ELT journal oct 09

INTO THE
CLASSROOM
NEW SERIES

INTO THE
CLASSROOM

www.oup.com/elt

Volume
63/4
October
2009

ELTB

Articles

Reviews

Perspectives on spoken grammar
Two ways of presenting vocabulary
Preparing learners for the workplace
How good is your test?
Teaching discourse intonation
Developing teacher training skills
Online corpora and writing skills
Promoting student autonomy

Writing Stories: Developing Language Skills through Story Making
Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching

The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography
Teaching Children English as an Additional Language
Teaching English as an Additional Language
Introducing English as an Additional Language
Tasks in Action: Task-Based Language Education
Practical Classroom English

Readers respond

Survey review

Grammar as a communicative resource
An outcomes-based approach

Writing academic English

Comment

Comics

Websites review

ELT and the global recession

Online forum report
Class-centred teaching

oxford

October 2009

also by
Gordon Lewis

Volume 63/4

NEW for February 2010
Bringing creative teaching
into the young learner
classroom

An international journal for teachers of English to speakers of other languages
ELTB

NEW

Make sense of new
teaching tools,
techniques, and
educational policy.
Have confidence
introducing them into
your classroom.

Key concepts in ELT
Innovation in ELT

in association with

C


Every effort has been made to trace the owners
of copyright material in this issue, but we shall be
pleased to hear from any copyright holder whom we
have been unable to contact. If notified, the publisher
will attempt to rectify any errors or omissions at the
earliest opportunity.
©

Oxford University Press 2009

All rights reserved; no part of this publication
may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without either the prior written permission of the
Publishers, or a licence permitting restricted copying
issued in the UK by the Copyright Licensing Agency
Ltd, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1PS 9HE,
or in the USA by the Copyright Clearing Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923,
USA.
UK ISSN

0951-0893 (print); 1477-4526 (online)

Typeset by TnQ Books and Journals Pvt. Ltd.,

Chennai, India.
Printed by C.O.S. Printers Pte Ltd, Singapore
Advertising
Inquiries about advertising should be sent to:
Linda Hann
Oxford Journals Advertising
60 Upper Broadmoor Road
Crowthorne RG45 7DE
UK
Email::
Tel: +44 (0)1344 779945
Fax: +44 (0)1344 779945
Website
Article titles, abstracts, and Key concepts appear free
online through the ELT Journal website:


The Editorial Panel
David Bell
Ohio University, USA
Sue Garton
University of Aston
Laura Grassick
British Council, Egypt
Carol Griffiths
British Council Teacher Training Project, DPRK
Peter Grundy
IATEFL
Graham Hall
Northumbria University

Éva Illés
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
Barley Mak
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Jonathan Marks
Leba, Poland
Alice Oxholm
Sheffield Hallam University
Annamaria Pinter
University of Warwick
Barbara Skinner
University of Ulster
Jane Spiro
Oxford Brookes University
Melinda Tan
University of Central Lancashire
Key Concepts Editor
Alan Waters
University of Lancaster
Text Messages Editors
Jill and Charles Hadfield

Abstracting and Indexing
British Education Index covers ELT Journal

Editorial Front Office
Jane Magrane

The Advisory Board
Michael Carrier

ELT Adviser

Consultant to the Editors
Cristina Whitecross

Simon Greenall
IATEFL
Catherine Kneafsey
Oxford University Press
Norman Whitney
ELT Consultant
The Editor
Keith Morrow
The Reviews Editor
Philip Prowse

Consultant on Research Design
Catherine Walter
Department of Education, University of Oxford


Aims
ELT Journal is a quarterly publication for all those involved in the field
of teaching English as a second or foreign language. The journal links
the everyday concerns of practitioners with insights gained from related
academic disciplines such as applied linguistics, education, psychology,
and sociology.
ELT Journal aims to provide a medium for informed discussion of the
principles and practice which determine the ways in which the English
language is taught and learnt around the world. It also provides a forum

for the exchange of information among members of the profession
worldwide.

The Editor of ELT Journal is supported by an Editorial Advisory Panel
whose members referee submissions. Their decisions are based upon the
relevance, clarity, and value of the articles submitted.
The views expressed in ELT Journal are the contributors’ own, and not
necessarily those of the Editor, the Editorial Advisory Panel, or the
Publisher.

Contributions
Contributions are welcome from anyone involved in ELT. Contributors
should consult the current Guide for contributors before submitting articles,
as this contains important information about the focus and format of
articles. Articles not submitted in accordance with the Guide will not be
considered for publication. The Guide can be obtained on request from the
Editor, and is now available online. See our website:

If you wish to write a review for ELT Journal, please contact the Reviews
Editor. Unsolicited reviews cannot be accepted for publication.
Correspondence
e d i t o r i a l : The Editor, ELT Journal, Homerton House, Cawston Road,
Reepham, Norwich nr10 4lt, UK.
Email:
re vi e w s: The Reviews Editor, ELT Journal, po Box 83, Cambridge
cb3 9pw, UK. Fax +44 (0) 1223 572390
Email:

ELT Journal Volume 63/4 October 2009

ª The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.


Contents
ELT Journal Volume 63 Number 4 October 2009

Articles
Christine Goh
Evagelia Papathanasiou
David Wood
Funda Ku¨xu
c¨ k and
JoDee Walters
Mike Beaken
Christopher Stillwell
Alex Gilmore
´
´
Jesus Angel Gonza´lez

Perspectives on spoken grammar 303
An investigation of two ways of presenting vocabulary 313
Preparing ESP learners for workplace placement 323
How good is your test? 332
Teaching discourse intonation with narrative 342
The collaborative development of teacher training skills 353
Using online corpora to develop students’ writing skills 363
Promoting student autonomy through the use of the European Language
Portfolio 373

Readers respond
Anthony Bruton
Phillip D. Jones

Grammar is not only a liberating force, it is a communicative
resource 383
Giving a voice to teachers and students in an outcomes-based
approach 387

Comment
Richard S. Pinner

ELT and the global recession 390

Online forum report
Rose Senior

Class-centred teaching 393

Key concepts in ELT
Martin Wedell

Innovation in ELT 397

Survey review
Christopher Tribble

Writing academic English—a survey review of current published
resources 400

Reviews
Alan Maley
Nick McIver
Robert Lew

Writing Stories: Developing Language Skills through Story Making by
A. Wright and D. A. Hill 418
Teaching Unplugged: Dogme in English Language Teaching by
L. Meddings and S. Thornbury 419
The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography by B. T. S. Atkins and
M. Rundell 421


Joanne Glasgow and
Barbara Skinner

Thomas A. Williams

Alex Case

Teaching Children English as an Additional Language: Meeting the
Challenge in the Classroom by L. Haslam, Y. Wilkin, and E. Kellet,
Teaching English as an Additional Language: A Programme for 7–11 Year
Olds by C. Scott, and Introducing English as an Additional Language to
Young Children by K. Crosse 425
Tasks in Action: Task-Based Language Education from a ClassroomBased Perspective by K. Van den Branden, K. Van Gorp, and
M. Verhelst (eds.) 429
Practical Classroom English by G. Hughes and J. Moate with
T. Raatikainen 433

Websites for the language teacher
Diana Eastment

Comics 436
Correspondence 439
IATEFL 442
Annual index: Volume 63 (2009) 443
Cumulative index 446

Please visit ELT Journal’s website at



Perspectives on spoken grammar
Christine Goh

English language teachers’ opinions on the pedagogic relevance of spoken
grammar are beginning to be reported, yet the voices of teachers in East Asia are
rarely heard. In this article, the views of teachers from China and Singapore
expressed in an online discussion are compared. The discussion, which was part of
a taught postgraduate course, focused on the usefulness of British spoken
grammar norms and the potential value of spoken grammar knowledge for
language learners. There is a broad consensus of opinion about its importance for
raising learners’ language awareness, but Chinese and Singaporean teachers
generally had different attitudes to native speaker norms, while opinions on some
pedagogical issues vary more at the individual level. The similarities and
differences are attributed to the teachers’ sociolinguistic concerns, understanding
of learner needs, and beliefs about grammar that are influenced by the written
language. The implications of these teacher perspectives for teacher education are
highlighted.

Introduction

Many academic papers have been published on spoken grammar, and the
special features of speech have recently been included in several English
grammars (see, for example, Biber, Conrad, and Leech 2002). While there is
general recognition that language teaching should take account of the
difference between spoken and written language, the pedagogic relevance
of spoken grammar is still a matter of much discussion. McCarthy and
Carter (2001: 57) argue its importance to language teaching as follows:
Language pedagogy that claims to support the teaching and learning of
speaking skills does itself a disservice if it ignores what we know about the
spoken language. Whatever else may be the result of imaginative
methodologies for eliciting spoken language in the second language
classroom, there can be little hope for a natural spoken output on the part
of language learners if the input is stubbornly rooted in models that owe
their origin and shape to the written language.
But is a model of spoken grammar derived from a corpus of British spoken
English appropriate for all language learners? Given the status of English as
a lingua franca for intercultural communication, and a call by some
linguists to teach only its ‘core’ features, can we justify teaching a spoken
grammar based mainly on spontaneous everyday speech in the British
Isles? This issue of using real data from British native speaker (NS)
language was debated by Carter (1998) and Cook (1998) and further
examined empirically by Timmis (2002) in his survey of about 600 teachers
and learners from various countries. Timmis concluded that while
teachers in general thought it was not always necessary for learners to
conform to NS norms, learners themselves were in fact keen to do so.
E LT Journal Volume 63/4 October 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccp004

ª The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication March 10, 2009

303


In responding to specific questions on spoken grammar, two thirds of the
teacher respondents thought it was important to expose learners to features
of spontaneous NS speech, but nearly a quarter of them expressed
reservations about the grammaticality of certain spoken grammar forms.
Timmis (2005) further showed that UK-based teachers were favourably
disposed to the idea of teaching spoken grammar forms. Clearly, a grammar
of speech based on British English1 data would be relevant to the UK
context. The question remains, however, as to whether teachers outside
the UK would find spoken grammar just as useful for their learners.

Views from China
and Singapore

For some preliminary answers to the question, I present here the views of
75 English language teachers from China and Singapore. They were
postgraduate students doing applied linguistic courses in the same
university. Of the total, 37 were Chinese college and high school teachers,
while the remaining 38 were mainly primary and secondary teachers from
Singapore. In an online forum, the teachers discussed the questions below:
n Is linguistic information from British English data revealed in the
CANCODE project useful for teaching learners about spoken language?
n Can knowledge of spoken grammar forms improve learners’ spoken
language performance?
The questions were meant to be open-ended prompts that gave teachers

room to explore related issues and perspectives. The discussion was not
originally intended to be a procedure for collecting research data. I had set it
up as a learning task for a teaching methodology course on listening and
speaking. When reading the teachers’ responses, however, I found their
comments refreshing, interesting, and insightful. It was particularly
exciting to see that the teachers were making their voices heard on
a discussion topic that had so far been dominated by linguists. I therefore
decided to analyse their written comments in a systematic manner and
report my observations.

Methods

Before they engaged in the online discussions, I introduced the teachers to
spoken grammar in class. They also read The Grammar of Talk: Spoken
English, Grammar and the Classroom by Carter (2003) individually. It was
selected because it was relevant for both E F L and ‘mainstream’ English
language teachers. Furthermore, it contained concise explanations and
useful examples of key spoken grammar forms: heads, tails, modal
expressions, discourse markers, deixis, ellipsis, tags, flexible positioning of
adverbs and adverbials, purposefully vague language, and coordination of
clauses. The teachers were also asked to visit a website on the CANCODE
project ( To ensure
that they had enough time to read and respond to one another’s comments,
teachers were organized into small discussion groups consisting of six to
seven members. They were also instructed to post their individual
responses to the two questions before responding to the views of other
group members. At the end of the course, I obtained the teachers’
permission to analyse and use their comments.
The analysis was done in two stages. First, each person’s initial individual
responses to the two questions were examined and allocated to one of three

304

Christine Goh


categories, with the Chinese and Singaporean participants distinguished
throughout. Second, these and the teachers’ subsequent responses to other
group members’ views were examined for specific issues regarding the
teaching and learning of spoken grammar. The analyses focused on features
of saliency, frequency, and distribution, and the results were checked twice,
once after a three week interval and then five weeks later. Perspectives
identified in the responses were subsequently selected.

China and Singapore

Before I present the results of the comparisons, it is useful to highlight some
similarities and differences about China and Singapore. A common
situation in both countries is the ever increasing demand for English
instruction at all levels and forms of learning. China, an emerging world
superpower, needs English to consolidate its current economic influence
and efforts at modernization (Hu 2002), while the resource-scarce city-state
of Singapore needs citizens with a good command of the language to
reposition itself as a centre for knowledge, learning, and service industries,
and to participate in overseas trade (Alsagoff 2007). Whereas Chinese E F L
students receive little authentic input from their immediate educational and
social environments, students in Singapore have English as a medium of
instruction and also study it as a curriculum subject from preschool years.
About half of Singaporean students come from English-speaking homes.
Many, however, speak a colloquial variety known popularly as ‘Singlish’, the

syntax, phonology, and lexical items of which are heavily influenced by
vernacular languages in the community.

British spoken
grammar norms

The first question in the discussion invites teacher opinion on the
usefulness of British spoken grammar norms (see Figure 1). Chinese
teachers are on the whole happy to embrace the exonormative features
that British spoken grammar provides and welcome more linguistic
information from other NS varieties. They consider the ability to speak
naturally and accurately like a NS from countries such as Britain to be
a distinct advantage. Among Singaporean teachers, however, opinion is
divided, revealing the complexities in language choice in societies where
the local English variety competes with Anglo models for allegiance and
acceptance.

figure 1
British spoken grammar
norms

Perspectives on spoken grammar

305


‘British spoken
grammar norms are
useful’

For 87 per cent of the Chinese teachers, spoken grammar is not only useful
but also essential. They believe that their students need a NS model in order
to speak more naturally. They see CANCODE as an important source of
instructional input because it has been collected from real, naturally
occurring spoken English in NS language environments. The information
is considered especially helpful to E F L learners who have few opportunities
to develop features of authentic English speech.
It reveals an authentic picture of language use to students, a world full
of incomplete sentences, phrases, vague language, discourse markers,
etc. (C1)
In contrast, more than 60 per cent of their Singaporean colleagues find
spoken grammar based on British English to be less directly useful. The
main reason is that Singaporean speakers already have their own natural
spoken grammar forms for casual speech through Singlish. Nevertheless,
a few teachers do see the British model as a useful point of reference for the
learning of standard English.
It is fine to use British English as the basis for teaching spoken grammar
as we need a set of standard rules to follow. (S1)

‘Useful, but . . . ’

More than half of the Singaporean teachers say that spoken grammar forms
should be introduced to students only for comparison purposes:
It would be useful to use the corpora for spoken Singapore English
alongside the findings of the CANCODE corpus. (S2)
Perhaps students are speaking Singlish partly because they observed
‘everybody around me’s speaking like this, what’s wrong of me in doing
so?’ The corpus examples would expose them to the reality that ‘it’s a real
big world out there!’ (S3)
Some Chinese teachers feel that NS models should not be limited to just

British English:
We could add more variety, for example, by using American, Australian,
Canadian English, etc. to the teaching of spoken grammar. (C2)

‘Not useful’

Around five per cent of the Chinese teachers argue that learners should
focus on acquiring written grammar, which can then be modified for
speaking.
Given the limited classroom exposure, priority should be given to the
instruction of written grammar instead of spoken grammar [ . . . ] If
a student has a good knowledge of written language, his/her spoken
language can be improved more easily provided s/he is exposed in the
real-world conversation. (C3)
A Singaporean teacher’s comment reflects sociolinguistic sensibilities,
particularly the issues of ownership and identity, implying that her students
may resist exonormative models:
It is rather artificial and an uphill task to force down the throats of our
pupils to speak English using the linguistic information based on British
English [ . . . ] English does not belong to the people in Britain. (S4)

306

Christine Goh


Spoken grammar
and language
performance

The second discussion question asks teachers whether they think their
students’ spoken English performance will improve from knowledge about
spoken grammar forms. In general, all 75 teachers agree that it can promote
learners’ language awareness, particularly about differences between
spoken and written language and between English varieties. While many
also believe it can improve spoken output, others have their reservations.

Spoken grammar
improves
performance

In Figure 2, of the Chinese EFL teachers, 83 per cent believe that spoken
grammar knowledge can increase their students’ confidence and help them
speak more naturally.
Increasing learner confidence
The teachers feel that many Chinese EFL learners have the misconception
that they should construct ‘perfect’ sentences modelled after the written
language. These learners become anxious and their performance is affected
as a result:
They may think too much of the structure of the language, which in fact
can prevent the communicating process. For example, the knowledge
of ‘ellipsis’ or flexible positioning in spoken grammar might, to
some extent, encourage the students to overcome the psychological
obstacle and speak out without thinking too much. (C4)
It is very necessary [ . . . ] to reduce their anxiety in speaking in English. For
example, they may feel relaxed to know there are lot of phrasal utterances
and ellipsis in British daily conversations. (C5)
For some Singaporean teachers, confidence for their students comes from
an understanding of different speech registers through spoken grammar:
Having knowledge of spoken grammar not only enables pupils to

differentiate between written and spoken language but also the different
types of speech used in different contexts. With this knowledge, pupils
can select and use the appropriate forms in constructing their speech and
speak with confidence. (S4)
Producing natural spoken output
Some Chinese teachers remark that the speech of many E F L learners
(including themselves) often sounds stilted because it has been modelled on

figure 2
Can spoken grammar
improve spoken
language performance?

Perspectives on spoken grammar

307


formal written grammar and believe that knowledge about the grammar of
speech will help them sound more natural when they speak.
Speaking was taught to me by using written forms as models [ . . . ] I spoke
like a TV announcer, always complete sentences with ‘perfect’ grammar.
I began to feel uncomfortable when some of the girls imitated my
speaking. (C6)
L2 learners are bound to sound bookish without using these features of
spoken grammar. This is one reason why many of us were shocked and
disappointed when we used English for the first time in real interaction.
(C7)
In contrast, some Singaporean teachers think that British spoken grammar
forms such as tails and heads will make their students sound ‘foreign’ and

unnatural. They nevertheless welcome the idea of discourse markers for
organizing speech.

It improves
performance, but . . .

Some teachers are more cautious about teaching spoken grammar to all
learners as they believe that it will only benefit the advanced learners.
But can students really imitate some features of spoken grammar in their
own speaking? I guess no way until they are so good at speaking and they
can monitor their speaking, produce continuous utterances, and respond
to others by adjusting their own at the same time. It requires really
advanced speakers to do that. (C8)
Some also believe that it is better to introduce spoken grammar to learners
after they have acquired formal written grammar.
If exposure of these sorts can help us to be more effective speakers and
listeners, then there surely cannot be any harm in exposing our students
to spoken grammar forms especially when they already are well versed in
their written forms. (S5)
The Chinese teachers are also concerned that students who adopt spoken
grammar features during high-stake oral examinations may be
disadvantaged. They agree that many examiners are not familiar with this
type of natural spoken output in English-speaking countries and may
therefore expect candidates to produce utterances that are constructed
according to written English structures:
I have given some remedial courses for students who are taking the oral
exams of C E T-4 and C E T-6. In preparation for such a course, I have
talked to my colleagues who participate in marking the official exam [ . . . ]
students are required to talk as fluently as possible in a formal way and
examiners do not value some of the spoken grammar features mentioned

in this article. (C9)
Some teachers in Singapore raise similar issues:
We marked students down for not answering in complete sentences. (S6)
Students are expected to speak Standard English which mimics a scripted
monologue or dialogue where utterances are well-formed with specific
structures. (S7)

308

Christine Goh


It does not improve
performance

The small number of Chinese and Singaporean teachers who respond in the
negative have one main criticism against spoken grammar. They perceive it
to be a characteristic of casual speech and therefore not appropriate for
instruction.
I don’t think spoken grammar should be taught. We want ourselves and
our students to speak fluent educated English not broken English. If we
TEAC H students speaking according to spoken grammar, the students
might be misled and they would regard formal speaking as not necessary.
(C10)
The main worry amongst some Singapore teachers is the effect it might
have on the quality of their students’ writing, as the comments below
demonstrate:
I am against explicit teaching of such characteristics as it would confuse
students’ knowledge of written grammar [ . . . ] As it is, in Singapore
neighbourhood2 schools, we are struggling to help students eradicate

traces of spoken grammar3 in their written essays (for example,
contractions, abbreviations, flexible positioning of clauses, and even
ellipses). Teaching explicit features of spoken grammar would probably
do more harm than good, at least with respect to written work. (S8)
These teachers consider most British spoken grammar forms to be
inappropriate for formal communication in Singapore. They would prefer
their students to produce utterances based on the neat grammar of writing
without the ‘messiness’ of spontaneous speech.

NS norms and
spoken grammar

One issue that the teachers focused on was the relevance of NS norms of
spoken grammar. Timmis (2002) had earlier reported that many teachers
believed that it was unnecessary for learners to conform to NS norms. It has
also been argued by others that using such a model could frustrate learners
because it sets them up for a standard they may not attain. Many of the
teachers involved in the discussion, however, seem to think otherwise. The
Chinese teachers are firm in their view on using NS models for their
teaching. They consider the models important for their learners as Chinese
EFL learners do not get sufficient spoken English input that can help them
produce speech that is natural and authentic. These teachers have taken
a sociolinguistics course and are aware of issues about language variation,
standardization, and challenges in applying NS norms. Nevertheless, when
they reflect on their own learning experiences and their students’ needs
(‘People do not speak English except in special contexts, such as meeting
foreigners, so there is no authentic Chinese English’), they assert that NS
models are not only crucial (‘If they don’t have a model to follow, they will be
in confusion’) but also empowering (‘When your language is not standard,
your voice cannot be heard’) and motivating (‘When we find our oral

language echoes much of native speakers’ language, our confidence rises’).
A likely reason for this attitude is that the Chinese teachers are themselves
successful E F L learners who have benefited from NS models in an inputpoor environment. This is a situation that may not be appreciated fully by
some NS teachers and teachers from Singapore. Interestingly, the teachers’
attitude is similar to those of the learners in Timmis’ (2002) study. Their
Perspectives on spoken grammar

309


opinions also lend support to Kuo’s (2006) argument that NS models are
appropriate for second language pedagogy as well as appealing to language
learners. Furthermore, the teachers’ endorsement of the pedagogic
relevance of spoken grammar lends credence to Kuo’s conclusion that
a comprehensive NS model should ‘serve as a complete and convenient
starting point’ (ibid.: 220). Zhang (2004) also reported the overwhelming
preference amongst some Chinese E F L teacher trainees for an NS variety of
spoken English. In Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, elementary school E F L
teachers have expressed the hope that a proportion of their students will
eventually achieve NS proficiency (Butler 2004). In light of what non-native
speaker teachers want for their learners, there is clearly a need to re-examine
current assertions that learners need to be exposed to only selected linguistic
features of English.
In Singapore, the role of traditional NS models (for example, British spoken
English) is less prominent though not altogether unimportant. The
teachers’ discussion illustrates the tension that exists in Singaporeans’
language choice attributed to opposing orientations towards social-cultural
identity and economic capital (Alsagoff 2007). Some teachers argue that
since English in Singapore has its own linguistic features and conventions
of use, they must be careful not to impose an exonormative model that

students may reject. The presence of Singlish which has its own
grammatical features means that local students do not need British norms
when interacting in a casual style. British spoken grammar features are
nevertheless welcomed as a means of raising language awareness (‘The
information can be used to complement existing information on grammar
. . . they will also attain a more balanced perspective’.). See also Teacher S3#s
comment. Others see no harm in referring to British English norms in the
Singapore classroom (‘We do need some guiding models to follow and we
have been using British English forms as a guide to teaching English in
Singapore’.). Interestingly, when discussing foreign ES L students studying
in Singapore (for example, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Indonesian students),
the teachers recommend that spoken grammar be taught to help these
students speak more naturally.
The dilemma that Singaporean teachers face is not lost on their Chinese
colleagues during the discussion, with one of them calling on the former to
give due emphasis to traditional NS models in the classroom (‘Otherwise,
when they grow up with a good command of their English dialect (Singlish),
they will go far away from what is called ‘‘good English’’’.) This concern is
reflected in Alsagoff’s observation that for Singaporeans to be globally
relevant and economically competitive, they need English that is of
‘international currency’ which she calls ‘International Singapore English’,
a variety that is exonormatively defined, benchmarked against features of
anglo-English, and creates an image of high education attainment,
formality, and authority for its speakers (Alsagoff 2007: 35). The
Singaporean teachers’ views further illustrate issues about language
competence and language standards in E LT contexts where a new
indigenous English variety exists (Davies 2003).
On the whole, the Chinese E F L teachers welcome the idea of introducing
spoken grammar to their students. Where they and their Singaporean
310

Christine Goh


counterparts are ambivalent, it is in respect of its apparently ungrammatical
nature. Spoken grammar forms such as heads, tails, and ellipsis, for
example, are seen as deviations from established notions of ‘proper’
grammar where sentences follow typical structures, such as subject-verbobject and subject-verb-complement. Some teachers are also constrained by
a narrow interpretation of the term ‘grammar’. They find it confusing that
lexical items in the form of modal expressions (for example, ‘hopefully’,
‘perhaps’) are a part of the grammar of English. Coordination of multiple
clauses with ‘and’ as well as the use of vague language (for example, ‘sort of’,
‘kind of like’) are also perceived to be speech habits that learners should
avoid, particularly in formal interactions.
In addition to conceptual issues, practical concerns have been raised.
Assessment of oral skills in national examinations is said to value a form of
spoken output that is based on the written model. Flexible positioning of
adverbials, heads, tails, and certain modal expressions are, as one teacher
puts it, ‘big mistakes in China’. Another view is that given limited
curriculum time for English in colleges and schools, it may be better for
teachers to focus on formal written grammar, which could then serve as
a basis for producing spoken English. Some Singaporean teachers are also
concerned that teaching spoken grammar could exacerbate some students’
poor written grammar. In spite of these reservations, nearly all the teachers
agree that spoken grammar has a part to play in their students’ language
awareness development.

Conclusion

The teachers show a broad consensus of opinion that spoken grammar

knowledge is useful for raising awareness about spoken and written
language. The Chinese teachers also believe that by learning to use the
grammar of British speech, their learners will speak English more
naturally and confidently. Singapore teachers, on the other hand, are
understandably more cautious when considering British spoken
grammar norms. Although the teachers come from different sociolinguistic
landscapes, they share a common goal for their learners’ speaking
development—to speak English that is recognized as ‘good’ or ‘standard’
by speakers outside their countries. In China, and perhaps more so in
Singapore, mastery of an internationally accepted standard variety of
English is seen as a way of increasing the country’s economic and
human capital. It is clear that the teachers want a comprehensive model
of standard English for teaching spoken English, albeit for different
purposes, and British spoken grammar has a place in this scheme
of things.
The debate about the pedagogic relevance of spoken grammar by teachers is
set to continue as they become more informed about new linguistic
developments. Teacher educators can facilitate this by helping teachers and
teachers-to-be understand the grammar of speech in the same way they do
with written grammar. This can be facilitated through the use of teacher
language awareness activities in methodology classes. It is also important
that teachers’ knowledge about spoken grammar is not limited only to
recognition of its forms or categories. In addition to developing sound
conceptual knowledge about spoken grammar, teachers should also explore
ways in which the knowledge can be applied to teaching learners how to use
Perspectives on spoken grammar

311

the spoken language more effectively to express their communicative needs
and to understand what is said by people they interact with. Timmis’ (2005)
framework for teaching about spoken grammar offers insights on how
some of this can be done, but ideas that work for E LT practitioners in the UK
need to be evaluated for their relevance for teachers elsewhere. Alternative
techniques should be explored so as to address sociolinguistic concerns that
are unique to each country. As this article has shown, teachers understand
that their learners’ spoken English needs are influenced by the linguistic
and social environments in which English is learnt. Any attempts at
developing teachers’ insights into the pedagogic relevance of spoken
grammar must therefore allow teachers to examine their understanding
of it in the context of their own teaching.
Final revised version received September 2008
Notes
1 ‘British English’ is used in its broadest sense to
refer to the source of the C A NCOD E database
from which the features of spoken grammar were
derived (see Carter and McCarthy 1997).
2 These are schools where most of the students
come from non-English-speaking homes or
homes where mainly Singlish is spoken.
3 Spoken grammar of Singlish (for example, the
omission of the copular or auxiliary verb: ‘She not
nice’; ‘Why you like that?’).
References
Alsagoff, L. 2007. ‘Singlish: negotiating culture,
capital and identity’ in V. Vaish, S. Gopinathan, and
Y. Liu (eds.). Language, Capital, Culture. Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Biber, D., S. Conrad, and G. Leech. 2002. Longman

Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English.
Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Butler, Y. G. 2004. ‘What level of English proficiency
do elementary school teachers need to attain teach
EF L? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan’.
T ES O L Quarterly 38/2: 245–78.
Carter, R. 1998. ‘Orders of reality: C AN CODE,
communication, and culture’. E LT Journal 52/1:
43–64.
Carter, R. 2003. ‘The grammar of talk: spoken
English, grammar and the classroom’ in New
Perspectives on Spoken English in the Classroom.
London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Carter, R. and M. McCarthy. 1997. Exploring Spoken
English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, G. 1998. ‘The uses of reality: a reply to Ronald
Carter’. ELT Journal 52/1: 57–63.

312

Christine Goh

Davies, A. 2003. The Native Speaker: Myth and Reality.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hu, G. W. 2002. ‘Recent important developments in
secondary English language teaching in the People’s
Republic of China’. Language, Culture and
Curriculum 15/1: 30–49.
Kuo, I. C. V. 2006. ‘Addressing the issue of teaching
English as a lingua franca’. E LT Journal 60/3: 213–21.

McCarthy, M. R. and R. Carter. 2001. ‘Ten criteria for
a spoken grammar’ in E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (eds.).
New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second
Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Timmis, I. 2002. ‘Native-speaker norms and
international English: a classroom view’. E LT Journal
56/3: 240–9.
Timmis, I. 2005. ‘Towards a framework for teaching
spoken grammar’. E LT Journal 59/2: 117–25.
Zhang, L. J. 2004. ‘Awareness-raising in the T E F L
phonology classroom: student voices and
sociocultural and psychological considerations’. I T L
Review of Applied Linguistics 145/1: 219–68.
The author
Christine Goh is an Associate Professor of Applied
Linguistics at the National Institute of Education of
the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
She is interested in listening, speaking and
pronunciation development, metacognition and
second language learning, and the influence of
teacher cognition on ELT. She teaches
undergraduate and postgraduate courses on first and
second language acquisition, E LT methodology for
listening, speaking, and pronunciation and
supervises research in her areas of interest.
Email:


An investigation of two ways of

presenting vocabulary
Evagelia Papathanasiou

The use of semantic links or networks in L2 vocabulary acquisition has been
a popular subject for numerous studies. On one hand, there is a strong theoretical
background stating that presenting words in related fashion facilitates the
learning of L2 vocabulary. On the other hand, research evidence indicates that
semantically related vocabulary seems to hinder rather than ease the learning of
L2 vocabulary. The aim of the present study is to examine which manner of L2
vocabulary presentation is more helpful for L2 learners. It was conducted in E F L
classrooms with Greek E F L students. The subjects were 31 intermediate E F L
children and 32 beginner E F L adults. The two different ways of organizing new
vocabulary for presentation were tested. The article will focus on the main
conclusion that semantically related clustering impedes L2 vocabulary learning
at beginners’ level.

Introduction

In recent years, contradictory advice to teachers has been emerging from
studies into the use of semantic links or networks in classroom materials
and activities for L2 vocabulary learning. There is some experimental
evidence which suggests that learning semantically related words (for
example, body parts) at the same time makes learning more difficult
(Tinkham 1993, 1997; Waring 1997; Finkbeiner and Nicol 2003). There
is also a theoretical framework that strongly supports the idea that it is
very useful to present words of related meaning together so that learners can
see the distinctions between them and gain a complete coverage of the
defined area of meaning. The experimental evidence mainly derives
from research using artificial language and not a natural L2. The purpose
of our research was to investigate which of the two ways of vocabulary

presentation would prove to be a useful tool in L2 vocabulary learning.
The present study was influenced by principles and theories of action
research.

Theoretical versus
experimental
evidence

The arguments for presenting related lexical items together in sets are
mainly based on theoretical rather than experimental evidence. Words can
be related and grouped in various ways. This type of word grouping is called
clustering. There is linguistically based clustering (for example, words
grouped in lexical sets such as body parts or words grouped by sense
relations such as synonyms) and cognitively based clustering (for example,
thematic clustering).
E LT Journal Volume 63/4 October 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccp014

ª The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication March 5, 2009

313


There are three main arguments for the presentation of vocabulary in
semantically related sets:
1 The first argument is that the presentation of semantically related

vocabulary makes the meaning of these words clearer by seeing how they
relate to and are different from other words in the set. This is important
because, according to Channell (1981), the mind uses semantic similarity

in classifying words.
2 The second argument is that there is evidence for the usability and
effectiveness of presenting related vocabulary in classroom activities.
Jullian (2000) refers to a classroom activity which incorporates an explicit
approach towards the presentation of semantically related vocabulary.
The writer points out that this type of classroom activity helps students to
understand the full semantic content of the related words and detect what
makes them similar and different from each other.
3 The emphasis on the ability to distinguish differences between words
with related meaning is also present in E F L coursebooks. Coursebook
writers are driven to present semantically related vocabulary items mostly
because of their own perceptions of the communicative needs of their
students. As a consequence, these coursebooks are divided into various
units responding to any situation in which students might find it
necessary to communicate in the L2 (for example, visiting a doctor).
However, there is some experimental evidence against the presentation of
semantically related vocabulary in sets. Tinkham (1993, 1997) and Waring
(1997) investigated interference effects for word learning using ‘artificial’
words. The subjects listened to lists of English words paired with imaginary
words. Their task was to try to learn the word pairs in as few trials as possible.
The data collected by these researchers suggest that the presentation of new
vocabulary items to L2 learners in clusters of semantically and syntactically
similar words impedes rather than facilitates learning. This means that it
takes students more time to learn new lexical items when these lexical items
are presented in related sets rather than in unrelated sets.
Nevertheless, there are some limitations (Waring: ibid.) on the
generalizability of the results found in the above studies. There are four
main points we have to consider:
a very few words were tested;
b the artificial words that were used were strictly controlled;

c there was no clear definition of what semantic relatedness might mean;
and
d it was not made clear whether the same effects would hold for learners
who already had part of the semantic set being tested.
It is also important to mention here research by Schneider, Healy, and
Bourne (1998) that used natural L2 words rather than artificial ones and
which gave very different results. Their findings initially appeared to
suggest that learning related words together (for example, parts of the body)
was easier than learning unrelated words. However, when a test of longterm (LT) retention was administered, the researchers found that the
participants in the mixed-order acquisition condition (presented with

314

Evagelia Papathanasiou


unrelated vocabulary) were faster and made fewer errors than those in the
grouped-order acquisition condition (presented with related vocabulary).
In a more recent study, Finkbeiner and Nicol (2003) used 32 new words and
each was paired with a picture of a familiar concept. The results revealed that
participants translated L2 labels learnt in semantic sets significantly more
slowly than they did L2 labels learnt in random order.
The arguments for and against presenting new vocabulary in lexical sets
reported above suggest a need for further research. We have two contrasting
views on the presentation of vocabulary in an L2 (experimental evidence
versus theoretical framework). However, we do not have enough
convincing evidence to decide which of the two contrasting approaches
to learning vocabulary is the more useful and appropriate for L2
vocabulary teaching. The best way for us to make a decision is to apply both
approaches in E F L classrooms and compare the results.

Methodology
Overview of research

We conducted a study of alternative ways of teaching vocabulary to Greek
EFL students. This was a classroom study which employed two different
ways of organizing new vocabulary for presentation:
1 presenting semantically related words (words that share certain semantic

and syntactic similarities, for example, topic-related vocabulary, such as
‘knife’, ‘fork’, ‘spoon’, synonyms, antonyms, or homonyms) together at
the same time, and
2 presenting vocabulary in an unrelated (mixed) fashion (words that are not
semantically related, for example ‘book’, ‘hospital’, ‘freedom’).
The aim of the study was to evaluate the relative claims of the two different
procedures by using two different groups of students (Class A and Class B).
At the end of the research period, all students were tested to determine
which of the two competing methods was the more effective.

Research question

The research question was as follows: Which of the two ways of
presenting and organizing the teaching of new L2 vocabulary (specifically
related word sets or unrelated word sets) produces better retention of
those words when scored in short-term (SHT) and LT vocabulary translation
tests?

Motivation for using
Greek E FL students
in the research

Our motivation for using Greek E F L students as subjects in our study
derives from a paper by Scholfield and Gitsaki (1996). The main point is
that most Greek students seem to have relatively poor vocabulary knowledge
and tend to use a small number of words in their writing. We wanted to
examine if learning semantically related (topic-related vocabulary,
synonyms, antonyms, and homonyms) or unrelated words would help
students learn and recall more vocabulary items.

Timing and stages of
the study

The study was influenced by principles and theories of action research.
The subjects were 31 intermediate EFL children and 32 adult beginners.
Two different ways of organizing new vocabulary for presentation were
employed:

Vocabulary presentation

315


1 presenting semantically related words (topic-related vocabulary, for

example, ‘mugging’, ‘terrorism’, ‘forgery’, synonyms, antonyms, or
homonyms) together at the same time, and
2 presenting vocabulary in an unrelated fashion (for example, ‘carpenter’,
‘tornado’, ‘sage’).
SHT and LT tests were administered to the students. Since we were using

vocabulary translation tests, the knowledge of the meanings of the words in
their L1 was taken into consideration. For this reason, we provided all
subjects (both children and adults) with a list of the words (used in the study)
translated into Greek in order for them to tick the words they did not know.
This procedure ensured that the study was not affected by unknown L1
vocabulary.

Procedure

Two intermediate classes of juniors and two groups of adult beginners
participated in this study. One class at each level was labelled A and the other
B. The subjects in Class A were taught the association between 60 English
words (see Appendix 1) and their Greek equivalents with words that were
semantically related (topic-related vocabulary, homonyms, synonyms, and
antonyms) for a period of three weeks. There were two lessons per week.
Each vocabulary lesson lasted for 45 minutes and took place at the end of the
normal class that students attended every Monday and Friday. At the same
time, the subjects in Class B were taught the association between 60
English words and their Greek equivalents with words that were not related
semantically (see Appendix 2). The words were presented in a mixed
(unrelated) order. At the end of the third week, an immediate (SHT)
vocabulary test was administered to both classes. Two weeks later, the
subjects in both classes were tested on a LT vocabulary test.
For the next three weeks, Class A was taught the association between
English words and their Greek equivalents with the words grouped in
a mixed (unrelated) order. The vocabulary items were the same used for
Class B. In the meantime, Class B was taught the association between
English words and their Greek equivalents with the words grouped in
a related fashion (semantically related words). The words were the same
words used for Class A. At the end of the third week, an immediate (SHT)

vocabulary test was administered to both classes. Two weeks later, the
subjects in both classes were tested in an LT vocabulary test.
It is worth mentioning that during the presentation of new vocabulary,
attention was paid to one particular aspect of knowing a word: the form–
meaning connection. According to Nation (2001), strengthening the form–
meaning connection involves having to recall a meaning when seeing or
hearing a particular word or having to recall a spoken or written form when
wanting to express a meaning. The subjects must be able to recognize
a word and link it to its meaning by using L1 translations.

Teaching

The teaching procedure was the same for both children and adult groups.
Both groups were exposed to the same teaching material. Each lesson lasted
for 45 minutes. The teacher (myself as a practitioner) first introduced the
students to the new vocabulary and then elaborated, expanded, and
consolidated these words into classroom exercises (see Steps 1, 2, and 3 of

316

Evagelia Papathanasiou


the teaching procedure below). We followed the same teaching procedure
for both related and unrelated words.
Step 1
Duration: 10 minutes (noticing). At first, the students saw a list of ten
English words written on the board. The teacher then read aloud the words
one by one and provided their Greek translations. The students wrote the
English word on one side of a card and the meaning (using L1 translation)

on the other to encourage recall. Small cards (around 5 · 4 cm) were used so
that they could be easily carried around. The students were encouraged to
learn words, receptively, for example, to see the L2 word and recall the
meaning using L1 translation.
Step 2
Duration: 15 minutes (retrieval). Each of the students went through the set of
cards looking at each foreign word and trying to retrieve its meaning. If the
student did not remember the Greek equivalent, he or she would turn the
card over. The students repeated this process for each of the new words. The
teacher ensured that the word cards were used repeatedly by practising the
word card strategy with the whole group. The purpose of the repetitions was
simply to facilitate learning. Tinkham (1993) found that most learners
required five to seven repetitions for the learning of a group of six paired
associates. Thus, the teacher went through the set of cards with the students
at least five to six times. The students, then, were asked to give (orally) the
Greek translation for each new English word, for example, answering
questions like ‘What is the Greek for ‘‘priest’’?’. The students had to say the
Greek equivalent. The questions helped them instantiate and apply the
words.
Step 3
Duration: 20 minutes (generation). During the third phase of the teaching
process, the students were asked to do two different exercises to encourage
repetition of the new vocabulary in each lesson. The same format of
exercises was used for both Class A and Class B.

Characteristics of the
test

The way we presented the target words in a test was related to the purpose of
the assessment. The selected target words were presented in isolation

because we wanted to assess the students’ ability to supply the meaning
when given the target word. Meaning and word (written) form were the
main types of word knowledge to be tested. We used a ‘definition recall test’,
which meant that the students were given a list of English words and asked
to write the Greek equivalent (L1 translation). There were three main
characteristics of the test:
1 It was a pen and paper test taking 15–20 minutes to complete.
2 It tested receptive knowledge (passive recognition test).
3 It tested vocabulary only.

Results and
discussion

In this section, we describe and present the results from the t-test analysis of
the performance of everyone (all students together) and children and adults
(separately) on related and unrelated vocabulary, both on SH T and LT tests.
Figure 1 presents the results of the most important pairs for discussion.
Vocabulary presentation

317


[1] Everyone-re-SHT vs

No.
of words
60

Mean
21.1746

Std.
deviation
9.48435

Std. error
mean
1.19492
1.35837

t
-2.501

df
124

Sig.
(2tailed)
0.014

124

0.002

Everyone-un-SHT

2

63

60

25.6984

10.78176

[2] Everyone-re-LT vs

1

63

60

16.8095

7.97346

1.00456

-3.114

Everyone-un-LT
[3] All-Children-re-SHT vs

2
1

63
31

60
60

21.7460
18.8065

9.73515
9.96467

1.22651
1.78971

-0.620

60

0.538

2

31

60

20.4194

-1.106

60

0.273

-3.469

62

0.001

-4.032

62

0.000

All-Children-un-SHT
[6] All-Children-re-LT vs
All-Children-un-LT

figure 1
Group
statistics
for related
versus
unrelated
vocabulary

No.
of
Groups students

1
63

[9] All-Adults-re-SHT vs

10.51277

1.88815

1

31

60

14.0323

7.24101

1.30052

2

31

60

16.3871

9.39034

1.68655

1

32

60

23.4688

8.53072

1.50803

All-Adults-un-SHT

2

32

60

30.8125

8.40675

1.48612

[12] All-Adults-re-LT vs

1

32

60

19.5000

7.82469

1.38322

2

32

60

26.9375

6.90459

1.22057

All-Adults-un-LT

re=related, un=unrelated, SHT=short-term test, LT=long-term test, Group 1=related
group, Group 2=unrelated group, Mean=mean of test scores, Sig.=significance,
t=obtained value for t, df =degree of freedom

It is clear from the table above that
n adult beginners performed significantly better on the unrelated
vocabulary test than on the related vocabulary test
n children (intermediate level) showed no significant difference in test
scores between related and unrelated vocabulary.
This suggests tentatively that the presentation of unrelated vocabulary may
assist learning of new L2 words more than related vocabulary only at
beginners’ level (adults). The result above is compatible with the results of
previous research (Tinkham 1997; Waring 1997; Schneider, Healy, and
Bourne 1998; Finkbeiner and Nicol 2003) illustrating that presenting L2
students (beginners) with their new vocabulary grouped together in sets of
syntactically and semantically similar words impedes rather than facilitates
the learning of those words. It is crucial to mention that these results
reinforce the positions stated by the researchers mentioned above since they
were extracted from natural language in an E F L classroom through
a teaching procedure.
Extensive research into ‘interference theory’ (Baddeley 1990) suggests that
as similarity increases between targeted information and other information
learnt either before or after the targeted information, the difficulty of
learning and remembering the targeted information also increases
(Tinkham 1997). Similarly the ‘distinctiveness hypothesis’ (see Hunt and
Mitchell 1982), which relates ease of learning to the distinctiveness (nonsimilarity) of the information to be learnt, also validates the above argument.
It is important to point out that these results apply to beginner-level EF L
adults and not to intermediate EFL children where there is no significant
difference between related versus unrelated vocabulary test scores. Based on
the high mean scores for the adults, especially in unrelated vocabulary, we
made the following assumptions:
One probable reason for the adults achieving higher scores was motivation.
It seemed that adults were highly motivated and more conscientious

318

Evagelia Papathanasiou


learners for personal and professional reasons. Motivation has to do with the
emotional dimension of L2 learning. The main reason they joined the
English seminars was to acquire a certificate in English in order to use it
professionally and for personal interest. Children on the other hand
provided quite low scores both in related and unrelated vocabulary, possibly
due to lack of motivation.
Another possible reason for the adults’ higher scores was that adults, in
general, can master certain aspects of a foreign language even well into
adulthood. Adult L2 learners routinely achieve high levels of proficiency in
these aspects of a foreign language. Lexical and syntactical competence
becomes easier for them in contrast to phonology, which becomes very
difficult to acquire.

Conclusion

This study differs from similar ones in having been carried out in a natural
setting. The use of a natural L2 combined with the teaching procedure in
a real classroom environment makes this research generate results that
might apply to natural L2 learners. On the contrary, previous research
(Tinkham 1997; Waring 1997) was tightly controlled to benefit the
researcher, not the learner, as Waring (ibid: 271) points out.
This research complements previous studies and suggests the need for
some re-evaluation of current pedagogical practice. The results of this study
may come as a surprise to many current writers of ESL coursebooks who
rely heavily upon the employment of semantic clusters in their presentation

of new vocabulary. They may want to explore the possibility of simplifying
L2 vocabulary learning by incorporating a semantically unrelated form of
presentation (at least at beginner level).
An intermediate (or more advanced) learner would probably already
know many words from the semantic groups, and when presented
with new words may only need to add new words to an existing store,
rather than create a new one from scratch. It may therefore be that
activities grouping words with related meaning are best used at
a secondary stage when the words can be recognized, some
meanings have been acquired, and learners have reached a point
where they will benefit from further opportunity to make
connections and distinctions (Hedge 2000: 122–3). For initial
presentation, we can present unrelated vocabulary and later at a more
advanced level present semantically related vocabulary. We should
present related vocabulary in a way that does not create an environment
for interference effects.
Even though the present study was conducted in Greece, it offers useful
findings for L2 learners and practitioners worldwide. E F L teachers in
different countries could use the results of this research in order to assist
their students with L2 vocabulary learning. The present study sets a positive
framework for international EFL practitioners.

Future research

The present study can also be considered as a useful starting point for
similar research or replication in order to see if the findings apply in other
contexts as well. Further research with intermediate and more advanced
students seems to be necessary in order to clarify whether related vocabulary
Vocabulary presentation

319


plays a prominent role in L2 learning at this level. It probably made no
difference with our intermediate subjects because they were not motivated
enough.
Another aspect that might require further research is the teaching and
testing procedure. We need to consider whether we would obtain the
same results if both teaching and testing methods were different.
Keeping in mind that the present study used only nouns to examine the
influence of vocabulary presentation, it would be interesting to observe
the results if we taught and tested verbs, adjectives, and other parts of
speech.
In addition, the productive dimension of L2 vocabulary learning in relation
to the manner of vocabulary presentation could also be examined. The
present testing focused on the receptive use (seeing the L2 word and having
to provide the L1 translation) of the words. Another study could test if the
effect also occurred productively (subjects to be given the L1 word and to
produce the L2 word).
It is hoped that the present article has offered some evidence of how the
manner of organizing words for presentation may be important for learning
new L2 vocabulary.
Final revised version received December 2008
References
Baddeley, A. 1990. Human Memory. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Channell, J. 1981. ‘Applying semantic theory to
vocabulary teaching’. ELT Journal 35/2: 115–22.
Finkbeiner, M. and J. Nicol. 2003. ‘Semantic category
effects in second language word learning’. Applied

Psycholinguistics 24/3: 369–83.
Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and Learning in the
Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hunt, R. R. and D. B. Mitchell. 1982. ‘Independent
effects of semantic and nonsemantic
distinctiveness’. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition 8/1: 81–7.
Jullian, P. 2000. ‘Creating word-meaning
awareness’. E LT Journal 54/1: 37–46.
Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, V. I., A. F. Healy, and L. E. Bourne. 1998.
‘Contextual interference effects in foreign language
vocabulary acquisition and retention’ in A. F. Healy
and L. E. Bourne (eds.). Foreign Language Learning:
Psycholinguistic Studies on Training and Retention.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scholfield, P. J. and C. Gitsaki. 1996. ‘What is the
advantage of private instruction? The example of

320

Evagelia Papathanasiou

English vocabulary learning in Greece’. System 24/1:
117–27.
Tinkham, T. 1993. ‘The effect of semantic clustering
on the learning of second language vocabulary’.
System 21/3: 371–80.

Tinkham, T. 1997. ‘The effects of semantic and
thematic clustering on the learning of second
language vocabulary’. Second Language Research 13/2:
138–63.
Waring, R. 1997. ‘The negative effects of learning
words in semantic sets: a replication’. System 25/2:
261–74.
The author
Evagelia Papathanasiou has a PhD in L2 vocabulary
acquisition and she is an instructor in EA P in the
English Language Support Unit at City College,
Thessaloniki, Greece, affiliated institution of The
University of Sheffield, England, UK (the results of
this article are part of her research at this university).
Her current main interests are L2 vocabulary
acquisition, the effects of the Common European
Framework in the language learning community,
and students’ attributional beliefs in language
learning.
Email:


Appendix 1
Semantically related
nouns

Appendix 2
Semantically
unrelated nouns

Group 1: ‘Crime’

Group 2: ‘Nature’

Group 3: ‘Food’

Topic related

Topic related

Topic related

Smuggling

Cape

Lamb

Terrorism

Peninsula

Herring

Forgery

Cove

Veal

Mugging

Tributary

Ham

Trial

Valley

Cod

Proof

Gorge

Trout

Jury

Stream

Prawn

Verdict

Estuary

Shrimp

Witness

Ridge

Squid

Bribery

Summit

Lobster

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

Homonyms

Synonyms

Antonyms

Pane

Torment

Ebb

Pain

Torture

Flow

Steak

Jab

Gloom

Stake

Punch

Glee

Toe

Spat

Certitude

Tow

Quarrel

Doubt

Colonel

Gleam

Loyalty

Kernel

Twinkle

Treason

Council

Boredom

Poverty

Counsel

Tedium

Prosperity

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Invasion

Tube

Rein

Mortgage

Tornado

Loan

Menace

Sage

Flare

Controversy

Carpenter

Bane

Custom

Pigeon

Fur

Soul

Bruise

Plea

Mussel

Waist

Blister

Tailor

Sensor

Signet

Vocabulary presentation

321


322

Excess

Dough

Landing

Evidence

Willow

Scent

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

Peril

Bud

Rash

Query

Plumber

Tool

Hoax

Jug

Jest

Raid

Whisker

Quest

Bias

Porch

Jeopardy

Hatred

Leek

Scent

Mane

Peel

Account

Pollen

Creek

Disdain

Famine

Hail

Prejudice

Assent

Tee

Animosity

Evagelia Papathanasiou