For those of you who think the lexical approach is the final word on language teaching, Seth Lindstromberg has written this fascinating article applying a bit of critical thinking...
http://www.hltmag.co.uk/mar03/mart1.htm
LEXICAL APPROACH R.I.P.
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
lagerlout2005
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:08 am
-
James Trotta
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:06 am
- Contact:
strong or weak?
So metal56, do you apply the strong version or the weak version? The article concludes that the weak version should be included in our styles, but not the strong version. I tend to agree. I'll never go tell my students to memorize every collocation in Oxford Collocations but when a student says she wants to make a boyfriend, I certainly tell her that boyfriend collocates with have (I wish I had a bf) or just want (I want a bf).
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Not "dead" in my mind.
I must admit I was impressed by Lindstromberg's arguements for their clarity and logic and for their thoroughness.
I do not, however, reach the same conclusion as he does. Nor do I buy the strong/weak distinction he makes. That is merely a matter of degree, not of difference. I remain an enthusiastic supporter of the Lexical Approach because it makes so much sense to me. I cannot accept that people manufacture what they say one word at a time by applying grammatical constructs. At least not most of the time. When they do, they slow way down, thinking carefully. That doesn't mean, though, that I have adopted or would adopt the extreme in my classroom that Lindstromberg says I should have as a supporter of this theoretical basis of language use. I, along with Lindstromberg, think my students should learn some significant items in a group of lexical phrases, but not necessarily all of them. And they should also learn enough grammatical sophistication so they can grasp the essence of similar phrasings they might encounter in their experience with the language. I do not think embracing the Lexical Approach precludes that.
But just because one learns how to analyze a phrase grammatically, does not mean that any particular phrase should be analyzed. Perhaps the brain works with parallel processors. Maybe in much the same way that the existence of an irregular verb or noun form stored in memory blocks the processing of the stem according to the rules of regular verbs or nouns, the existence of a lexical phrase in memory blocks the grammical processing of a particular sequence of words. The stock of lexical phrases is possibly built up over time using the language, and not necessarily by what is done either in the classroom or in one's own intentional personal study.
My view is that the Lexical Approach is good for teachers because it informs what they do in their classroom. It is far more than a "system." It enhances their understanding of how language is actually used, and therefore enlightens their teaching, but it does not necessarily require some radical new method of instruction unrelated to conventional practice. I, for one, believe I am a profoundly better teacher as a result of my understanding and acceptance of the Lexical Approach than I was. Michael Lewis remains my hero, Seth Lindstromberg notwithstanding.
Larry Latham
I do not, however, reach the same conclusion as he does. Nor do I buy the strong/weak distinction he makes. That is merely a matter of degree, not of difference. I remain an enthusiastic supporter of the Lexical Approach because it makes so much sense to me. I cannot accept that people manufacture what they say one word at a time by applying grammatical constructs. At least not most of the time. When they do, they slow way down, thinking carefully. That doesn't mean, though, that I have adopted or would adopt the extreme in my classroom that Lindstromberg says I should have as a supporter of this theoretical basis of language use. I, along with Lindstromberg, think my students should learn some significant items in a group of lexical phrases, but not necessarily all of them. And they should also learn enough grammatical sophistication so they can grasp the essence of similar phrasings they might encounter in their experience with the language. I do not think embracing the Lexical Approach precludes that.
But just because one learns how to analyze a phrase grammatically, does not mean that any particular phrase should be analyzed. Perhaps the brain works with parallel processors. Maybe in much the same way that the existence of an irregular verb or noun form stored in memory blocks the processing of the stem according to the rules of regular verbs or nouns, the existence of a lexical phrase in memory blocks the grammical processing of a particular sequence of words. The stock of lexical phrases is possibly built up over time using the language, and not necessarily by what is done either in the classroom or in one's own intentional personal study.
My view is that the Lexical Approach is good for teachers because it informs what they do in their classroom. It is far more than a "system." It enhances their understanding of how language is actually used, and therefore enlightens their teaching, but it does not necessarily require some radical new method of instruction unrelated to conventional practice. I, for one, believe I am a profoundly better teacher as a result of my understanding and acceptance of the Lexical Approach than I was. Michael Lewis remains my hero, Seth Lindstromberg notwithstanding.
Larry Latham
-
James Trotta
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:06 am
- Contact:
Skehan's model of SLA
I enjoyed reading Larry's post about how we think more quickly in terms of lexical phrases and more slowly in applying grammar to create new expressions.
In A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning Skehan argues that there are two different processes involved in producing language. rule based and lexical based. Sure lexical based is fast but it lacks flexibility. That's why my Korean learners who meet after class to memorize sentences drive me crazy. They are taking the lexical approach too far.
What they should do is learn more grammar rules and practice using them to express themselves in ways they've never encountered before. No one can adequately express him/herself based on a bunch of memorized sentences!
However, we do need lexical chunks to speed up processing times. Skehan suggests that language teaching should aim to get learners to move through three stages: lexicalization, syntactilization, and relexicalization. In other words, learners use syntactic knowledge to create novel linguistic statements and some of these become relxicalized (internalized and moved to the lexical based part of the brain).
I read his book and it makes sense to me. I guess this means that the lexical approach has an important part to play in my language teaching but it's only a small part of the equation. At the moment I mostly use the lexical approach to point out collocational errors when I do error correction. Any insights?
In A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning Skehan argues that there are two different processes involved in producing language. rule based and lexical based. Sure lexical based is fast but it lacks flexibility. That's why my Korean learners who meet after class to memorize sentences drive me crazy. They are taking the lexical approach too far.
What they should do is learn more grammar rules and practice using them to express themselves in ways they've never encountered before. No one can adequately express him/herself based on a bunch of memorized sentences!
However, we do need lexical chunks to speed up processing times. Skehan suggests that language teaching should aim to get learners to move through three stages: lexicalization, syntactilization, and relexicalization. In other words, learners use syntactic knowledge to create novel linguistic statements and some of these become relxicalized (internalized and moved to the lexical based part of the brain).
I read his book and it makes sense to me. I guess this means that the lexical approach has an important part to play in my language teaching but it's only a small part of the equation. At the moment I mostly use the lexical approach to point out collocational errors when I do error correction. Any insights?
Here's a question for the readers:
Do you think that the degree to which teachers favour the lexical approach is influenced by where they teach?
While I personally am not a strong advocate, I do use it in some contexts for some purposes. However, I teach students who study have often come to me after studying under a traditional Asian rote learning system. It would seem to me likely that the lexical approach would be more palatable to those teaching students from countries with more enlightened approaches to EFL.
So, what do you think? Anwers on a posting?
Stephen
Do you think that the degree to which teachers favour the lexical approach is influenced by where they teach?
While I personally am not a strong advocate, I do use it in some contexts for some purposes. However, I teach students who study have often come to me after studying under a traditional Asian rote learning system. It would seem to me likely that the lexical approach would be more palatable to those teaching students from countries with more enlightened approaches to EFL.
So, what do you think? Anwers on a posting?
Stephen
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Using the Lexical Approach in the classroom
Which Lexical Approach do you use "...in some contexts for some purposes."? I am admittedly puzzled by suggestions, which have come from many posters here, of using the Lexical Approach for certain parts of their lessons and not using it for other parts. The Lexical Approach I have come to understand is not something which I believe I could switch on and off at will. It is a theoretical grasp of how language might reside in the mind, and how it might be retrived by the user. It contains some ideas (perhaps unproven as yet) on how a student might more efficiently stuff essential elements of a new language into his mind, and how teachers might be helpful in the process. Most of all, it is an attitude towards learning and teaching language. How can one flip it on and off like a lamp? Perhaps I am confused about what it is.
Larry Latham
Larry Latham
-
will mcculloch
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 2:34 pm
- Contact:
lexical approach
Hi,
I like the lexical approach - a lot
I like the grammar-based approach - to some degree
I like the rote learning approach - a little bit too sometimes
I really dislike the rigid "this is the way we've always done it and this is the way we're going to keep on doing it" approach.
Everything has it's time and place... and fortunately, mainly due to the internet, sites like this etc, new ideas/opportunities are flying around faster than ever. Awareness is on the rise. This has to be good for the language learning process - and will soon lead (among lots of other positive things), I'm sure, to more enlightened approaches in places like Asia.... with the help of people like Stephen.
The problem though , it seems, with all "approaches" stems from the people inflicting them on others. While I really like the lexical approach, I would never advocate it as being "the" answer - mainly because any such claim would simply seem like a kneejerk reaction to the current shortcomings of other approaches.....or combination of approaches. No-one will ever create "the" perfect approach - because every classroom situation is different, and constantly changing. Teachers just need to be aware of different approaches - and then genuinely want to help students to discover and make the most of whatever works best for them.
It seems to me that the way forward is for teachers and students to adopt flexible, intelligent, co-operative strategies... that focus more on "what is the best thing we can do today?"....rather than on the demands of set, rigid, predominantly grammar based courses.
The real role of the teacher should be to make himself or herself redundant as soon as possible - by encouraging students to make the best possible use of whatever resources/opportunities/approaches are available both within - and without the classroom. Helping and motivating them to become mainly autonomous, active, creative learners - rather than just being mainly "spoon-fed" in the classroom....and having their success rated by some short-term memory tests.
***What's the point in Asian students learning lots of vocabulary by translation - if they can't use them properly in practice?
***What's the point of knowing how a verb conjugates if you can't use it?
***Knowing any other part of grammar ---if you can't use it?
Having said all that, the need for some sensible supporting structure seems to be beyond doubt....
Although I think I know exactly what Larry's means by emphasising attitude........ I also think it's totally valid for Stephen to say...
"...in some contexts for some purposes."
sometimes, (maybe)...the best way is just to learn something....even by rote!
It depends.
best wishes etc
Will
http://www.wordsurfing.co.uk
I like the lexical approach - a lot
I like the grammar-based approach - to some degree
I like the rote learning approach - a little bit too sometimes
I really dislike the rigid "this is the way we've always done it and this is the way we're going to keep on doing it" approach.
Everything has it's time and place... and fortunately, mainly due to the internet, sites like this etc, new ideas/opportunities are flying around faster than ever. Awareness is on the rise. This has to be good for the language learning process - and will soon lead (among lots of other positive things), I'm sure, to more enlightened approaches in places like Asia.... with the help of people like Stephen.
The problem though , it seems, with all "approaches" stems from the people inflicting them on others. While I really like the lexical approach, I would never advocate it as being "the" answer - mainly because any such claim would simply seem like a kneejerk reaction to the current shortcomings of other approaches.....or combination of approaches. No-one will ever create "the" perfect approach - because every classroom situation is different, and constantly changing. Teachers just need to be aware of different approaches - and then genuinely want to help students to discover and make the most of whatever works best for them.
It seems to me that the way forward is for teachers and students to adopt flexible, intelligent, co-operative strategies... that focus more on "what is the best thing we can do today?"....rather than on the demands of set, rigid, predominantly grammar based courses.
The real role of the teacher should be to make himself or herself redundant as soon as possible - by encouraging students to make the best possible use of whatever resources/opportunities/approaches are available both within - and without the classroom. Helping and motivating them to become mainly autonomous, active, creative learners - rather than just being mainly "spoon-fed" in the classroom....and having their success rated by some short-term memory tests.
***What's the point in Asian students learning lots of vocabulary by translation - if they can't use them properly in practice?
***What's the point of knowing how a verb conjugates if you can't use it?
***Knowing any other part of grammar ---if you can't use it?
Having said all that, the need for some sensible supporting structure seems to be beyond doubt....
Although I think I know exactly what Larry's means by emphasising attitude........ I also think it's totally valid for Stephen to say...
"...in some contexts for some purposes."
sometimes, (maybe)...the best way is just to learn something....even by rote!
It depends.
best wishes etc
Will
http://www.wordsurfing.co.uk
Larry
For an example (of what I understand) the weak form of the lexical approach to involve (in part) I would recommend the excellent business correspondence textbook "Company to Company" in which language functions are taught. By this I mean structure and lexis to achieve specific functions, I find this approach very useful, but not in every situation. I tend to be sceptical of the latest teaching solution which offers the answer to all classroom woes; it invariably doesn't (although it may well offer some useful ideas and these are what the teacher must extract from it.) I think Will makes an excellent point when he talks about using a variety of methodologies; after all, different students learn best in different ways.
Reagrds
Stephen
For an example (of what I understand) the weak form of the lexical approach to involve (in part) I would recommend the excellent business correspondence textbook "Company to Company" in which language functions are taught. By this I mean structure and lexis to achieve specific functions, I find this approach very useful, but not in every situation. I tend to be sceptical of the latest teaching solution which offers the answer to all classroom woes; it invariably doesn't (although it may well offer some useful ideas and these are what the teacher must extract from it.) I think Will makes an excellent point when he talks about using a variety of methodologies; after all, different students learn best in different ways.
Reagrds
Stephen
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Approaches
Yes, I do have to agree that Will makes a lot of sense here.
I certainly hope I haven't been misunderstood above to advocate a "rigid" adherence to a single teaching method or classroom practice. Nor is it my intention to put Stephen on the hot seat. I'm just not sure that what I understand about the Lexical Approach is the same as what other people appear to understand, judging from the posts I see in this forum and elsewhere. I totally agree with what Will has said here about working with the "here and now" in regards to particular students or classes and particular class sessions. In fact, I go so far on this issue as to be an advocator of not using formal, written 'lesson plans'. I find them generally to be too rigid, too teacher centered, too linear. Too many teachers are trained to rely on the plan. Too many teachers, in my view, look at their role in the classroom as "giving lessons." Language is not very efficiently learned that way. Now, don't get the idea that I don't think teachers should plan. Anyone who has taught for more than a few months has probably experienced the pain of going into the classroom without sufficient preparation. But the best teachers take the measure of the class and the day--every day. And they are flexible enough and knowledgeable enough and experienced enough to turn on a dime and throw out the particular plans they came into class with to create on-the-spot, as it were, a whole classroom session, built around a student's question, for example, or a stunning current event. Will is exactly correct, I think, to counsel flexibility, and to point out that our ultimate role must be to become redundant. And Stephen is quite right to remind us that different students learn in different ways. Still and all, I don't think that justifies a shotgun approach to classroom practice--doing things over again in fourteen different ways just to be sure that everybody's learning method has been 'covered.' The teacher's attitude is critical. So it is in this area that I believe the Lexical Approach provides a solid foundation by giving teachers a point-of-view. It is standpoint that allows a teacher to establish a general direction of study for any particular student or class. It (LA) is certainly not a mindless urging for students to learn long lists of vocabulary, though it recognizes that vocabulary is perhaps the single greatest enabler of student success in target language use.
Larry Latham
I certainly hope I haven't been misunderstood above to advocate a "rigid" adherence to a single teaching method or classroom practice. Nor is it my intention to put Stephen on the hot seat. I'm just not sure that what I understand about the Lexical Approach is the same as what other people appear to understand, judging from the posts I see in this forum and elsewhere. I totally agree with what Will has said here about working with the "here and now" in regards to particular students or classes and particular class sessions. In fact, I go so far on this issue as to be an advocator of not using formal, written 'lesson plans'. I find them generally to be too rigid, too teacher centered, too linear. Too many teachers are trained to rely on the plan. Too many teachers, in my view, look at their role in the classroom as "giving lessons." Language is not very efficiently learned that way. Now, don't get the idea that I don't think teachers should plan. Anyone who has taught for more than a few months has probably experienced the pain of going into the classroom without sufficient preparation. But the best teachers take the measure of the class and the day--every day. And they are flexible enough and knowledgeable enough and experienced enough to turn on a dime and throw out the particular plans they came into class with to create on-the-spot, as it were, a whole classroom session, built around a student's question, for example, or a stunning current event. Will is exactly correct, I think, to counsel flexibility, and to point out that our ultimate role must be to become redundant. And Stephen is quite right to remind us that different students learn in different ways. Still and all, I don't think that justifies a shotgun approach to classroom practice--doing things over again in fourteen different ways just to be sure that everybody's learning method has been 'covered.' The teacher's attitude is critical. So it is in this area that I believe the Lexical Approach provides a solid foundation by giving teachers a point-of-view. It is standpoint that allows a teacher to establish a general direction of study for any particular student or class. It (LA) is certainly not a mindless urging for students to learn long lists of vocabulary, though it recognizes that vocabulary is perhaps the single greatest enabler of student success in target language use.
Larry Latham
Lexical Approach Debate
Good day
It is with interest that I have read the Lindstromberg article and the posted comments. I come from a professional secondary education background with no specific linguistic training. I am, essentially, an English teacher now in the EFL business, at an admin level.
I have had the benefit of learning a language other than my own, so can appreciate some of the struggle EFL students must endure. My experience of learning English and two other languages has led me to one key notion, which may make me, inadvertently, an LA protagonist, and this is that I hold grammar and its teaching in low regard. Of course I see some benefit in knowing and understanding some introductory grammar. Essentially, though, I believe that English is acquired through usage, and am especially in favour of the power of reading and writing.
Having read the various postings and the article, I don't think I'd go along with the idea of parrot learning formulaic phrases (see James' frustration with his Korean learners) but do think that there is a strong role for phonics, word attack, word recognition, spelling and vocab building in English teaching as a way in to reading and writing.
So, having staked some colours to the mast, I am keen to hear input from some of the contributors who will challenge my (iconoclastic? ignorant?) views. I would like some justifications from you to suggest that I should hold a different view.
It is with interest that I have read the Lindstromberg article and the posted comments. I come from a professional secondary education background with no specific linguistic training. I am, essentially, an English teacher now in the EFL business, at an admin level.
I have had the benefit of learning a language other than my own, so can appreciate some of the struggle EFL students must endure. My experience of learning English and two other languages has led me to one key notion, which may make me, inadvertently, an LA protagonist, and this is that I hold grammar and its teaching in low regard. Of course I see some benefit in knowing and understanding some introductory grammar. Essentially, though, I believe that English is acquired through usage, and am especially in favour of the power of reading and writing.
Having read the various postings and the article, I don't think I'd go along with the idea of parrot learning formulaic phrases (see James' frustration with his Korean learners) but do think that there is a strong role for phonics, word attack, word recognition, spelling and vocab building in English teaching as a way in to reading and writing.
So, having staked some colours to the mast, I am keen to hear input from some of the contributors who will challenge my (iconoclastic? ignorant?) views. I would like some justifications from you to suggest that I should hold a different view.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Hello, Benade, and welcome.
You won't get an argument from me on anything you have to say here, although my view of grammar teaching may not be as low as yours. And I quite agree with your appraisal that reading and writing (especially reading, in my view, since it typically exposes students to competent English, and provides input for them to analyze) are valuable tools.
Larry Latham
You won't get an argument from me on anything you have to say here, although my view of grammar teaching may not be as low as yours. And I quite agree with your appraisal that reading and writing (especially reading, in my view, since it typically exposes students to competent English, and provides input for them to analyze) are valuable tools.
Larry Latham
Thanks Larry. I appreciate the supportive comments. So what are you focussing on in your teaching?