Ease and Difficulty in Vocabulary

Learning: Some Teaching Implications

Batia Laufer
University of Haifa

ABSTRACT Thispaper discussm the mlation- specflcity; negative value; connotations non-
ship between ease/d@.Pcultyin learning par- existentinLl;diff- in theprugmaticmean-
ticular words andsomeissuesin the teaching of ing of near synonyms and of LI tmnslation
vocabulav. equivalents;the learning burden of synonyv
Some factors that interfere with learning a the appamnt rulelmnm of collocations.
word am claimed to be thefollowing:similarity It is argued that word learnability (ease/dif-
ofform between the wornlandotherwords (em- ficulty in learning a particular woni) can serve
bruce/embarmss, price/prize); morphological as a guideline to thefollowing the selection of
similarity between it and other words (in- words to be taught; theirpmntation (quantity,
dustrial/industrious, mpectable/tespective); grouping language of presentatiorr, isolation/
deceptive morphological structum (irlfallible); context issue); the facilitation of long-term
different syntacticpatterning in LI; diffemnces memorization (meaningful tasks, mnemonic
in the class~cationof experience between LI techniques, rote learning reactivation); the
and L2 (one-to-many correspondence,partial developmentof stmtegiesfor @-learning and
overlap in meaning metaphorical&ensio% lex- the assessment of vocabulav knowledge.
ical voids,multiplici@of meaning);abstmctnesg

Introduction about word learnability to several decisions a

The issue of ease and difficulty in vocabulary teacher may need tomake regarding vocabulary
learning (leamability), interesting as it maybe in teaching. Spkcifidy, it will be shown how the
its own right, is also of importance to the knowledge of what makes words easy or difficult
languageteacher, who has to make various deci- may affect the selection of words to be taught,
sions about ways of enriching learners' their presentation, some ways in which long-
vocabularies. As in the case of grammar, where term memorization can be facilitated, the
differentteaching techniques are applied to dif- development of strategies for self-leaming and
ferent grammatical structures, depending, the assessmentof vocabulary knowledgc First,
among other things, on whether the structurein the notions of word knowledge(what is involved
question is difficult or easy for a particular in knowing a word) and word learnability (the
group of learners, so in vocabulary teaching,the factors which may interfere with each compo-
learnabilityof a word or word group may deter- nent of word learning)will be presented. Then,
mine our approach to teaching it. the application of word learnability to teaching
This paper will relate some research findings will be discussed.

Batia LaMer (ph. D., UnimSity of Edinburgh) is Senior Word Knowledgeand Word Learnabfity
Lecturerof English Languageand Linguistics at University Since a word is a complex of features
of Haifa, Israel. (phonological, orthographic, morphological,

Foreign LanguageAnna& 23, No.2,1990 147

148 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -APRIL 1990

syntactic, semantic) and since a word is related ble/comprehensive.’ A learner who is familiar
to other words in a language, the knowledge of with only one meaning of, for example, ‘in-
a word would imply familiarity with the above dustry’ may interpret ‘industrious’ as ‘in-
features and with the lexical relations of the dustrial.’ Moreover, even if the learner has come
word. Byway of summary,the followingcan be across the two adjectives,the similarityof struc-
regarded as components of word knowledge, ture may make it hard to remember which is
both passive and active. (See also Richards, 18 which. Additional examples of similar errors
and Nation, 16). (both in production and comprehension)an:the
(a) Form recognizing the spoken and the confusions of ‘sensible/sensitive/sensual,’ ‘ex-
written form; being ableto pronounceand spell haustedkhaustive,’ and respectable/respectiw!
the word correctly. (For a detailed discussionof confusionsof words
(b) Word structure: recognizing the basic free of similar forms, phonological and mor-
morpheme and the bound morphemes; being phological, see Laufer, 7.)
able to produce some derivationsof the word. The use of morphology, helpful as it may
(c)Syntacticpattern in a phrasehentence. often be, will nevertheless lead to falseinterpreta-
(dweaning: referential, affective(the C O M O ~ ~ - tion when words look as if they were analyzable,
tion of the word), pragmatic (the suitabilityof but in fact are not, e.g., illfallible = in + fall +
the word in a particular situation). ible, outgrow = grow outside. In production,
(e)Lacicaltdationsof the word with other wds, too, formingwords by adding up familiar mor-
such as synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy. phemes will not always result in a correct word.
(f)Common collocations. Thus one does not normally ‘overthrow’ a ball
The rest of this sectionwill survey various fac- since ‘over’ here does not mean ‘on the top/
tors that can affect word learnabilityor the ease across’ as in ‘overfly’; nor can one watch an ‘ante-
or difficulty with which a word is learnt. The view’ on the TV even though ‘ante’ is synony-
focus will be on factors that contribute to dif- mous with ‘pre’ in ‘prenatal’ and ‘antenatal.‘
ficultyin the acquisition of each component of
word knowledge. (For a detailed discussion and Syntacticbehavior
research survey see Laufer, 9 and 10.) Learningthe syntacticbehavior of a word may
be difficult when it differs from the syntacticpat-
Form tern of an equivalent word in L1.The following
Words with phonemes nonexistentin L1 may examples of errors illustrate the difficulty:
be difficult to perceivecorrectly; in production, (1) *depend in, *enjoy from: These result from
they are often mispronounced or avoided the use of Hebrew preposition equivalents with
altogetherby learners who are overconsciousof English prepositionalverbs, or with verbs which
their pronunciation errors. do not take any preposition;
Also similarityof form, spoken and/or writ- (2)*advices, *furnitures:These are the result of
ten, between words may result in confusion of the Hebrew translation equivalentsbeing count-
the two words, in comprehensionand in produc- able nouns;
tion. For example, ‘available’ is often misinter- (3) sky/life/water + verb in plural (*the water
preted as ‘valuable,’ ‘embrace’ as ‘embarrass,’ are): This results from transferringthe syntactic
‘simulate’ as ‘stimulatd In production, the con- characteristicof plural from Hebrew (the above
fusion of pairs like ‘thinking/sinking,’ ‘price/ words are plural only in Hebrew).
prize,’ ‘cute/acute’ may convey a message False analogy with other L2 forms can also
altogether different from the intended one. lead to errorsin the words’ syntacticbehavior as
in: “reply aletter (cf. answer a letter),’’ “finished
word structun to work (cf. wanted to work).’’ Clearly, the errors
Many pairs or groups of words have an iden- mentioned in this section are in production on-
tical root (often polysemous) but different af- ly, since in reading or listeningthe correct struc-
fm and different meanings, eg., ‘comprehensi- ture will appear.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -APRIL 1990 149

Meaning Hebrew and the Hebrew-speaking learner must

Most of the problems in vocabulary learning acquire not only a new word but a new concept
pertain to the acquisition of meaning. Problems with it.
with mastering the referential meaning occur As in the case of referential meaning, special
when the semanticareascovered by a word in L2 difficultymay arise when one word in L1 can be
and its near equivalent in L1 do not overlap. One representedby several words in L2, each one with
word in L1 may cover the areas referred to by a different connotation. When the affective
several words inL2, e.g., “esteem,” “estimate,” distinction is not made in L1,learners may not
“evaluate,” “appreciate” = khaarich (Hebrew). feel the need to make it in L2 either. Thus, they
Or, the meaning of a word in L2 may only par- may refer to a thin person as either “skinny” or
tially overlap with the meaning in L1, while one “slim,” to a woman as either “womanish” or
of the words (in L1 and L2) has additionalmean- “womanly,” unaware of the differences in
ing, e.g., “play” = lesachek, lenagen (Hebrew) message conveyed by the different words. (For a
but “lesacheck”is also “act,” and “act” is also detailed discussion of such difficulties, see
letfled. In the first instance,one-to-many cor- Dagut (21.1
respondence,the learner has to choose the cor- As for pragmatic meaning of a word, dif-
rect semanticgrid from a distinctionnonexistent ficultiesmay often arise under two conditions:
in the L1; hence errors like “I can’t appreciatea (a) The learner is not aware of the stylistic dif-
cruel person.”* In the case of partial overlap in ferencesbetween synonymsand overuses one of
meaning, an additional difficulty may occur in them. For example, overuse of “approximately”
comprehension,cg., “He is a good player” may instead of “about,” “around,” “more or less”
be mistaken for “He is a good actor.” may result in utterances which areunnecessarily
Multiplicity of meaning non-existent in L1 formal, such as “There are appdmately twenty
may result in the learner’s reluctanceto accept a kids here.” (b) The learner may carry over L1
meaning additionalto the already familiar one. conventionsinto L2. For example, in responseto
Some of my own students failed to realize that a mistake, the apession “you’re wrong” sounds
the familiar meanings of since = “from the time blunt and impolitein English, but not in Hebrew.
when,” while = “when,” abstmct = “opposite
of concrete,” did not make sense in text context Lexical relations.synonymy
where they meant “because,” “in spite of the fact The l e d relationof synonymy may be prob-
that,” and “summary,” respectively. In produc- lematicwhen words are synonymousin one con-
tion, they would prefer to use “because,” “in text but not in another. Learners, in their at-
spite of the fact that,” and “summary,” rather tempts to simplify the learning task, may learn
than the polysemic words. Since each of the one synonym and overuse it in the wrong con-
meanings of “since,” “while,” “abstract,” has text; or, having learned both of them, they may
a different Hebrew equivalent,the polysemy of not remember which synonym is used in which
these words is what Levenston (12) calls contat. For example, “strong” and “poweIM”
‘unreasonable.’ are synonymousin the case of an argument;but
Metaphors and idioms non-existent in L1 are tea is only “strong,” an engine is only “power-
often difficult to interpret because of their ful,” and a strongman is not a “powerful” man.
opaqueness of meaning. However, even when
learners are familiar with the metaphor/idiom, Collocations
they often avoid using it, settling instead for a Collocations in general (not only of synony-
non-metaphorical/idiomatic equivalent, e.g., mous words) may present a problemwhen the L1
‘postpone’ for ‘put meaning equivalent uses differentcollocations.
Lack of comprehensionand avoidancein pro- These combinations of words are most often
duction have also been observed in the case of transparent in comprehension, but when they
lexical voids. Thus, words like “cozy,” “quaint,” have to be used, errors occur. Hebrew- speaking
“lap” cannot be adequately translated into learners tend to say “bring examples,” “high
150 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -APRIL 1990

education,” “stand in front of a problem,” simp- whether difficult words can be simply ‘picked
ly translatingtheir Ll collocations.The teacher up’ and used correctly. For example, Hebrew-
can hardly explain such errors by reference to speakinglearnersmay understand “estimate” in
rules, and dictionariesdo not necessarily provide the sentence “The insmince agent estimatedthe
all the collocations in their examples of the fire damage” But, should they decide to use it in
word’s use. speechor writing, they are likely to extend its use
to include “esteem,’’ “appmiak,“ or “&uate,”
Summary as all four words are representedby one word in
In this section (word knowledge and word Hebrew (lehaarich) (Dagut, 3). The meaning of
learnability), components of word knowledge “affect,” even if worked out correctlyin context,
were listed and factors interfering with their ac- is likelyto be confused with the similarlysound-
quisition were briefly reviewed. The knowledge ing “effect,” without subsequent practice.
of a word was taken to be the knowledge of its If the teacher is accustomed to relying on
form, structure, syntactic behavior, meaning students’incidental vocabulary learning, it may
(referential,affective,pragmatic), and its relation be realistic to incorporateexplicit teaching and
with other words. The factorsthat interferewith constant reinforcement for difficult words.
learning a word were claimed to be the following:
difficult pronounceability; similarity of form 2) Criteria for selection
between the word and other words; similarityof The principles which are frequently used by
morphologybetween the word and other words; textbook writers in the selection of vocabulary
deceptive morphological structure; different for teaching are the following:
syntacticpatterningin L1; differencesin lexical (1) frequency, which rests on the assumptionthat
griddingbetween L1 and L2 (one-to-many cor- the most frequentwords are also the most useful;
respondence, partial overlap in meaning); (2) availability, which claims that words used by
multiplicityof meaning and metaphors/idioms ahighpropoxtionof native speakersin particular
nonsristent in L1; lexical voids; connotations situations are the most useful for foreign
nonsristent in L1; differencesin the pragmatic learners;
meaning of near synonyms and of L1 translation (3) werage!, which claims that words of general
equivalents; partial synonymy; and apparent meaning which can be used in many situations
rulelessness of collocation. (eg., go, put, get old, young)are the most useful;
The next sectionwill discuss the teaching im- (4) range, which assumes that words distributed
plications of each of the above difficulties in evenly in many registers are the most useful for
vocabulary learning. general purposes. Thus, ‘usefulness’ appears to
be the overriding criterion in deciding which
Teaching Implications words should be learned.
Selection In addition to usefulness, learnability could
1) Incidental learning vs. explicit teaching also be taken into account in the selection of
The lexicon of the learner can be enriched in words. When words are easy to learn they should
two ways: through the addition of words which be taught even if, on the basis of the frequen-
have been explicitly taught and subsequently cy/range principles, they would not be con-
practiced in the classroom; or by ‘picking up’ sidered useful. Cognates, words related struc-
words incidentally, through mere exposure to turallyto already familiarwords, and words with
listening and reading material. In the first exact L1 equivalents all may require little learn-
language, a significant proportion of all the ing effort and at the sametime increasethe com-
words learned is not explicitlytaught in school, municative ability of the learner considerably.
but is, rather, learned from context in reading Since the content of human communication is
(Nagy and Anderson, 13; Nagy et al., 14). It is very often unpredictable, the learner may want
questionable, however, if the same is true for to resort to words that may not be considered
second language learners, and particularly useful by the syllabus designer, Le., words other
FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A L S -APRIL 1990 151

than the most frequent, or those with widest already familiar forms and meanings. There is
range, coverage and availability.Any increasein no feason why these featuresshould not be taken
the number of words learners possess will be advantageof to enrich the learner’s vocabulary
beneficial in both comprehension and with more than 12words per lesson if possible.
production. 2) Grouping words
Some of the difficult words should be in- It is common practice at present to group
troduced fairly early as well, even if they do not words by meaning relationship in the course of
happen to rate very high on a frequency list, in teaching so as to illustrate the organized nature
order to prevent or reduce the chance of error. of vocabulary. Words that are presented can be
For example, if the word “comfortable”is taught related by subject matter (e.g., ‘looking for a
to Hebrew-speakinglearners, it may be wise to place to live,’ ‘human rights’); by similarity of
introduce convenient^' fairly soon thereafter meaning features (eg., pretty, beautiful, hand-
that so that the mistaken use of “comfortable” some, lovely, attractive); by lexical relations:
for “convenient” can be prevented (both words synonyms(shallow, superficial), antonyms(cry,
are translated by one word in Hebrew -noah). laugh), superordinateand cohyponyms (vehicle,
After “while” in the sense of “when” has been car,train). As mentioned in Nation (la, new
learned, it is desirable to introduce the other itemsarebetterretained if unrelatedinmeaning
meaning of “while” (although) even if the while new words sharing featum of meaningare
learner knows the word “although” and likelytobeconfused.Thelefore,groupingwords
therefore can express or understand the notion into larical sets would be more efficientif the set
of contrast in English. This may be desirable contained already known words to which are
because learners tend to assign familiar mean- added only a few new ones related in meaning.
ings to words even when these meanings do not A whole set of new words similar toone another,
make sensein context (Laufer and Bensoussan, as in “feminine,” “effeminate,” “womanly,”
11). Therefore, familiarizing the learner with “womanish,” on the other hand, is likely to
both meaningsof polysemedhomonymsmight result in confusion.
prevent future errors of interpretation. A similar principle of grouping will operate
with words similar in form since, as mentioned
Presentation earlier, form similarity may interfere with suc-
1) The number of words per lesson cessfullearning. Thus,it would be less effective
One question that teachers often ask to introduce “cancel,” “conceal,” “council”
themselves is how many new items shouldbe in- together than to introduceeach one separately,
troduced in one lesson (a 60minute period, for practicingthedistinctionbetweenthemat alam
example). Gairns and Redman (5) suggest aim- occasion.
ing for 8-12productiveitems but point out that 3) Language of presentation
they may not be retained. In his survey article on vocabulary learning,
The number of words that can be taught in a Nation (15) provides research evidence which
lesson depends on the type of words presented, states that, at least with the non-advanced
that is, onthe amount of learningeffort required learners, translation of the new words, or
in mastering the new words. Easy words can be translationin additionto explanationin L2,is a
introduced in much larger numbers than the better method of presenting the words than is
more difficult ones.* Words such as cognates, explanation in L2 through synonyms, or
derivatives of known words, metaphoricalarten- definitions.
sions related to familiar literal meanings (e.g., However, in the case of words whose seman-
‘headof department,’ ‘footof a mountain’), and tic areas do not averlapwith L1,mexe translation
concreteitems which are easilyillustrated,all will will not sufficebecause part of the meaning will
require less time for explanation and practice not be captured. Some componential analysis
than the difficult words. They will also require may be helpful in this case. For example, to ex-
less effort in memorization, as they are related to plain the difference between “order,” “invite,”
152 FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -APRIL 1990

“book” to the Hebrew speaker, who has only polysemous in Hebrew). If learners are made
one word in Hebrew for the three words in aware of this tendency to assign the familiar
English, the distinction could be made as meaning to a word even if it makes no sense in a
follows: “invite” (+ person), “book” (+ particular context, their caution may reduce
place), “order” (+ things). As for lexicalvoids, f u t w error. There is no empiricalresearch which
it is only obvious that no translation can be confirmsthis assumption. ’Ikaching experience,
found and the conceptitself has to be explained. however, suggests that such awarenessis indeed
lhnslation alone is also insufficient when a helpful. Context is also helpful in clarifying the
word is polysemous in L1 but not in L2. The connotationof a word where translation failsto
danger there is that one of the meaning do so. Thus, since the difference between
6f g-ef 9 and 6 S
W-h9 9 can-
equivalents in L2 may be extended to cover the 4 e G 99 6

other meaning represented by the same word in not be captured by the Hebrew translation ( m h i
L1. For example, in Hebrew lachfof means for all the threewords), contextis one of the ways
“overlap” and “wash one’s own hair.” A student of doing so. As for lexical voids, there can be no
who was taught that “overlap” is lacwof pro- escape from providinga suitablecontext for the
duced “I overlapped my hair,” as he assumed new concept that does not exist in L1.
that “overlap” is polysemous in English in the
same way its Hebrew equivalent is. Facilitating Memorization
Thus, translationis indeed a useful method of 1) Word organization exercises
presenting new words whenever one or several A well developed lexicon of the native speaker
translationequivalentsindeed exist. The teacher or advanced foreign learner is claimed to be
should, however, be aware of the various in- organized semantically(Hatch, 6). It is possible
congruenciesin lexicalgriddingbetween L1 and that conscious organization of words on the
L2 in order to supplement the translation basis of meaningful links will reinforce the
whenever necessary. semantic network of the learner’s lexicon. In
4) Words in lists and words in context such an exercise, the learner is required to takea
Most teachers today consider it only natural group of already familiar words (either from a
to present new words in context since they believe given list, or from his memory) and organize
that context is helpful in providingthe full range them as required by the teacher, e.g., ‘people
of meaning and also that words studied in con- engaged in the teaching profession’ category will
text are better retained. Indeed, this is how new include: teacher, professor, tutor, lecturer, in-
vocabulary is presented in many textbooks. structor, master. The same words could then be
Research, however, shows that words studied in arranged on the basis of social prestige and/or in
isolation are retained quite well, in large quan- the order of importance for one’s education.
tities and over a long period of time (For a review The activity described above is useful for all
of research, see Nation, 15.) types of words. However, as language teachers
Information about the learnability of words can devote only a limited amount of time to
could serve as a guideline in deciding which vocabulary in the framework of a language
words are best taught in context and which can course, I would suggest that such activities be
be presented in isolation. Words similar in form reserved for difficult words. One of the cases
to other words can be confused even in context where such practice could be helpful is sets of
(e.g., industrial/industrious, affect/effect). words which dividethe semanticarea in question
Therefore, presenting them in context and hav- differently in L1 and in L2, e.g., the category
ing learners err may prove a useful learning ac- ‘strangeand peculiar’ which includes ‘strange,’
tivity as the learners will realize that these words ‘odd,’ ‘peculiar,’‘queer,’ ‘funny,’ ‘curious,’ ‘fishy,’
are potential troublemakersand deserve special and ‘quaint’. In Hebrew, ‘quaint’ is a void and
attention. The same is true in the case of words the other words can all be translated by two
with multiple meanings in L2 and not in L1 (eg., words only (rnuzar,meshune). Another useful
“sincq” “while,” “abstract,” which are not exercise is a treediagram which categorizeslimbs
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -APRIL 1990 153

into “arms,” “hands,” “feet,” and “legs,” since side by side for the learner to choose from;
the Hebrew-speakinglearner has one expression “slim,” “skinny” and “thin,” “comfortable”
for “hand” and “arm”and one for “foot” and and “convenient.” The first pair is likely to be
“leg.” Another useful organization exercise confused because of the similarityin form; the
could be grouping some phrasal verbs with the second group and the third pair because of the
same particle where the particle has the same differentclassificationof the semantic fields in
semantic function. For example, “up” can in- question in Hebrew. In an exe&e where the
dicate growing intensity; thus “speed up,” learner is asked to provide the meaning of the
“cheer up,” “speak up,” and “brighten up” underlined words, the words practiced should
could be practicedtogetheq likewise, “clear off,” often be polysemes, homonyms, idioms, words
“sleep off,” ‘‘Wipeoff,” ‘‘Wear off,” “cross off,” with deceptiwmorphology,etc In an arerciSeon
in which “off” expresses disappearance. collocations,the learner may be asked to choose
2)Mnemonic Tkchniques between the correct and incorrect collocation
One way of committinga word to memory is which is the L1 equivalent, e.g., ‘30percent of
to try to link it to another word (usually in L1) high school graduates want high/higher
which resembles the new one in form, meaning, education.’
or both. For example, the wordpinfu in Indone-
sian (meaning “door”) can be remembered by Developing Strategies for Self-huning
linking it to the English word “into.” (For a 1) Guessingin context
review of research see Cohen, 1.) The supporters As vocabulary is an open set and not a closed
of the mnemonic method have argued that system with a limited number of rules, learning
enrichment by associations will lead to better all the words is an impossible task. Moreover,
retention. Even though results of research are en- some low frequency and low range words may
couraging, it seems that one group of words is not deserve much learning effort, as the chance
not amenableto this technique. This group con- of encounteringthem is small. Therefore, an im-
sists of words similar in form to other words. The portant skill for the learner’s futurecomprehen-
similarity may be in sound, script or mor- siontasksisguessingunknownwrdsincontext.
phology. The key word the learner will select to The following clues can be helpful in guessing:
linkto the new word in L2 may also resemble the (a) clues in the word itself, such as morphology
other L2 word which is similarin form, e.g., the or resemblanceto words in familiarlanguages;
Hebrew h ~could z be linked to “embarrass” or (b) clues in the word’s immediatecontext: what
to “embrace”; morah - to “moral” or part of spekh it is in the sentence,what words
“morale”. In such cases, the key word in L1 may it collocates with, whether the sentence con-
contributeto confusing the two L2 words rather tains a descriptionor a definition of the word;
than facilitate their acquisition. (c) clues in wider context: the general meaning
3) Reactivation of the paragraph, the relationshipbetween the
Whatever techniqueis used in the presentation clausehentencewith the unknown word and
of a word and its subsequent memorization, the the other sentencesin the paragraph, such as
learner’s memory has to be reactivated from cause and effect, contrast, inclusion,etc., and
time to time. That is why recurrent practice of also other words which, though remote from
words is of utmost importance with all types of the unknown word, may nevertheless, be its
words, but especiallythe difficult ones which are synonyms or paraphrase;
prone to error and avoidance. (d) extratextual knowledge, i.e., topic
In the course of reactivating words, it may be familiarity.
useful to put, side by side, words that are likely Work on deceptively transparent words
to be confused, as such an activity may heighten (Laufer, 8) showsthat in the case of polysemes/
the learner’s awareness of potential emrs. Thus, homonyms, idioms, synforms(words of similar
in an exercise where the correct word is to be in- form) and false cognates,learnerstend to ignore
serted, “conceal” and “cancel” could be put the context, immediate and wider, and rely on
154 FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A L S -APRIL 1990

their perceived knowledge of the word itself. For should be grouped with already familiar ones
example, wallible was mistakenlYinterpretedaS and that the presentationof difficult words will
“somethingthat cannot fall”; since as ‘‘from the be beneficialif both translation and explanation
time when,” even though in context it meant of the words in context are used. As far as
‘‘becausc” memorization is concerned, organization ac-
Knowing the problematicityof the deceptively tivitiesand frequent reactivationwere suggested
transparent words, teachers may warn learners as possible aids for difficult words, while
not to rely on word morphology too much and mnemonic techniques were questioned in the
not to draw conclusions about the sentence case of words of similar form to other words in
meaning on the basis of the sum of meanings of L2. With regard to self-learning, awareness of
the individualwords, as some of these words are ‘pseudofamiliar’ words and more frequent use
‘pseudofamiliar,’that is, they look familiar, but of dictionarieswere claimedto be necessary. Ex-
in fact are not. Learners should be taught not to perienced pedagogues know that difficult learn-
resort to this strategy without checking the ing material may require a special teaching ap-
meaning against wider context. proach. Vocabulary learning is no exception.
2) Dictionary use
NUl-E!S
The problem of ‘pseudofamiliar’words sug-
As most research fmdings quotedin the paper and
gests that dictionaries,both bilingual and mono- my own teaching experience pertain to adults, the
lingual,should be used more widely thanis often recommendationsmadeinthepaperarevalidprimari-
advocated. If a word looks familiar but the ly for adult learners. Teachersmay find,however, that
sentencein which it is found or its wider context some of them can also be implemented with younger
makes strange sense, or no sense at all, the lealllerS.
learner should be encouraged to consult a 2 For a detailed discussionof incongruenciesin la-

dictionary. ical ‘gridding’see Dagut (3).

In writing, instead of merely underlining the A detailed study of avoidance of phrasal verbs
i n c o w use of difficult words, the teacher could pagut and Laufer, 4) is a case in point.
requk the learnerto look up each of themin the It also depends on learner-variables.Inthis paper,
however,we are concerned only with the relationship
dictionaryandpracticetheiruse. Suchconsistent
between word variables and teaching.
use of the dictionary is likely to develop in the
learner an awareness of the pitfalls that words REFERENCES
may conceal. 1. Cohen, Andrew D.“The Use of krbal and Im-
agery Mnemonics in Second Language
Summary Vocabulary Learning.” Studies in Second
This section (teaching implications)has dealt Lunguage Acquisition 9 (1987): 43-62.
2. Dagut, Menachem B. Hebm-English lhnsla-
with the relationship between word learnability tion. Haifa University Press, 1974.
and some teachingactivities. It was demonstrated 3. .“Incongruenciesin Lexical‘Grid-
that knowing which words are easy/difficult to ding’ -An Applicationof Contrastive Seman-
learn should affect our selectionof vocabulary, tic Analysis to Language Raching.” Interna-
our presentation of it, our facilitating of the tional Review of Applied LinguMa 15 (1977):
learners’ memorization of words, and the 221-29.
development of learned self-learningstrategies. 4. and Batia Laufer. “Avoidance of
It was suggested that easy words should be Phrasal Verbs - A Case for Contrastive
taught early even if they are not frequent; Analysis.” SSLA 7 (1985): 73-79.
that some difficult error-prone words should 5. Gairns, Ruth and Stuart Redman. Workingwith
also be introduced quite early. In presentation, Won&?.CLTP, 1986.
6. Hatch, Evelyn M. Psycholingu&tiwA Second
the number of words to be taught at one lesson Lunguagekspective Newbury How: Rowley,
was claimed to depend on the number of easy MA, 1983.
and difficult words in the lesson; in grouping 7. Laufer, Batia. “Vocabulary Acquisition in a
words, it was suggested that difficult words Second Language: The Hypothesis of
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS -APRIL 1990 155

‘Spforms’ (Similar Lexical Forms).” Ph.D. Acquisition: Issues and Problems.” In-
Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1985. terlanguage StudiesBulletin 4 (1978): 147-60.
8. . “A Factor of Difficulty in 13. Nagy, William E. and Richard C. Anderson.
Vocabulary Learning:DeceptiveaanSparencY:’ “How Many Words areThere in Printed School
in Paul Nation and Ron Carter, eds., AILA W h ? ” Raading Raaaarch Qwzkrb 19 (1984):
Review 6. VbcabularyAcqukitioj.ition. Free Univer- 304-30.
sity Press, 1989. 14. ,Patricia A. Herman, and Richard
9. .“WOKISYOUKnow: HOWthey Af- C. Anderson. “Learning Words from Context.”
fect the Words you Learn,” in Jacek Fisiak, ed., Reading Research Quarterb20 (1985): 233-53.
Further Insights into Contrastive Linguistics. 15. Nation, Paul I.S. “Beginning to Learn Foreign
Benjamins, forthcoming. Vocabulary: A Review of the Research!’ REU:
10. . “Why are Some Words More Dif- Journal 13/1(1982): 14-36.
ficult than Others?Some Intraladcal Fgctorsthat 16. .
ZkachingandLmming W b u h y
Affect the Learning of Words.” International Victona University of Wellington, 1988.
Review of Applied Linguistics, forthcoming 17. Read, John and Paul I.S. Nation. “Some Issues
1990. in the %sting of Vocabulary Knowledge” Paper
11. and Marsha Bensoussan. “Mean- presented at the ACROLT conference (LT + 25).
ing is in the Eye of the Beholder.” English Jerusalem, 1986.
Daching Forum 2,2 (1982): 10-13. 18. Richards, Jack C. “The Role of Vocabulary
12. Levenston, Edward A. “Second Language ‘hching.” TESOL Quarterb 10 (1976): 77-89.

The Concordia Language Villages invite support personnel: waterfront, managers,

you to consider a staff position in one of business managers. nurses. food service
ten nationally recognized summer personnel and maintenance staff.
programs. The experience-based Deadline: Positions for French, German,
residential sessions take place at lakeside Norwegian+Japane% and Swedish i
will be filled by April 15, 1990. Positions for :
facilities throughout central and northern Russian, and Finnish be :
Minnesota. filled by June 15. .
Immersion experience: More than 4,800
young people take part in one-, two-, four-
and six-week programs in Chinese, Danish,
Finnish, French, German, Japanese,
Norwegian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish.
They learn languages while experiencing the
culture, historic and modern holidays, music,
foods and customs of their nations. A full year CONCoRDIA
of high school credit is offered by the four- LANGUAGE
aad SiX-WMk pt~gram~. VILLAGES
staff opportunities For more infornrption: Write the Concordia
Credit teachers: Certified instructors teach Language Villages, 901 S.Eighth St.,
four-week language sessions for high school Moorhead, MN 56560. Or call toll-free:
credit. 1-800-222-4750 or (in Minnesota)
coun~elorsCounselors
: teach language, lead 1-800-247-1044.
Or with activities and supervise Young The Concwdia Longuage Villages do not discriminate on : 0
people. the basis of race, creed, color. national origin, age. sex * cb
or physical handicap, and are in full compliance with :m
Title I X of the Educational Amendments of 1972.

Please mention Fotrign Language Annals when writins to advertisers