The lexical approach to second language teaching has received interest in recent years as an alternative to grammar-based approaches. The lexical approach concentrates on developing learners' proficiency with lexis, or words and word combinations. It is based on the idea that an important part of language acquisition is the ability to comprehend and produce lexical phrases as unanalyzed wholes, or "chunks," and that these chunks become the raw data by which learners perceive patterns of language traditionally thought of as grammar (Lewis, 1993, p. 95). Instruction focuses on relatively fixed expressions that occur frequently in spoken language, such as, "I'm sorry," "I didn't mean to make you jump," or "That will never happen to me," rather than on originally created sentences (Lewis, 1997a, p. 212). This digest provides an overview of the methodological foundations underlying the lexical approach and the pedagogical implications suggested by them. A NEW ROLE FOR LEXISMichael Lewis (1993), who coined the term lexical approach, suggests the following:

* Lexis is the basis of language.

* Lexis is misunderstood in language teaching because of the assumption that grammar is the basis of language and that mastery of the grammatical system is a prerequisite for effective communication.

* The key principle of a lexical approach is that "language consists of grammaticalized lexis, not lexicalized grammar."

* One of the central organizing principles of any meaning-centered syllabus should be lexis. TYPES OF LEXICAL UNITSThe lexical approach makes a distinction between vocabulary--traditionally understood as a stock of individual words with fixed meanings--and lexis, which includes not only the single words but also the word combinations that we store in our mental lexicons. Lexical approach advocates argue that language consists of meaningful chunks that, when combined, produce continuous coherent text, and only a minority of spoken sentences are entirely novel creations.

The role of formulaic, many-word lexical units have been stressed in both first and second language acquisition research. (See Richards & Rodgers, 2001, for further discussion.) They have been referred to by many different labels, including "gambits" (Keller, 1979), "speech formulae" (Peters, 1983), "lexicalized stems" (Pawley & Syder, 1983), and "lexical phrases" (Nattinger & DeCarrico, 1992). The existence and importance of these lexical units has been discussed by a number of linguists. For example, Cowie (1988) argues that the existence of lexical units in a language such as English serves the needs of both native English speakers and English language learners, who are as predisposed to store and reuse them as they are to generate them from scratch. The widespread "fusion of such expressions, which appear to satisfy the individual's communicative needs at a given moment and are later reused, is one means by which the public stock of formulae and composites is continuously enriched" (p. 136).

Lewis (1997b) suggests the following taxonomy of lexical items:

* words (e.g., book, pen)

* polywords (e.g., by the way, upside down)

* collocations, or word partnerships (e.g., community service, absolutely convinced)

* institutionalized utterances (e.g., I'll get it; We'll see; That'll do; If I were you ...; Would you like a cup of coffee?)

* sentence frames and heads (e.g., That is not as ...as you think; The fact/suggestion/problem/danger was ...) and even text frames (e.g., In this paper we explore ...; Firstly ...; Secondly ...; Finally ...)

Within the lexical approach, special attention is directed to collocations and expressions that include institutionalized utterances and sentence frames and heads. As Lewis maintains, "instead of words, we consciously try to think of collocations, and to present these in expressions. Rather than trying to break things into ever smaller pieces, there is a conscious effort to see things in larger, more holistic, ways" (1997a, p. 204).

Collocation is "the readily observable phenomenon whereby certain words co-occur in natural text with greater than random frequency" (Lewis, 1997a, p. 8). Furthermore, collocation is not determined by logic or frequency, but is arbitrary, decided only by linguistic convention. Some collocations are fully fixed, such as "to catch a cold," "rancid butter," and "drug addict," while others are more or less fixed and can be completed in a relatively small number of ways, as in the following examples:

* blood / close / distant / near(est) relative

* learn by doing / by heart / by observation / by rote / from experience

* badly / bitterly / deeply / seriously / severely hurt LEXIS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNINGIn the lexical approach, lexis in its various types is thought to play a central role in language teaching and learning. Nattinger (1980, p. 341) suggests that teaching should be based on the idea that language production is the piecing together of ready-made units appropriate for a particular situation. Comprehension of such units is dependent on knowing the patterns to predict in different situations. Instruction, therefore, should center on these patterns and the ways they can be pieced together, along with the ways they vary and the situations in which they occur.

Activities used to develop learners' knowledge of lexical chains include the following:

* Intensive and extensive listening and reading in the target language.

* First and second language comparisons and translation--carried out chunk-for-chunk, rather than word-for-word--aimed at raising language awareness.

* Repetition and recycling of activities, such as summarizing a text orally one day and again a few days later to keep words and expressions that have been learned active.

* Guessing the meaning of vocabulary items from context.

* Noticing and recording language patterns and collocations.

* Working with dictionaries and other reference tools.

* Working with language corpuses created by the teacher for use in the classroom or accessible on the Internet&mdashsuch as the British National Corpus ( or COBUILD Bank of English ( research word partnerships, preposition usage, style, and so on. THE NEXT STEP: PUTTING THEORY INTO PRACTICEAdvances in computer-based studies of language, such as corpus linguistics, have provided huge databases of language corpora, including the COBUILD Bank of English Corpus, the Cambridge International Corpus, and the British National Corpus. In particular, the COBUILD project at Birmingham University in England has examined patterns of phrase and clause sequences as they appear in various texts as well as in spoken language. It has aimed at producing an accurate description of the English language in order to form the basis for design of a lexical syllabus (Sinclair, 1987). Such a syllabus was perceived by COBUILD researchers as independent and unrelated to any existing language teaching methodology (Sinclair & Renouf, 1988). As a result, the Collins COBUILD English Course (Willis & Willis, 1989) was the most ambitious attempt to develop a syllabus based on lexical rather than grammatical principles.

Willis (1990) has attempted to provide a rationale and design for lexically based language teaching and suggests that a lexical syllabus should be matched with an instructional methodology that puts particular emphasis on language use. Such a syllabus specifies words, their meanings, and the common phrases in which they are used and identifies the most common words and patterns in their most natural environments. Thus, the lexical syllabus not only subsumes a structural syllabus, it also describes how the "structures" that make up the syllabus are used in natural language.

Despite references to the natural environments in which words occur, Sinclair's (1987) and Willis's (1990) lexical syllabi are word based. However, Lewis's (1993) lexical syllabus is specifically not word based, because it "explicitly recognizes word patterns for (relatively) de-lexical words, collocation power for (relatively) semantically powerful words, and longer multi-word items, particularly institutionalized sentences, as requiring different, and parallel pedagogical treatment" (Lewis, 1993, p. 109). In his own teaching design, Lewis proposes a model that comprises the steps, Observe-Hypothesize-Experiment, as opposed to the traditional Present-Practice-Produce paradigm. Unfortunately, Lewis does not lay out any instructional sequences exemplifying how he thinks this procedure might operate in actual language classrooms. For more on implementing the lexical approach, see Richards & Rodgers (2001). CONCLUSIONZimmerman (1997, p. 17) suggests that the work of Sinclair, Nattinger, DeCarrico, and Lewis represents a significant theoretical and pedagogical shift from the past. First, their claims have revived an interest in a central role for accurate language description. Second, they challenge a traditional view of word boundaries, emphasizing the language learner's need to perceive and use patterns of lexis and collocation. Most significant is the underlying claim that language production is not a syntactic rule-governed process but is instead the retrieval of larger phrasal units from memory.

Nevertheless, implementing a lexical approach in the classroom does not lead to radical methodological changes. Rather, it involves a change in the teacher's mindset. Most important, the language activities consistent with a lexical approach must be directed toward naturally occurring language and toward raising learners' awareness of the lexical nature of language. REFERENCESCowie, A. P. (Eds.). (1988). Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary use. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), "Vocabulary and language teaching" (pp. 126-137). Harlow: Longman.

Keller, E. (1979). Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. "Journal of Pragmatics, 3," 219-237.

Lewis, M. (1993). "The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward." Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (1997a). "Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice." Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, M. (1997b). Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), "Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy" (pp. 255-270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nattinger, J. (1980). A lexical phrase grammar for ESL."TESOL Quarterly, 14," 337-344.

Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). "Lexical phrases and language teaching." Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), "Language and communication" (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.

Peters, A. (1983). "The units of language acquisition." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). "Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis" (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, J. M. (Ed.). (1987). "Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing." London: Collins COBUILD.

Sinclair, J. M., & Renouf, A. (Eds.). (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), "Vocabulary and language teaching" (pp. 140-158). Harlow: Longman.

Willis, D. (1990). "The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching." London: Collins COBUILD.

Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1989). "Collins COBUILD English course." London: Collins COBUILD.

Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), "Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy" (pp. 5-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Principles and implications of the Lexical Approach

The Lexical Approach develops many of the fundamental principles advanced by proponents of the Communicative Approach. The most important difference is the increased understanding of the nature of lexis in naturally occurring language, and its potential contribution to language pedagogy.

Key principles

  • Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar.
  • The grammar/vocabulary dichotomy is invalid; much language consists of multi-words 'chunks'.
  • A central element of language teaching is raising students' awareness of, and developing their ability to 'chunk' language successfully.
  • Although structural patterns are known as useful, lexical and metaphorical patterning are accorded appropriate status.
  • Collocation is integrated as an organising principle within syllabuses.
  • The central metaphor of language is holistic - an organism; not atomistic - a machine.
  • It is the co-textual rather than the situational element of context which are of primary importance for language teaching.
  • Grammar as a receptive skill, involving the perception of similarity and difference, is prioritised.
  • Receptive skills, particularly listening, are given enhanced status.
  • The Present-Practise-Produce paradigm is rejected, in favour of a paradigm based on the Observe-Hypothesise-Experiment cycle.

Contemporary language teaching methods tend to be similar for students at different level of competence; with the Lexical Approach the materials and methods appropriate to beginners or elementary students are radically different from those employed for upper-intermediate or advanced students. Significant re-ordering of the learning programme is implicit in the Lexical Approach.

Dół formularza

Lexical Approach 2 - What does the lexical approach look like?

Submitted by TE Editor on 1 July, 2003 - 12:00

Share on facebookShare on twitter

This article looks at the theories of language which form the foundations of the lexical approach to teaching English.

  • Introduction
  • The theory of learning
  • Noticing
  • Language awareness
  • About the authors
  • Further Reading

Introduction
The principles of the Lexical Approach have been around since Michael Lewis published 'The Lexical Approach' 10 years ago. It seems, however, that many teachers and researchers do not have a clear idea of what the Lexical Approach actually looks like in practice.
In the first of our two THINK articles - Lexical approach 1 - we looked at how advocates of the Lexical Approach view language. In this, our second THINK article, we apply theories of language learning to a Lexical Approach and describe what lexical lessons could look like.

We have also produced two TRY pieces containing teaching materials for you to try out in your own classrooms. Your feedback, opinions, comments and suggestions would be more than welcome and used to form the basis of a future article.
A theory of learning
In our first THINK article, Lexical Approach 1, we spoke about the vast number of chunks and collocations native speakers store. According to Lewis (1997, 2000) native speakers carry a pool of hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of lexical chunks in their heads ready to draw upon in order to produce fluent, accurate and meaningful language. Too many items for teachers and materials to present to learners, ask learners to practise and then produce even if you believed that a PPP methodology - which has been denigrated in recent years - would lead to the acquisition of these language items.

How then are the learners going to learn the lexical items they need? One of the criticisms levelled at the Lexical Approach is its lack of a detailed learning theory. It is worth noting, however, that Lewis (1993) argues the Lexical Approach is not a break with the Communicative Approach, but a development of it. He makes a helpful summary of the findings from first language acquisition research which he thinks are relevant to second language acquisition:

  • Language is not learnt by learning individual sounds and structures and then combining them, but by an increasing ability to break down wholes into parts.
  • Grammar is acquired by a process of observation, hypothesis and experiment.
  • We can use whole phrases without understanding their constituent parts.
  • Acquisition is accelerated by contact with a sympathetic interlocutor with a higher level of competence in the target language.

Schmitt (2000) makes a significant contribution to a learning theory for the Lexical Approach by adding that 'the mind stores and processes these [lexical] chunks as individual wholes.' The mind is able to store large amounts of information in long-term memory but its short-term capacity is much more limited, when producing language in speech for example, so it is much more efficient for the brain to recall a chunk of language as if it were one piece of information. 'Figment of his imagination' is, therefore, recalled as one piece of information rather than four separate words.

In our view it is not possible, or even desirable, to attempt to 'teach' an unlimited number of lexical chunks. But, it is beneficial for language learners to gain exposure to lexical chunks and to gain experience in analyzing those chunks in order to begin the process of internalisation. We believe, like Lewis, that encouraging learners to notice language, specifically lexical chunks and collocations, is central to any methodology connected to a lexical view of language.
Noticing
Batstone (1996) describes noticing as 'a complex process: it involves the intake both of meaning and form, and it takes time for learners to progress from initial recognition to the point where they can internalize the underlying rule'. At the same time Lewis (2000) argues that noticing chunks and collocations is a necessary but not sufficient condition for input to become intake. If learners are not directed to notice language in a text there exists a danger that they will 'see through the text' and therefore fail to achieve intake.

Looking back at the tasks and activities in our TRY materials, you can see they are designed to promote noticing. Sometimes the noticing is guided by the teacher i.e. the teacher directs the students' attention to lexical features thought to be useful; sometimes the noticing is 'self-directed', i.e. the students themselves select features they think will be useful for them. Sometimes the noticing is explicit, e.g. when items in a text are highlighted; sometimes it is implicit e.g. when the teacher reformulates a student's text (see Thornbury 1997 for an explanation of how reconstruction and reformulation can enhance noticing and practical suggestions for reformulating).
Language Awareness
It is our assertion that learning materials and teachers can best help learners achieve noticing of lexical chunks by combining a Language Awareness approach to learning with a Lexical Approach to describing language.
Tomlinson (2003) sums up the principles, objectives and procedures of a language awareness approach as:

  • 'Paying deliberate attention to features of language in use can help learners to notice the gap between their own performance in the target language and the performance of proficient users of the language.
  • Noticing can give salience to a feature, so that it becomes more noticeable in future input, so contributing to the learner's psychological readiness to acquire that feature.
  • The main objective is to help learners to notice for themselves how language is typically used so that they will note the gaps and 'achieve learning readiness' [as well as independence from the teacher and teaching materials].
  • The first procedures are usually experiential rather than analytical and aim to involve the learners in affective interaction with a potentially engaging text. [That is, learners read a text, and respond with their own views and opinions before studying the language in the text or answering comprehension type questions.]
  • Learners are later encouraged to focus on a particular feature of the text, identify instances of the feature, make discoveries and articulate generalizations about its use.'

In a small research project at The University of Maine, groups of students were exposed to materials (see TRY 1) based on the principles and procedures Tomlinson outlines. The noticing activities asked students to identify, analyse and make generalisations about lexical chunks and collocations.