word corpus. It also examines whether a word appears more or less in spoken versus written portions of the corpus to determine the word’s weighting. The weighting formula is also adjusted for issues in register – is the word more concrete or abstract? Does it appear a lot in descriptive fiction? Vocabulary researchers work with word “families” to avoid under- or overcounting words. That is, they count the “base” word or “lemma” along with other “close family members” each time one appears. In the following example, each item would count as an additional entry to determine the frequency count for learn/aprender. Base word: learn/aprender Word family members: learns/aprende, learned/aprendido, learner/aprendiz, learning/aprendizaje, etc.

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  159

Many words have multiple meanings prompting the need to study their usage, placement, patterns, or collocations. For example, primeros auxilios (first aid) would be a common collocation for auxilio (help, aid, assistance). Index finger (el dedo índice) is a collocation which contrasts with the index (índice) of a book. It falls to teachers to explore additional meanings of words through collocations, fixed expressions, readings, and samples of regional variation. Being that collocations are scarce in SFL materials, Spanish learners may only find out that doblar (item 2451 in the frequency dictionary) has several meanings. The numbers after the words indicate their frequency in the second edition of the frequency dictionary (Davies and Hayward Davies 2018, 274). These collocations illustrate the depth of vocabulary that learners must start to develop. doblar un papel (393) = to fold (over) a paper doblar una película (543) = to dub a film doblar la esquina (1536) = to turn the corner Since doblar resembles the English word “double,” English-speaking learners may rely on the idea of “doubling/folding something over” as its base meaning. In a beginner class, they may learn to fold a paper; in a Spanish film course they may learn about dubbing films; and in a driving context they may learn about turning a corner. Teachers may be concerned with the learning and assessment of cognates. Even advanced learners of Spanish may recognize less than 67% of cognates on their own (Frantzen 2003). Instruction must deal with less-recognizable cognates, false cognates, and words that are sometimes cognates to help learners differentiate meaning and process language appropriately. Clearly, cognates with similar meaning and few orthographical differences are more recognizable. Yet even in cases with strong spelling similarities, learners may fail to recognize them, especially at lower levels where they are overloaded with new information. And learners may not know cognates’ English equivalents. Weaker students need to develop strategy use (Huckin and Coady 1999). Flashcards are still the most advantageous tool (Nation and Webb 2011). For assessment purposes, recall that Indo-European languages share varying amounts of cognates. A quick perusal of Spanish-English cognates in Davies’ Spanish frequency dictionary showed that learners might be able to guess nearly 50% of the words (Table 8.1.) (see also Davies 2016). For Spanish learners who speak English or a romance language, knowing cognates could be helpful with nearly half of the vocabulary to be learned. Within the 500 most frequently used Spanish words, we find a good number of function words (articles, conjunctions, prepositions), which are seldom cognates. Only 28% (70) of the first 250 most frequent words are cognates, and just 40% (100) in the second most frequently used band (251–500) of words are cognates. When we examine frequency bands of each 500-word interval, the cognate level averages out to about 49% after the first band. The “receptive” and “productive” Spanish vocabulary tests presented here have some English cognates. When cognates appear in the receptive SVLT, the

160  Paul Chandler TABLE 8.1 Cognates per 500-word frequency band (drawn

from Davies and Hayward Davies 2018) Percentage of cognates per frequency level 1–500 level 501–1000 level 1001–1500 level 1501–2000 level 2001–2500 level 2501–3000 level 3001–3500 level 3501–4000 level 4001–4500 level 4501–5000 level 1–5000

170 of 500 words = 34% 245 of 500 words = 49% 288 of 500 words = 58% 267 of 500 words = 54% 260 of 500 words = 52% 265 of 500 words = 53% 230 of 500 words = 46% 239 of 500 words = 48% 241 of 500 words = 48% 253 of 500 words = 50% 2458 of 5000 words = 49%

learner still must know two words to make a correct match. The SVLT presented in the Appendix includes about 20% cognates. Thus, a conservative 80% accuracy rate by the test takers is recommended to indicate mastery of a level (24 items x 80% = 19.2 correctly matched items.) While the majority of learners in the USA will be native speakers of English, the tests are still useful for learners who are native speakers of other languages because they do not include an overabundance of cognates. Naturally, a speaker of Chinese will have different challenges than a speaker of Portuguese, which shares about 79% of its vocabulary with Spanish. Now that we have reviewed some of the concepts and concerns in second language vocabulary learning and assessment, we turn to the vocabulary frequency levels tests that have been adapted from ESL models.

Methods: Spanish Vocabulary Levels Tests – receptive knowledge Interest in the assessment of ESL vocabulary knowledge resulted in the creation of several types of tests during the past few decades. As seen previously, some formats explore learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge, while others examine productive knowledge. Most vocabulary researchers agree that learners’ receptive knowledge – recognition and recall – tends to be larger than their productive vocabulary knowledge, which is made up of words they can use. Nation’s (2008) VLT is widely available and is “a practical instrument for classroom teachers to encourage them to take a more systematic approach to identifying their learners’ existing word knowledge and planning their vocabulary learning program” (Read and Chapelle 2001, 18). Examinees make the best matches between six words in the left-hand column and three descriptions in the right-hand column;

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  161

three distractors discourage guessing. The instructions ask learners to respond if they think they know a word, but not to guess. The following examples are drawn from the 3000 word-level (Schmitt 2000, 194), followed by examples from the 3000-word level of the new Spanish test. (See the SVLT in Appendix A). Items are randomized by listing them alphabetically. 1. belt 2. climate 3. executive 4. notion 5. palm 6. victim 1. arder (burn) 2. cenar (dine) 3. enredar (tangle) 4. narrar (narrate) 5. suscitar (provoke) 6. tropezar (stumble)

___ idea ___ inner surface of your hand ___ strip of leather word around the waist

___ caer (fall) ___ contar (count, tell) ___ quemar (set fire, burn)

Meara reminds us that “even text generated by fluent native speakers is predominantly made up from a small set of highly frequent words” (2009, 35) – especially function words. Nouns (52.5%), verbs (22%) and adjectives (18.8%) make up 93.3% of the 5000 most frequently used Spanish words and the SVLT mainly tests those parts of speech. Fewer items exist in the “function” categories (see Table 8.2.), the majority of which are among the first 1000 words. Verbs are tested together since Spanish morphology readily gives away their part of speech (-ar, -er, and -ir endings). TABLE 8.2 Parts of speech in the 5000 most frequent

Spanish words (drawn from Davies and Hayward Davies 2018) Articles Interjections Conjunctions Prepositions Numbers Pronouns Adverbs Adjectives Verbs Nouns Total

3 < 1% 10 < 1% 16 < 1% 28 < 1% 36 < 1 % 40 < 1% 182 = 3.6% 941 = 18.8% 1119 = 22% 2625 = 52.5% 5000 = 100%

162  Paul Chandler

The SVLT can assist learners and practitioners at many levels who want to find out how much vocabulary is known overall. The value of a vocabulary test should be its usefulness and ease of administration. The SVLT can be used once per year (or semester) to get a snapshot of how many words learners know. Allow students 25 minutes to take the entire SLVT – five minutes per frequency band. Learners usually know more high frequency words and fewer items in the test bands of less frequent words. A random set of vocabulary items was selected from Davies’ frequency dictionary (2006). Both native and non-native speaking Spanish instructors took the test and provided commentary on items for which they had suggestions or questions. Based on their feedback, items that were unclear or not agreed upon were removed. Each frequency band includes 24 items; remaining items were saved for a possible alternate test. Pilot tests were conducted with several groups over a two-year period. In a sixth semester college class, all five heritage speakers of Spanish had mastered the first three 1000-word frequency bands, while two of five non-native speakers had mastered only the first 1000-word frequency band. None of the five non-native speakers had mastered any of the less frequent bands (3001–5000). Pilot tests conducted during two summer programs found incrementally larger vocabularies across all levels of university learners, albeit with small samples. Only the students in the Spanish culture course – their seventh or eighth semester at the university – had mastered the 5000 most frequently used words of Spanish. The students in business Spanish (sixth semester) had mastered the most frequently used words (1–1000) and they had nearly mastered the second frequency band (1001–2000). 2016 Summer pilot tests Course/Level Students % correct SPAN 102 N = 12 24% SPAN 201 N = 12 26% SPAN 202 N = 9 35% SPAN 306 N = 5 74% SPAN 351 N = 7 95%

2017 Summer pilot tests Students % correct N = 5 23% N = 11 30% N = 6 38%

To save time practitioners may choose to test novice learners on the more frequent word bands at the end of the year. By testing the first 1000-word frequency band, we see if learners have mastered that level. Mastery of the second (1001– 2000) and third frequency bands (2001–3000) will be of interest as we strive to get learners using the language. Beyond the first year, teachers may start testing less frequent bands to check for mastery (80% or more correct). A possible flow chart is included to help decide which levels to test. Allow students five minutes to complete each level. These low-stakes tests can be totally anonymous and shared as a general summary or students may wish to put their names on their tests for easier comparison with the results at the end of the next term.

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  163

Level/ Year

11000

1001–2000

2001–3000

3001– 4000

4001–5000

Fifth/AP Fourth Third Second First

? X? X? X X

X? X? X X X

X X X X X

X X?

X X?

There are a few differences between Nation’s VLT and the SVLT. The English version included clusters of nouns (3), verbs (2), and adjectives (1). In the column on the left a total of six items are included with three definitions or descriptions in the column on the right. A total of 18 items is tested at each 1000-word band. The SVLT tests a total of 24 words in each frequency band. By testing more words, we learn more about our students’ knowledge, but tests can be efficient with fewer items. As Nation (2008) notes, a correct match actually demonstrates that the learner knows two words. So, in a real sense, 48 words are being tested in the SVLT (24 × 2 = 48), providing a conservative estimate of vocabulary size. In the ESL levels test, the three items in the right column are short descriptions or partial definitions. To avoid situations in which the clues or descriptions themselves might be problematic or unclear, the words to be matched in the SVLT share some meaning or are (near) synonyms. As in the test offered by Nation (2008), all items have been listed alphabetically. Native speakers took the test to ensure agreement on the anticipated responses. Since the test is conservative, we believe it should be scored conservatively: 19 correct matches out of 24 items represents 80% mastery of a level. If you multiply 1000 (words per band) by 24 (number of items tested), each correct response represents knowledge of about 42 words. Teachers can thus multiply the number of correct items by 42 to estimate how many words the learner knows in that frequency band or the overall test. For example, if Maria answers 12 items correctly in a particular band, she seems to know about 500 words (Table 8.3.). If she gets 20 correct, she appears to have mastered that frequency band with knowledge of about 840 words. By adding the total number of correct responses for each frequency band, we get an overall estimate of how many words she knows.

Methods: Productive Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test The second test is a productive Spanish vocabulary levels test (PSVLT). Laufer and Nation (1999) created a PVL for English that is useful for examining learners’ productive knowledge. The PVL moves beyond recognition to examine the vocabulary that learners can retrieve and use in a sentence completion task. Laufer and Nation call this “controlled productive knowledge,” which can provide additional

164  Paul Chandler TABLE 8.3  Estimating total words known with the SVLT: 1000/24 = 42 (41.66)

# correct x 42 = words known 1 × 42 = 42 2 × 42 = 84 3 × 42 = 126 4 × 42 = 168 5 × 42 = 210 6 × 42 = 252 25% 7 × 42 = 294

8 × 42 = 336 9 × 42 = 378 10 × 42 = 420 11 × 42 = 462 12 × 42 = 504 50% 13 × 42 = 546 14 × 42 = 588 15 × 42 = 630

16 × 42 = 672 17 × 42 = 714 18 × 42 = 756 19 × 42 = 798 80% 20 × 42 = 840 21 × 42 = 882 22 × 42 = 924 23 × 42 = 966 24 × 42 = 1008*

(*Numbers are not perfect due to rounding).

evidence of learners’ vocabulary knowledge. In this type of test learners may draw on a variety of knowledge sources: Lexical, morphological, syntactic, and pragmatic. The examples given here are from the 2000-word frequency band (Nation 2008, 199) and the PSVLT 2000-word level. Approximate English equivalents are provided with the Spanish examples.

Productive English VLT My favorite spo___________ is football. Each room has its own priv____________ bath and WC.

Productive Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test Instructions: Complete the underlined word as in the following example. He was riding a bic_____________. → He was riding a bicycle. Siempre le pongo un poco de azú________ al café. (I always put a little su_____ in my coffee.) Quiero aprender a bai________ el tango. (I want to learn to da______ the tango.) The PSVLT may be used alone or in conjunction with the receptive SVLT. By using both tests of the same frequency band, one gets two snapshots of the learner’s knowledge at that frequency level. Items are presented in a sentence-length context to help the learners understand the meaning of the partial word. Responses should be accepted if the learner seems to know the word; minor spelling or grammar problems can be ignored (fechas for fecha; etiqeta for etiqueta). As with the VLT, the items are drawn from 1000-word frequency bands. Several native Spanish speakers

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  165

of different dialects took the tests to ensure that everyone was arriving at the desired responses. Ambiguous or unclear items were replaced based on the feedback from native speakers. (See the PSVLT in Appendix B.) Learners may take the entire test for a snapshot of their current vocabulary knowledge. Alternatively, they may be tested on specific frequency bands to determine which (if any) they have mastered. Instructions for the PSVLT ask learners to complete an example in English that serves as their model for the test. Following Laufer and Nation (1999), there are 18 items in each frequency band of the productive test. Nation (1990, 261) suggests that words in the 2000- and 3000-word levels contain the high frequency items that learners need to know to begin to use their English more broadly in terms of speaking and writing, making those levels of key importance for teachers and learners. We hold the same expectations for Spanish learners. The PSVLT uses randomly selected words from 1000-word frequency bands drawn from Davies (2006); extra items were held for a possible alternate test. Each correct item represents 55 words known (1000/18 = 55.55). Multiply by 55 the number of correct items from all levels to estimate how many words a learner knows. Learners who know 15 or more words in a given frequency band, have mastered that level (18 x 80% = 14.4). All pilot tests of the productive test found gradual increments of vocabulary knowledge across course levels and allowed the replacement of problematic items after the initial tests. In a few cases an additional letter was added when native speakers determined that more than one response was possible. As with all tests, continued review and refinements are always needed. One semester-length pilot test of a fifth semester class showed vocabulary growth after 14 weeks: Vocabulary knowledge grew by about 570 words during the semester with three students mastering the first frequency band (1–1000) by the end of the semester. Unfortunately, only six of the students were present for both of the testing days. One heritage learner already had mastered the second frequency band (1001–2000) at the beginning of the semester. By the end of the semester, that student had mastered the third frequency band (2001–3000). None had mastered any less frequent bands of words.

4.  Integration within MOI Since meaning-oriented instruction relies heavily on vocabulary knowledge, the SVLT and PSVLT are useful tools for teachers and learners. Each test provides a snapshot of learners’ current knowledge, which may in turn be used to set instructional and learning goals. Learners need to increase their vocabulary knowledge through integrated and open-ended tasks that require the exchange of meaning. Importantly, reentry at spaced intervals should be the norm rather than the exception, since multiple exposures are required for vocabulary acquisition. As learners approach the 3000-word threshold, increasing attention should be paid to depth of knowledge by focusing on new collocations, additional word meanings, and idiomatic expressions, all of which challenge intermediate and advanced learners.

166  Paul Chandler

5. Conclusions The SVLT and PSVLT are not intended to be a high stakes tests and such tests do not have to be overly lengthy. Nation’s (2008) VLT tests 18 word sets per frequency band, while the SVLT tests 24 words per level. The PSVLT tests 18 words per level, as suggested by Laufer and Nation (1999). Additional words could be tested at each level to increase accuracy, but the disadvantage is that valuable class time is spent on testing. The goal for low-stakes tests is to limit them enough to efficiently sample how many words are known. Post-test interviews with learners can be used to explore how well learners know words. Can they explain or describe other uses of the same word? “Advanced learners and instructors need to understand how lexical knowledge is developed gradually over time, through multiple, meaningful encounters with words that allow development and strengthening of mental representations linking word forms, meaning, semantic boundaries, syntactic information, and associations with other words” (Paribakht and Wesche 2006, 130–131). Interestingly, the advanced low proficiency level is required on the ACTFL OPI in most states in the USA for teaching licensure. If future teachers master only the first 3000 words, they may have barely reached the vocabulary threshold they are trying to get their students to surpass. Future research must explore the metaphoric and idiomatic use of vocabulary. Around 42% of items that non-native speakers have difficulty with are metaphors (Littlemore et  al. 2011). If students encounter expressions like “I’m freezing to death/Me muero de frío,” they must understand the speaker is not in a freezer but is feeling colder than desired. “Grandma has a green thumb!” does not imply that she has gangrene, but rather praises her horticultural abilities. Students must learn to search for intended meaning when they encounter unfamiliar expressions. We have seen that collocations are neglected in the study of Spanish vocabulary (López-Jiménez 2010). Nation (2001) suggests that the most frequent 1000 word families of English account for about 75% of the running words found in newspapers and 84% of the running words in verbal communication. Webb and Kagimoto (2011, 271) suggest that learners may benefit by learning collocations of words within this frequency band. In their testing of the VLT, guessing seemed to be infrequent and was shown in follow-up interviews to indicate partial lexical knowledge (Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham 2001, 76). These authors call for more study of partial word knowledge to move the field forward. Thus, we need to develop new means of capturing, describing, and interpreting partial word knowledge. Finally, should we test students’ receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge? The SVLT provides a quick snapshot of how many words students can recall. This may be sufficient information for teachers to decide if further review and practice are required. The PSVLT provides another snapshot, but of how many words they can use. As students move into the third year of Spanish and beyond, their productive abilities may be of greater interest. Can students use

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  167

vocabulary from the 2001–3000 frequency band and some vocabulary from the 3001–4000 level in speaking and writing tasks as they prepare for the Spanish AP exam or when preparing to tackle university-level writing courses? Since vocabulary knowledge is complex, currently no vocabulary measures tap into all aspects of lexical knowledge (Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham 2001, 61). But by using appropriate frequency bands of one or both tests, teachers can determine their next instructional moves. Recently, Morales (2018) cited data showing that high school students get stuck at the novice high or intermediate-low proficiency levels after four years of foreign language study. At least one reason they are not achieving greater success is limited vocabulary knowledge. Those same students could reach higher proficiency levels if they were to master the 3000 most frequently used Spanish words. The second edition of A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish published in 2018 (Davies and Hayward Davies) with a greatly enlarged two billion-word corpus. As a result, the SVLT and the PSVLT included in the appendices have been updated to reflect this more accurate placement of words in their frequency bands. As usual, additional testing will continue to provide information for further possible improvements to the tests. In this chapter we have explored two new Spanish vocabulary tests for SFL learners. The SVLT explores the overall amount of receptive vocabulary knowledge learners have. The SPVLT examines learners’ abilities to produce words in sentence-length contexts. Each of the tests provides a snapshot of how many words a student knows. Future research must explore learners’ partial knowledge, knowledge of Spanish collocations, and knowledge of multiple meanings of words. When learners have limited vocabularies and know only one sense of a word, they may be limited when using the language, leading to reported proficiency plateaus (Morales 2018). Vocabulary tests such as the SVLT and SPVLT, which cannot possibly test every sense of every word, nevertheless provide estimates to inform learning and instruction. New tests to examine depth and breadth of vocabulary are to be encouraged, such as a Spanish Word Association Tests, which could be compared to the SVLT and SPVLT. The SVLT can be compared with the ACTFL Spanish Reading Comprehension Test – another test of receptive knowledge (see Tschirner 2018) – similar to the recent comparison by Hacking and Tschirner (2017) of the Russian VLT. The SPVLT can be compared with the Writing Proficiency Test or the Oral Proficiency Interview, since they test learners’ productive knowledge. For the moment, the SVLT and SPVLT are two user-friendly instruments that allow teachers to assess learners’ overall vocabulary knowledge.

6. Bibliography Agustin-Llach, M. P. and M. Terrazas Gallego. 2012. “Vocabulary Knowledge Development and Gender Differences in a Second Language.” ELIA 12: 45–75. Barcroft, J. 2012. Input-Based Incremental Vocabulary Instruction. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

168  Paul Chandler

Barcroft, J. 2015. Lexical Input Processing and Vocabulary Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cohen, A. 2011. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London and New York: Routledge. Davies, M. 2006. A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish. London and New York: Routledge. Davies, M. 2016. “Corpus del español: Two Billion Words, 21 Countries.” www.corpusde lespanol.org/web-dial/. Davies, M. and K. H. Davies. 2018. A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Frantzen, D. 2003. “Factors Affecting How Second Language Spanish Students Derive Meaning from Context.” Modern Language Journal 87: 168–199. Frantzen, D. 2010. “Evidence of Incremental Vocabulary Learning in Advanced L2 Spanish Learners.” In Insights into Non-Native Vocabulary Teaching and Learning, eds. R. ChacónBeltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, and M. del M. Torreblanca-López, 126–142. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gu, Y. and C. Leung. 2002. “Error Patterns of Vocabulary Recognition for EFL Learners in Beijing and Hong Kong.” Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 12: 121–141. Hacking, J. and E. Tschirner. 2017. “The Contributions of Vocabulary Knowledge to Reading Proficiency: The Case of College Russian.” Foreign Language Annals 50 (3): 500–518. Henrikson, B., D. Albrechtsen, and K. Haastrup. 2004. “The Relationship between Vocabulary Size and Reading Comprehension.” Angles on the English-Speaking World 4: 128–140. Huckin, T. and J. Coady. 1999. “Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language: A Review.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 (2): 181–193. Juilland, A. and E. Chang-Rodriguez. 1964. Frequency Dictionary of Spanish Words. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Laufer, B. 1988. “The Concept of ‘Synforms’ (Similar Lexical Forms) in Vocabulary Acquisition.” Language and Education 2: 113–132. Laufer, B. 1996. “The Lexical Threshold of Second Language Reading Comprehension: What It Is and How It Relates to L1 Reading Ability.” Jyvaskyla Cross-Language Studies 17: 55–62. Laufer, B. 2010. “Form-Focused Instruction in Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” In Insights into Non-Native Vocabulary Teaching and Learning, eds. R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, and M. del M. Torreblanca-López, 15–27. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Laufer, B. and P. Nation. 1999. “A Vocabulary Size Test of Controlled Productive Ability.” Language Testing 16: 36–55. Lervåg, A. and V. Aukrust. 2010. “Vocabulary Knowledge Is a Critical Determinant of the Difference in Reading Comprehension Growth between First and Second Language Learners.” Journal of Child Psychiatry 51: 612–620. Littlemore, J., C. Phyllis, A. Koester, and J. Barnden. 2011. “Difficulties in Metaphor Comprehension by International Students Whose First Language Is Not English.” Applied Linguistics 32: 208–249. López-Jiménez, M. D. 2010. “The Treatment of Lexical Aspects in Commercial Textbooks for L2 Teaching and Learning.” In Insights into Non-Native Vocabulary Teaching and Learning, eds. R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, and M. del M. Torreblanca-López, 156–174. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McGavigan, P. 2009. “The Acquisition of Fixed Idioms in Greek Learners of English as a Foreign Language.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Swansea University.

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  169

Meara, P. 1984. “The Study of Lexis in Interlanguage.” In Interlanguage, eds. A. Davies, C. Criper, and A. P. R. Howatt, 225–235. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Meara, P. 2009. Connected Words. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Meara, P. and I. Miralpeix. 2017. Tools for Researching Vocabulary. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Milton, J. 2009. Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Channel View Publications. ProQuest Ebook Central. Morales, J. C. 2018. Keynote Address for the Annual Southwest Conference on Language Teaching (SWCOLT), Santa Fe, New Mexico. Nation, I. S. P. 1983. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York, NY: Newbury House. Nation, I. S. P. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York, NY: Newbury House. Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, I. S. P. 2006. “How Large a Vocabulary Is Needed for Reading and Listening?” The Canadian Modern Language Review 63: 59–81. Nation, I. S. P. 2008. Teaching Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle Cengage. Nation, I. S. P. 2014. “How Much Input Do You Need to Learn the Most Frequent 9,000 Words?” Reading in a Foreign Language 26: 1–16. Nation, I. S. P. and S. Webb. 2011. Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle Cengage. Paribakht, T. S. and M. Wesche. 2006. “Lexical Inferencing in L1 and L2: Implications for Vocabulary Instruction and Learning at Advanced Levels.” In Educating for Advanced Foreign Language Capacities, eds. H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp, and K. Sprang, 118–135. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Pérez Basanta, C. 2010. “A  Second-Generation CALL Vocabulary-Learning Program ADELEX: In Search of a Psychopedagogic Model.” In Insights into Non-Native Vocabulary Teaching and Learning, eds. R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, and M. del M. Torreblanca-López, 175–185. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Read, J. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read, J. and C. Chapelle. 2001. “A Framework for Second Language Vocabulary Assessment.” Language Testing 18: 1–32. Robles-Saez, A. 2011. 3,000 Locuciones verbales y combinaciones frecuentes. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, N. 2010. Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt, and C. Clapham. 2001. “Developing and Exploring the Behaviour of Two New Versions of The Vocabulary Levels Test.” Language Testing 18: 55–88. Sparks, R., J. Luebbers, and M. Castañeda. 2017. “How Well Do U.S. High School Students Achieve in Spanish When Compared to Native Spanish Speakers?” Foreign Language Annals 50 (2): 339–366. Tschirner, E. 2018. “Vocabulary Levels Tests.” Accessed October  17. https://itt-leipzig. de/?lang=en. Webb, S. 2020. The Routledge Handbook of Vocabulary Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Webb, S. and E. Kagimoto. 2011. “Learning Collocations: Do the Number of Collocates, Position of the Node Word, and Synonymy Affect Learning?” Applied Linguistics 32 (3): 259–276. Webb, S. and P. Nation. 2016. How Vocabulary Is Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

170  Paul Chandler

Webb, S., Y. Sasao, and O. Balance. 2017. “The Updated Vocabulary Levels Test: Developing and Validating Two New Forms of the VLT.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 168: 33–69. Wesche, M. and T. S. Paribakht. 1996. “Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth versus Breadth.” The Canadian Modern Language Review 53 (1): 13–40. Willis, D. and J. Willis. 1988. Collins COBUILD English Course. London: Harper Collins.

APPENDIX A Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test

Instructions: Write the number of the word from the first column that best matches the meaning of the word in the second column. Some words will not be used. Match as many words as you can. Don’t guess, but try to answer if you think you know a word. Before you begin, study the following examples. Examples in English.

1. business 2. canine 3. pencil 4. shoe 5. sofa 6. wall

_1_ company _5_ couch _2_ dog

1–1000 frequency level

1–1000 frequency level

1–1000 frequency level

1. destino 2. estudio ___ cambio 3. influencia ___ fin 4. paso ___ poder 5. reforma 6. situación

1. entonces 2. madera ___ árbol 3. mejor ___ calle 4. oro ___ pues 5. tierra 6. vía

1. aquel 2. arriba ___ bastante 3. base ___ pie 4. esperanza ___ sobre 5. este 6. suficiente

1. compra 2. figura ___ mismo 3. hoja ___ página 4. igual ___ personaje 5. quizás 6. sala

1. actuar 2. dejar ___ creer 3. desear ___ decir 4. hablar ___ querer 5. pensar 6. quedar

1. advertir 2. cambiar ___ conseguir 3. intentar ___ indicar 4. lograr ___ tratar 5. marcar 6. provocar

172  Paul Chandler

1–1000 frequency level

1–1000 frequency level

1–1000 frequency level 1. cuyo 2. documento ___ manera 3. distinto ___ momento 4. instante ___ papel 5. método 6. razón

1. contestar 2. cruzar ___ responder 3. partir ___ salir 4. pesar ___ volver 5. reducir 6. regresar 1001–2000 frequency level

1001–2000 frequency level

1001–2000 frequency level

1. cura 2. moneda ___ casa 3. pago ___ cierto 4. seguro ___ tratamiento 5. solo 6. vivienda

1. aportar 2. arrojar ___ definir 3. denunciar ___ luchar 4. describir ___ tirar 5. encerrar 6. pelear

1. ajeno 2. anciano ___ deber 3. divino ___ dinero 4. efectivo ___ viejo 5. ejército 6. obligación

1. bolsillo 2. hermoso ___ bello 3. hoy ___ ley 4. muro ___ pared 5. regla 6. reloj

1. acaso 2. borde ___ capital 3. habitación ___ cuarto 4. oferta ___ propuesta 5. riqueza 6. venta

1. arrancar 2. cobrar ___ caminar 3. conversar ___ elegir 4. doler ___ empezar 5. escoger 6. pasear 1. alegría 2. empleado ___ trabajador 3. junta ___ puro 4. limpio ___ reunión 5. luna 6. silla

1. doble 2. escaso ___ diario 3. esposo ___ marido 4. líquido ___ raro 5. periódico 6. señal 2001–3000 frequency level

2001–3000 frequency level

2001–3000 frequency level

1. agujero 2. atmósfera ___ ambiente 3. leyenda ___ jefe 4. patrón ___ miembro 5. pista 6. socio

1. agudo 2. bola ___ fuerte 3. corriente ___ gordo 4. creciente ___ viento 5. golpe 6. grueso

1. aproximar 2. borrar ___ acercar 3. cesar ___ parar 4. desempeñar ___ realizar 5. sacudir 6. taller

1. desprender 2. disparar ___ conectar 3. ligar ___ cubrir 4. rescatar ___ salvar 5. rezar 6. tapar

1. avisar 2. bienestar ___ anunciar 3. calificar ___ cuidar 4. estirar ___ orientar 5. guiar 6. vigilar

1. agotado 2. ave ___ cansado 3. genial ___ pájaro 4. grano ___ semilla 5. odio 6. sonoro

1. dama 2. dorado ___ cantidad 3. eficaz ___ lejano

1. cerro 2. cita ___ costumbre 3. gota ___ encuentro

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  173

2001–3000 frequency level

2001–3000 frequency level

4. lujo ___ mujer 5. remoto 6. suma

2001–3000 frequency level 4. hábito ___ peor 5. inferior 6. postura

3001–4000 frequency level

3001–4000 frequency level

3001–4000 frequency level

1. cálido 2. cuadrado ___ campeón 3. despacio ___ delgado 4. flaco ___ lento 5. ganador 6. puño

1. alentar 2. ensayar ___ devolver 3. impartir ___ practicar 4. prevenir ___ repetir 5. remitir 6. reiterar

1. aplastar 2. entretener ___ bañar 3. mojar ___ dibujar 4. rozar ___ tocar 5. trazar 6. velar

1. arder 2. cenar ___ caer 3. enredar ___ contar 4. narrar ___ quemar 5. suscitar 6. tropezar

1. coraje 2. decena ___ error 3. elemental ___ huella 4. fallo ___ lleno 5. rastro 6. repleto

1. engaño 2. gabinete ___ burla 3. pauta ___ oficina 4. repertorio ___ selección 5. tinta 6. vano

1. chiquito 2. cruce ___ estancia 3. finca ___ pequeño 4. laguna ___ pierna 5. muslo 6. taza

1. charla 2. espeso ___ bolsa 3. pacífico ___ prensa 4. periodismo __ procedimiento 5. saco 6. trámite

4001–5000 frequency level

4001–5000 frequency level

4001–5000 frequency level

1. aldea 2. apuntes ___ pata 3. cueva ___ pueblo 4. garras ___ notas 5. plantilla 6. rollo

1. bicho 2. chaqueta ___ abrigo 3. espectro ___ fantasma 4. étnico ___ insecto 5. fármaco 6. fusil

1. carreta 2. encaje ___ bordado 3. manifiesto ___ declaración 4. manta ___ marca 5. raya 6. veneno

1. deducir 2. florecer ___ restar 3. percatar ___ sospechar 4. presentir ___ verter 5. recobrar 6. vaciar

1. asaltar 2. coser ___ atacar 3. deteriorar ___ imitar 4. preservar ___ pudrir 5. simular 6. tentar

1. despojar 2. repasar ___ revisar 3. reposar ___ robar 4. retratar ___ temblar 5. salpicar 6. vibrar

1. asignatura 2. corteza ___ materia 3. pulso ___ muñeca 4. sabroso ___ rico 5. sereno 6. velo

1. cartera 2. estatura ___ altura 3. lomo ___ costado 4. magia ___ lluvia 5. precipitación 6. receta

APPENDIX B Productive Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test

Instructions: Complete the underlined word as in the following example. He was riding a bic_____________. → He was riding a bicycle.

1–1000 frequency level   1. Antes de acostarme me gusta leer un buen li_____________   2. ¿Cuál es tu fe______________ de nacimiento?   3. En realidad no sabemos cua_______________ van a llegar.   4. Mis padres no me de_______________ beber cerveza en casa.   5. Mi hermano trabaja más que yo, pero gana men______________.   6. ¿Qué tienen en men_______________ para celebrar su aniversario?   7. Se puede mejorar la sa______________ haciendo ejercicio frecuentemente y comiendo sanamente.   8. Te llamo para desearte un fe______________ cumpleaños.   9. Los nietos te lle_____________ la vida de alegría. 10. Quiero pro_______________ el helado de chocolate. 11. Han cancelado varios vuelos deb______________ al huracán.

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  175

12. La señora Ortiz dir_______________ bien la compañía con la ayuda de sus tres hijas. 13. La bibliotecaria vive rode________________ de libros. 14. Te veo en la par__________________ del autobús después de clase. 15. La Guerra Civil fue muy sangr________________. 16. Estoy contando las estrellas en el ci_______________. 17. El médico ya tiene los resul________________ de los análisis. 18. Cada vez que hay trabajo mi primo desap________________.

1001–2000 frequency level   1. Los niños inocentes son fáciles de eng_______________.   2. Tienes que emp_______________ la puerta para abrirla.   3. Los empleados piden un aume________________ del 8%.   4. No puedo ducharme porque no hay agua cal_________________.   5. Tu blusa es de una tela muy sua_________________.   6. La policía continuará la búsq__________________ a las 6:00 de la mañana.   7. Voy a comprobar mis derechos con un abog________________.   8. Con el gol final se oyó un gri_______________ tremendo por todo el estadio.   9. Es hora de estudiar; apa________________ la televisión. 10. Muchas especies de pájaros y animales viven en el bos________________. 11. En esa canción Juanes mez________________ elementos de salsa y vallenato. 12. No es un mapa de todo el país sino un pl________________ de la capital.

176  Paul Chandler

13. El ciclista giró rápidamente a la izq________________ para no chocar, pero fue inútil. 14. Nunca encontramos el libro perd_________________. 15. Con la nieve, el viento y el fr_____________ no quiero salir. 16. En el rancho de mis primos yo siempre mon______________ a caballo. 17. Ya viene el calor del ver_______________ 18. Voy a pagar la cuenta con tar________________ de crédito.

2001–3000 frequency level   1. Siempre le pongo un poco de azú_______________ al café.   2. Quiero aprender a bai_______________ el tango.   3. ¿Me puede ence________________ las luces, por favor?   4. Anoche perdí las ll_______________ de la casa y no pude entrar.   5. Ese programa es estúpido y ton________________.   6. El acusado fue lig________________ a la escena del crimen por sus huellas digitales.  7. En el mes de julio se han aho_________________ veinte personas en el océano.   8. Se cayó la mesa antigua porque se rompió una de las tres pa________________.   9. Vamos a consultar el hor________________ de los vuelos. 10. El bill________________ de ida y vuelta cuesta menos. 11. Después de ver la película habrá una cha________________ con la directora. 12. Me duelen la garg________________ y la cabeza. 13. La muerte de mi tía fue un tema muy dol________________. 14. Me encantan los mue_______________ nuevos que has comprado para el salón.

New Vocabulary Levels Tests for L2 Spanish  177

15. Tu novia se ve muy linda con el pelo sue_________________. 16. Vamos todos al patio; ya es la hora del desc_________________. 17. Anoche dos camiones choc______________ en la ruta 20. 18. El juez recomendó el cast________________ máximo de diez años de cárcel.

3001–4000 frequency level   1. Señora, ¿no ve el car________________? Está prohibido fumar aquí.   2. Olvidé el abrigo y me quedé hel________________ después de un rato.   3. La niebla ha causado dem________________ en todos los vuelos.   4. Primero hay que ba________________ la clara del huevo.   5. El arqueólogo hizo un hall________________ extraño en la cueva.   6. La cen________________ del cigarro cayó sobre el mantel.   7. La ropa está ten________________ y ahora va a llover.   8. Es un hombre fuerte y salu________________, seguramente porque come muchas verduras.   9. Las instrucciones de uso están en la etiq________________. 10. Shakira comienza hoy una gi________________ por Estados Unidos. 11. El perro labrador es tie________________ y cariñoso con mis hijos. 12. Beber cerveza es mi único vi_______________. 13. Sigan caminando por este sen__________________ para llegar al río. 14. No me respetas; cuando hago una sugerencia susp______________ fuerte y miras para otro lado. 15. Tres turistas se perdieron en la cordi_________________ de los Andes cerca de Mendoza. 16. Para la fiesta de Carnaval nos vamos a disf__________________ de payasos.

178  Paul Chandler

17. La paella estaba para chup__________________ los dedos. 18. Ha llovido tanto que tengo los zapatos totalmente moj____________________.

4001–5000 frequency level   1. El delantero hizo un movimiento lat_________________ para meter el gol.   2. Mi vestido nuevo está arrugado; tráeme la pla__________________.   3. Salían cho_________________ de agua de la tubería rota.   4. El artista quería retr________________ la pobreza que se ve en la capital.   5. No debes guardarle ren___________________ a tu hermano cuando te trata mal.   6. Han desarrollado un avión más ve__________________ que el F-16.   7. Me duelen tanto las manos que apenas puedo co________________ un botón en una camisa.   8. Hoy tenemos de pos________________ flan, fresas y torta de chocolate.   9. ¿Es usted casado o solt_________________? 10. Todas las ventanas tienen rej_______________ de hierro. 11. El equipo japonés ha ganado la meda_________________ de plata. 12. Traiga otra band______________ de queso y otra de jamón serrano. 13. Lamento mucho lo ocurrido y le pido disc_______________. 14. Las rosas al lado de la casa están llenas de esp_______________. 15. En climas desérticos el pan fresco endur_______________ en un rato. 16. Tome dos de las past_______________ blancas tres veces al día con la comida. 17. La boda fue bonita pero muy sole______________. 18. Antes de arrancar hay que ponerse el cint_______________.

INDEX

Note: Page numbers in italic indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. access 99 acquisition see acquisition of idiomatic language; vocabulary acquisition acquisition of idiomatic language 63 – 65, 72, 83 – 84; integration within MeaningOriented Instruction 73 – 76; justification for a focus on idioms 69 – 73; sample activities 76 – 83; theory and research 66 – 69 ACTFL 63 ACTFL OPI 168 ACTFL Performance Descriptors 131, 137 ACTFL Spanish Reading Comprehension Test 170 activities 94; for acquisition of idiomatic language 76 – 83; for incidental vocabulary acquisition 51 – 53; for lexicographic perspectives 104 – 107; for L2 Spanish 56 – 57; for quality of lexicosemantic representations 122 – 126; for testing vocabulary knowledge 146 – 149 Adamska-Salaciak, A. 103 Agustín-Llach, María Pilar xii, 3, 157 Ahmadian, M. 16 Albrechtsen, D. 156 Alcón, E. 49 Alderson, J. C. 64, 145 Al-Kasimi, Ali M. 104

Alodwan, T. A. 103 Alonso, E. 93 – 94 Alonso-Ramos, M. 136, 146 Alshaboul, Y. M. 103 Alshboul, S. S. 103 Alvarado Ortega, M. B. 64 Alvar-Ezquerra, M. 93 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 4, 10, 68, 122, 137 – 138 Asassfeh, S. M. 103 assessment: classroom-based 139 – 144 Atkinson, R. C. 36 Augustyn, P. 103 Aukrust, V. 157 autonomous language learning 90 Ayto, J. 69 Azorín-Fernández, D. 93 Bachman, L. F. 145 Balance, O. 155 Baleghizadeh, S. 103 Balteiro, I. 104 Bansford, J. D. 119 Barcroft, Joe xii, 3, 26 – 27, 29 – 39; and incidental learning 50 – 53; and issues of regional variation 11, 17; and lexicographic perspectives 95, 102; and quality of lexicosemantic representations

180 Index

114, 119, 121; and testing vocabulary knowledge 145, 158 – 159 Baroni, M. 147 Barrios-Rodríguez, A. 92 Bauer, L. 64, 69 Béjoint, H. 94, 101 Bergenholtz, H. 102 Bernardini, S. 147 Bestgen, Y. 63 – 64 Bobb, S. C. 114 Bobrova, L. 77 Boers, Frank xii, 3, 63 – 66, 70 – 71, 73 – 76, 78, 82 – 84 Bolly, C. 11 Bosque, I. 92, 136 breadth of knowledge 153 – 154, 160, 170 Brindley, G. 138 Brown, R. 28 Browne, C. 48, 53 Bruner, J. S. 78 Brunfaut, T. 64 Buxton, B. 133 Callies, M. 146, 149 Cammarata, L. 54 Canale, M. 9 Cantos Gómez, P. 46 Caplan-Carbin, L. 120 Caramazza, A. 117 Carstens, A. 104 Carter, R. 71 Castañeda, M. 157 Chandler, Paul xii Chang, A. 65 Chang-Rodriguez, E. 160 Chapelle, C. 133, 155, 163 Charteris-Black, J. 75 Chater, N. 68 Chen, C. 34 Chen, Y. 99 Choi, S. 65 choral repetition 36 Christiansen, M. H. 68 Cieślicka, A. 71 Clapham, C. 155, 157, 169 classroom-based assessment 139 – 144 CLAVE 100, 106 Cloze test 141 Coady, J. 52, 56, 156 – 157, 159, 161 Cobb, T. 47 – 48, 52, 55, 67, 135 cognate facilitation 114 – 116 cognates 114 – 116, 162 Cohen, A. 159 Collins Spanish Dictionary (CSP) 100

Comesaña, M. 114 – 116 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL) 4, 10 – 11, 68, 105, 131 Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 15 – 17, 53 – 54 competence 93 – 95, 93, 100 – 103 conceptual feature 116 – 118, 117 Conklin, K. 71 Connabeer, R. 83 connotative meaning 29, 72 constructivist approach 78 – 83 content-based instruction 54 – 55 context of use 12 – 13 Cook, V. 145 Cooper, T. C. 72 CORPES 134 – 135, 135 corpora 145 – 146 corpus-based tools 131 Costa, A. 117 Cote-González, M. 95 Council of Europe 10, 68 – 69, 105, 137 count-based word frequency 135 Craik, F. I. M. 119 Criado Sánchez, R. 46 Cristoffanini, P. 115 Crookes, G. 21 Crossley, A. S. 64, 135 – 136 cultural 13 – 14, 19 – 20, 37 – 42, 73 – 77 cultures 17, 75 – 77 curricular documents 63, 68 curriculum 37, 41 – 42, 68, 84, 152 Dam-Jensen, H. D. 98, 98 Dang, C. T. 66 David, M. 68 Davidson, F. 144 Davies, A. 145 Davies, K. H. 160 – 162, 162, 164 Davies, M. 134, 152, 160 – 162, 164, 167, 169 Davis, C. 115 Davis, N. 52 Davis, P. 86 DeCarrico, J. 63 definitions 97 – 98, 114 – 116 de Groot, A. M. B. 35, 114, 116 – 117, 117 De Groot, P. 58 De Jong, N. H. 16 – 17 Demecheleer, M. 73, 76 denotative meaning 9 depth of knowledge 135 – 136 depth vocabulary test 136 Dewaele, J.-M. 9 – 10, 15, 17

Index  181

dialectal variation 18, 67 Diaz, M. 113 – 116 Díaz-Campos, Manuel xiii dictionaries 91, 92 – 95, 93 – 94, 95, 96, 97; access to 99; activities involving 106 – 107; as adequate 99, 100 – 101; characteristics of 95 – 99; within MOI (Meaning-Oriented Instruction) 103 – 104, 104; see also learner’s dictionaries; online dictionaries dictionary as a consultation tool 90 – 83, 101 – 102, 104 dictionary as a strategic component in language teaching 90 – 91, 93, 101, 108 dictionary use 90 – 91, 93 – 94, 93 – 94, 103 – 104, 107 – 108 Dijkstra, A. 113 Dijkstra, T. 116 – 117 dimensions of vocabulary knowledge 132 – 133 Dion, N. 12 DIPELE (Diccionario para la enseñanza de la lengua española) 92, 95, 96, 99 discursive-pragmatic lexical lesson 19 distributed lexical/conceptual feature model 116 – 117, 117 Domínguez-Vázquez, M. J. 99 Donkaewbua, S. 28 Dressler, C. 120 Duyck, W. 116 Ecke, P. 119 Egido-Vicente, M. 99 Eisenstein, J. 13 – 14, 20 Elgort, I. 46, 78 Ellis, N. 46 Ellis, R. 16, 49 empirical evidence 114 – 116 Erman, B. 63 – 64 Eslami, Z. 48 – 49 ESPASA (Diccionario de la lengua española para estudiantes de español) 96 essay writing 45 Estaire, S. 54 Estévez, K. 67 evaluation 37, 49 – 50, 131, 137 exposure to words 38 – 39 Eyckmans, J. 71, 73 – 74, 76, 82 – 83 Fairclough, M. 14, 134 familiarization with the text 105 – 106 Fanari, R. 71 Farrell, T. S. C. 53 – 54 Félix-Brasdefer, C. 19 Feng, J. 48

Fichtner, F. 37 fill the gap 141 Flowerdew, J. 145 Folse, K. S. 53 Fong, Y.-y. 75 Fontanillo-Merino, E. 93 Forcelini, Jamile xiii Forest, R. W. 145 formality 15 form-meaning mappings 1, 116 formulaic language 63 – 64, 68 – 69 Francis, G. 145 Franks, J. J. 119 Frantzen, D. 159, 161 frequency 12 – 13 frequency bands 134 – 135, 162 – 169, 162 frequency level 152, 155, 156, 162, 167, 173 – 178 frequency of use 67 Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. 102 Fulcher, G. 137, 144 – 145 Gairns, R. 66 García-Albea, J. E. 115, 117 García Salido, M. 136 García-Sanz, E. 93 Gardner, D. 47, 55 Gass, S. 46, 49 GDUEsA-SGEL (Gran diccionario de uso del español actual) 96 Geeslin, K. L. 9 Gibbs, R. W. 70 Gibert-Escofet, M. I. 93 Giora, R. 71 Gironzetti, E. 67, 76 Glosbe 100 Godfroid, A. 65 Google Translate 92, 97, 100, 106 Gorgi, N. A. 48, 50 Götz, S. 146, 149 Grabe, W. 54 Grainger, J. 113, 116 – 117 grammar 144 – 145 Grant, L. 64, 69 Greidanus, T. 34, 52 Gribbons, B. 47, 55 Gries, S. T. 145 Grosjean, F. 114 Gu, P. Y. 46, 52 Gu, Y. 159 Gutiérrez, M. J. 14 Haagort, P. 1 Haastrup, K. 10, 156

182 Index

Hacking, J. 153, 155, 170 Harklau, L. 52 Healy, A. F. 121 Henriksen, B. 10, 133 Hernández-Hernández, H. 92 – 94 Hernández Muñoz, N. 2, 67 Herrera, H. 68 Higgins, D. 149 Hill, M. 56 Hoang, H. 65, 82 Hollander, M. 34, 52 Horst, M. 47 – 48, 52, 55 Hoshino, N. 114 Housen, A. 65 Howard, M. 9 Hu, Y.-h. 75 Huang, J. 48 Huang, S. 48 – 49 Huckin, T. 52, 156 – 157, 159, 161 Hulsijn, J. 49 – 50, 52, 56 Hulstijn, J. H. 34, 46, 49 – 50, 52 – 53 Hunston, S. 145 IBI see Input-Based Incremental (IBI) vocabulary instruction idiomatic expressions 66 – 69, 72 – 74, 77 – 80, 79 – 80, 83 – 84 idiomaticity 63 – 64, 68 – 69 idiomatic language see acquisition of idiomatic language idiomatic meanings 74 – 76 idiomatic sequences 65, 77, 77, 83 idioms: benefits of recognizing literal underpinnings of 73 – 74; justification for a focus on 69 – 73 Iglesia-Martín, S. 93 Igoa, J. M. 117 incidental learning 45 – 46, 57 – 58; incidental vocabulary acquisition within MOI (Meaning-Oriented Instruction) 53 – 56; methods and techniques 51 – 53; sample activities 56 – 57; theory and research 46 – 51 incidental vocabulary learning/acquisition 33 – 40, 156 – 157; activities for 51 – 53; within Meaning-Oriented Instruction 53 – 56 inextricability of vocabulary and grammar 144 – 145 input 26 – 31, 33 – 39, 41 – 42 Input-Based Incremental (IBI) vocabulary instruction 37 – 38; sample lesson 39 – 42, 42 input hypothesis 47

Instituto Cervantes 68 – 69, 146 intentional vocabulary learning/acquisition 38, 53 interaction hypothesis 48 – 49 Interagency Language Roundtable 139 Involvement Load Hypothesis (ILH) 49 – 50 Izumi, S. 48 Jacobs, G. M. 53 – 54 Jarvis, S. 146 Jiang, N. 52 Jiménez Calderón, F. 66, 76 Juilland, A. 160 Kagimoto, E. 169 Katznelson, H. 52 Keating, G. 50, 52 – 53 Kempen, G. 71 Kernermann, I. 103 Kiesling, S. F. 7 – 8 Kida, S. 33, 36, 50 – 51 Kim, H. 52 Kim, Y. 49 – 50, 52 – 53 Kirsner, K. 115 knowledge see productive knowledge; receptive knowledge; vocabulary knowledge Kondo, H. 53 Krashen, S. 1, 34, 46 – 47, 51, 55 Kremmel, B. 64, 145 Kroll, J. F. 29, 113 – 117, 117 Kryszewska, H. 66 Kweon, S. 52 Labov, W. 8 La Cocina De Lina 18 Lacorte, M. 67 Lam, K. J. 116 language use variables 72 Lantolf, J. P. 77 Lao, C. Y. 55 Larsen-Freeman, D. 53 Laufer, B.: and acquisition of idiomatic language 65, 75; and incidental learning 46 – 47, 49 – 50, 52 – 53, 55 – 56; and issues of regional variation 17; and testing vocabulary knowledge 134, 153, 155 – 156, 158 – 159, 166 – 168 learner corpora 145 – 146 learner needs 13 – 15 learners’ dictionaries 95 – 99 Lee, S. H. 52 lemma 116 – 117, 134, 160 – 161 Lervåg, A. 157

Index  183

Leung, C. 159 levels tests for L2 Spanish 152 – 153, 168 – 170; integration within MOI (Meaning-Oriented Instruction) 168; methods and techniques 160 – 168; theory and research 153 – 160 Levelt, W. J. M. 89 Levin, J. R. 46 Lew, R. 74, 91 Lewis, M. 63, 66 lexical access 4, 113 lexical competence 28, 46, 52, 57, 137 lexical feature 116 lexical input processing 28 – 37 lexical lessons 17 – 19 lexical profiles 131 lexical retrieval 113 – 114, 121 – 122, 126 lexical variation 12 – 15 lexicographic perspectives 90 – 91, 107 – 108; integration within MOI (MeaningOriented Instruction) 102 – 104; methods and techniques 101 – 102; sample activities 104 – 107; theory and research 92 – 101 lexicography 92, 108 lexicosemantic representations 113 – 114, 126 – 127; integration within MOI (Meaning-Oriented Instruction) 122; methods and techniques 120 – 121; principles of SCI vocabulary instruction 121 – 122; sample activity 122 – 126; theory and research 114 – 120 Li, P. 114 Libben, G. 119 Lightbown, P. M. 119 Lindstromberg, S. 65 – 66, 70 – 71, 78, 83 Linford, B. 9 Linguee 100 linguistic material 76 – 78 Liontas, J. I. 73 literal underpinnings of idioms 73 – 76 Littlemore, J. 71, 73, 75 – 76, 168 Littlewood, W. 15, 54 Liu, D. 66, 69, 76, 82 Lockhart, R. S. 119 locuciones 64, 77 Long, M. H. 14, 16, 48 López-Jiménez, M. D. 158, 169 Luebbers, J. 157 MacArthur, F. 76 Maldonado-González, C. 92 – 93, 100 Malvar, E. 12 Manchón-Ruiz, R. M. 93

Marian, V. 113 Marriot, H. 9 Martinez, R. 71 – 72 Martín-García, J. 93 Martín Noguerol, M. 64 Masini, F. 8 Mason, B. 55 Matanzo Vicens, G. 53 matching 71, 136, 142, 152 McCarthy, M. 66, 71, 81 McDaniel, M. A. 46 McGavigan, P. 156 McNamara, D. S. 64, 121, 135 – 136 McPherron, P. 66 meaning 1 – 4; increased exposure to words while focusing on 38 – 39; intentional vocabulary learning as focus on 38; of Spanish learners’ dictionary 95 Meaning-Oriented Instruction (MOI) 38 – 39, 73 – 76; incidental vocabulary acquisition within 53 – 56; and lexicographic perspectives 102 – 104; and quality of lexicosemantic representations 122; and receptive and productive vocabulary tests 168; and testing vocabulary knowledge 144 – 146 Meara, P. 46 – 48, 52, 55, 152 – 153, 157, 159, 163 Meara, P. M. 132 – 133 measures: of vocabulary knowledge 133 – 136; see also testing Meliss, M. 99 Melka, F. 29 Méndez Santos, M. 39 Merino Hernández, Laura M. xiii Mestre Vives, A. 66 Milech, D. 115 Milton, J. 152 – 153, 155 – 158 Miralpeix, I. 152 – 153 Molinero-Pinto, E. 93 Molnár, T. 113, 120 – 121 Moon, R. 70 Morales, J. C. 169 morphological suffixation patterns 125 Morris, C. D. 119 Mougeon, R. 15 multiple choice 142, 152 Muncie, J. 52 Muñoz-Basols, Javier xiii, 1 – 3, 64, 67 – 68, 71, 76 – 81 Murphy, V. A. 71 – 72 Nadasdi, T. 15 Nagy, W. 46, 48, 55, 113, 119 – 121, 127

184 Index

Nassaji, H. 55 – 56 Nation, I. S. P.: and acquisition of idiomatic language 82; and incidental learning 45 – 46, 48, 52, 55 – 56; and quality of lexicosemantic representations 127; and receptive and productive vocabulary tests 152 – 153, 156 – 158, 160 – 161, 163, 165 – 167, 169; and testing vocabulary knowledge 132 – 133, 133 Nation, P. 10, 12, 134, 153, 155, 159, 166 – 168 Nattinger, J. 63 need 49 – 50 Nesi, H. 95 Newton, J. 65 Nomdedeu Rull, A. xiii, 4, 71, 95, 99 – 101, 104 non-cognate translation pair 117 non-selective lexical access 4, 113, 116 non-transparent 65, 69, 83 O’Dell, F. 10, 14, 66 O’Keeffe, A. 71 OLSD (Oxford Learner’s Spanish Dictionary) 100 O’Neill, E. M. 100 online dictionaries 3, 90, 99; lack of 100 – 101 opaqueness 69 organizing 76 – 78 Otwinowska, A. 119 output 36 – 37, 41 – 42, 47 – 52 output hypothesis 48 Paivio, A. 73 Palacios, J. M. 93 – 94 Paribakht, T. S. 28, 153 – 154, 157 – 159, 168 parts of speech 163 – 164, 164 Pavlenko, A. 10 Pawley, A. 64 pedagogy 12 – 15 peer-assessment 139 Pellicer-Sánchez, A. 66, 84 Pérez Basanta, C. 152 Pérez Sinusía, Y. 68 performance descriptors 4, 68, 131, 137 Perpignan, H. 52 Peters, E. 66 Polio, C. 49 Ponniah, R. J. 52 Poplack, S. 12 Prabhu, N. S. 54 Prado-Aragonés, J. 93

PRECISA Traducciones Profesionales 18 Pressley, M. 46 processing resource allocation see Type of Processing-Resource Allocation (TOPRA) model processing specificity 27, 33 – 35, 37, 42 production 48 – 49, 101 – 105 productive knowledge 10, 84, 166, 170 productive Spanish vocabulary levels test (PSVLT) 166 – 168, 176 – 179 productive vocabulary levels test (PVLT) 153, 155 – 156 proficiency 145 – 146 proficiency guidelines 137 – 139 proverbs 65, 77, 81 – 82, 81 psycholinguistic perspective 116 – 118 Pulido, D. 47 Pyun, D. O. 30 – 31, 35 – 36, 51 Qian, D. 133, 135 – 136, 136 quality of lexicosemantic representations see lexicosemantic representations Ramineni, C. 149 Randall, M. 82 Randolph, P. T. 66 Raugh, M. R. 36 Rayati, R. A. 48, 50 Read, J. 12, 135, 152 – 155, 163, 171 reading 51 – 52 Real Academia Española (RAE) 67, 134 reception 92, 95, 101 – 102, 104, 132 receptive knowledge 146, 162 – 166, 170 recommendations 144 Redman, S. 66 Regan, V. 9 regionally appropriate vocabulary 7 – 8 regional variation 7 – 9, 19 – 20; communicative language teaching and task-based learning 15 – 17; pedagogical implications of 12 – 15; sample lessons 17 – 19; and vocabulary acquisition 9 – 11 register 73 – 74, 160 Rehner, K. 15 research: in acquisition of idiomatic language 66 – 69; in incidental learning of L2 vocabulary 46 – 51; on lexical input processing 28 – 37; in lexicographic perspectives 92 – 101; in quality of lexicosemantic representations 114 – 120; in receptive and productive and productive vocabulary tests 153 – 160; in testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge 131 – 136

Index  185

Restrepo Ramos, F. D. 3, 46 – 47, 52, 57 retrieval 41 – 42, 113 – 114, 121 – 122 Reyes Díaz, M. J. 53 Richards, J. C. 102 Rieder, A. 46 – 47 Robinson, P. 16, 54 Robles-Saez, A. 160 Rodgers, T. S. 102 Rodrigo, V. 47, 55 Rodríguez, M. 46 Rodríguez, T. A. 119 – 120 Rodríguez Sánchez, Ignacio xiii – xiv, 4 Rodríguez-Vida, S. 66, 69 Römer, U. 145 Ross, A. 18 Rott, S. 30, 34, 47 – 48, 52 Royer, J. M. 29, 36, 121 Rubin, B. 52 Rufat, Sánchez 66, 76 Ruiz Gurillo, L. 64 SALAMANCA (Diccionario Salamanca de la lengua española) 92, 95 – 96, 106 Salgado Robles, F. 9 Salsbury, T. 64, 136 Sánchez, A. 54 Sánchez-Casas, R. 115 – 116 Sanchéz Pérez, A. 46 Sánchez Rufat, A. 66 San-Mateo-Valdehíta, A. 53 Sasao, Y. 155 Saviano, E. 66 Schedl, M. 135 – 136, 136 Schelletter, C. 117 Schmid, H.-J. 145 Schmidt, R. 65 Schmidt, R. W. 120 Schmitt, D. 155, 157, 169 Schmitt, N. 28, 71, 155 – 158, 163, 169 Schwartz, A. I. 113 – 116 search 49 – 50 Sebastian-Galles, N. 117 second language processing perspective 118 – 120 Segoviano, C. 45 selecting vocabulary 76 – 78 self-assessment 139 – 140 semantic elaboration 26, 35, 37, 42, 51 sentence writing 30 – 31, 51 – 53 SFL/SSL dictionary 92 – 93 Shin, N. L. 21 Simone, R. 8 Singleton, D. 46, 119 Siyanova, A. 71

Skehan, P. 16, 54 skills 93 – 95, 94 SM (Diccionario de español para extranjeros) 96 socially appropriate vocabulary 7 – 8 sociocultural methodology 78 sociolinguistic competence 7, 9, 16, 19 sociolinguistic knowledge 65 sociolinguistic usage 72 sociolinguistic variation 7 – 9, 11 – 17 Sökmen, A. 46 Soler Montes, C. 2, 67 Sommers, M. 35 Sommers, M. S. 10 – 11, 35 Sommers, S. M. 11, 17 Song, Z. 48 Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test (SVLT) 162 – 163, 166, 165 – 170, 173 – 175 Sparks, R. 157 specificity see processing specificity Spivey, M. 113 Spöttl, C. 81 Sprenger, S. A. 71 Stefanowitsch, A. 145 Stengers, H. 64, 66, 70 – 74, 82 Stoller, F. 54 Strong, B. 66 structural elaboration 51 Structured Cognate Instruction (SCI) 4, 113 – 114, 120 – 121, 125, 127 Sunderman, Gretchen xiv, 4, 29, 114 Swain, M. 9, 48 Syder, F. 64 syntactic properties 27, 98 systematizing 76 – 78 Szczepaniak, R. 74 Tabossi, P. 71 Takaki, M. 28 Tanaka, Y. 49 Tarp, S. 95, 98 – 99, 101 task-based instruction 54 task-based learning 15 – 17 tasks 26 – 27, 29 – 36, 38 – 39, 41 – 42 Tedick, D. J. 54 Tejedor-Martínez, C. 95 Teng, F. 57 Terrazas Gallego, M. 157 testing 131, 149; integration within MOI (Meaning-Oriented Instruction) 144 – 146; methods and techniques 136 – 144; sample activity 146 – 149; theory and research 131 – 136 theory: in acquisition of idiomatic language 66 – 69; in incidental learning of L2

186 Index

vocabulary 46 – 51; on lexical input processing 28 – 37; in lexicographic perspectives 92 – 101; in quality of lexicosemantic representations 114 – 120; in receptive and productive and productive vocabulary tests 153 – 160; in testing L2 Spanish vocabulary knowledge 131 – 136 Tight, D. 10 – 11 Titus, C. H. 82 Tomaszczyk, J. 104 Tono, Y. 99 TOPRA see Type of Processing-Resource Allocation (TOPRA) model traditional vocabulary assessment 141 – 143 transparent 28, 65, 69, 82 – 83, 99 Truscott, J. 34 Tschirner, E. 153, 155, 170 Type of Processing-Resource Allocation (TOPRA) model 30 – 34, 32, 50 – 51 underpinnings of idioms 73 – 76 Valcárcel-Riveiro, C. 99 Van Hell, J. G. 117 Van Heuven, W. J. B. 113, 116 – 117 VanPatten, B. 6, 118 varieties of Spanish 7, 19, 67, 96 vocabulary acquisition 9 – 12 vocabulary growth 17, 157 – 158, 167 vocabulary knowledge 132 – 136, 133; see also testing Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (VKS) 153 – 154 vocabulary learning: acquisition of idiomatic language 63 – 84; incidental 45 – 58; input, tasks, and processing specificity in 26 – 43; lexicographic perspectives 90 – 108; meaning and vocabulary 1 – 20; quality of lexicosemantic representations 113 – 127;

receptive and productive vocabulary tests 152 – 170; testing vocabulary knowledge 131 – 149 Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) 155 – 157, 162 – 170; see also Spanish Vocabulary Levels Test (SVLT) vocabulary profiles 134 – 135 Vygotsky, L. 78 Waldman, T. 65 Waring, R. 28 Warren, B. 63 – 64 Webb, S. 52, 65, 152 – 153, 155, 159, 161, 169 Weibel, P. 66 Wesche, M. 28, 153 – 154, 157 – 159, 168 White, M. 68 Willis, D. 157 Willis, J. 157 Willson, V. 48 – 49 Wolf, K. 71 Wong, W. 30 – 31, 35 – 36, 51 Wood, D. 66, 84 Word Associations Test (WAT) 154 – 160 word copying 36 word form 27 – 30, 35 – 36, 132 – 134 word meaning 31 – 32, 35 – 36, 52, 104, 135, 156 WordReference 100, 106 Wray, A. 63 – 64 writing 52 – 53 Xi, X. 136 Yamazaki, A. 49 Yaqubi, B. 48, 50 Yes/No tests 133 – 134 Zahar, R. 47 – 48, 52, 55 Zanon, J. 54 Zechner, K. 149 Zyzik, E. 11