Vocabulary Mnemonics strategies1

2003年第3期 北方论丛 No.3,2003(总第179期） 英语教学与研究 Total No.179文章编号1000-3541（2003）03YY-0034-03 Vocabulary Mnemonic Strategies XIA LIYA, CHEN NING (1.Jiangsu University, 2.Zhenjiang college;Zhenjiang212001,china) Abstract: as the research on learning strategies developed, ESL researches want to know how english vocabulary is acquired, and why some students can acquire vocabulary more easily. The earlier studies mainly focused on vocabulary memorizing strategies, regarding vocabulary as independent discrete pieces of knowledge. Later studies ,however, treat vocabulary as an integral part of the continuous discourse and put more emphasis on the techniques. In this research, the students' use of the vocabulary memory strategies is to be explored and studied. Key words: Mnemonic; vocabulary; strategies1. The Classification of Learning Strategies Language learning, according to Chamot (1987 ), are techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning and recall of both linguistic and content area information. Investigation of students learning strategies is a relatively new endeavor in the field of second language learning or foreign language learning. Studies of second language learners have classified learning strategies in various ways, making it difficult in many cases to compare strategies reported in one study with those reported in another. Brown and Palinscar (1982 ) classified general learning strategies as metacognitive or cognitive, and this distinction is also useful in classifying the strategies used by second language learners. McDonald et al. (1979 ) found that students trained to use a cooperative learning strategy for reading comprehension outperformed those who worked individually, and a subsequent study found that cooperative learning was most effective when students with differing cognitive styles were paired (Larson and Dansereau, (1983 ). In the field of second language strategies, this third type of strategy is generally referred to as affective (see, for example, Naiman et al. 1111978, and Rubin and Thompddson, 1982). Learning strategies in the second language literature can be classified within these three general categories, that is, as metacognitive, cognitive, or social affective in nature (Chamot, 1987). And OMalley et al., (1985) also fall into these categories.In Brown and Palinscars view, metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring of learning while it is taking place, and self-evaluation of learning after the learning activity. (OMalley et al., 1985b, also gave the same view.) Metacognitive strategies can be applied to virtually all types of learning tasks, whereas cognitive strategies are more directly related to a specific task and learning objective and may not be applicable to different types of learning tasks. Cognitive strategies involve manipulation or transformation of the material to be learned; in other words, the learning interacts directly with what is to be learned. Social affective strategies involve interaction with another person and are widely applicable. Cooperation, questioning are in this category.There may be some overlap between two sets of strategies and even different classifications may be proposed by different scholars. The classification adopted in this study, however, is based on the research in cognitive psychology.2.The History of Vocabulary Learning and Teaching For many years vocabulary has been the “Cinderrella” of applied linguistics. In the introduction of this paper I have listed some reasons for the general neglect of vocabulary given by Allen (1983). But those reasons are just some of them. According to Carter (1987) view: “its neglect is in part due to a specialization in linguistic research on syntax and phonology which may have fostered a climate in which vocabulary was felt to be a less important element in learning a second language” (p.145). The following statement by Gleason may be a typical attitude held in the 1960s, suggesting that vocabulary does not have “context” or “expression”: In learning a second language, you will find that vocabulary is comparatively easy, in spite of the fact it is vocabulary that students fear most. The hardest part is mastering new structures in both content and expression. (1961:p.7, in Carter,1987)Part of the reason why syntax rather than lexicon was given great importance was, perhaps, that syntax is handleable, while lexicon is not. Because syntactic relations are finite, but less likely within lexicon, where relations are theoretically infinite. On the other hand, significant structural analysis and generalization are possible and also the syntactic structures to be learned can be more easily specified in a syllabus than the vast number, type and range of vocabulary items. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a revival of interest in vocabulary teaching, especially in Great Britain where lexicon research projects were in any case undertaken in the late 1960s (e.g. Sinclair et al., (1970) . Explorations in lexical semantics (e.g. Lyons, 1968, 1977) were accompanied by developments in vocabulary teaching. Representative samples of interest in vocabulary teaching and its development in the 1970s can be found in a number of articles (e.g. Judd, 11978;Twaddell, !973; Lord, 1974; Richards,1976). Yet, Carter and McCarthy (1988) also point out very clearly, that the study of vocabulary is at the heart of language teaching and learning, in terms of the organization of syllabuses, the evaluation of learner performance, the provision of learning resources, and, most obviously, because it is how most learners see language and its learning difficulty. It is an apposite moment, now, to place vocabulary in a pedagogic spotlight, not to argue its relevance, but to indicate how its study offers insights into the process of acquisition, the organization of teaching and the social and linguistic structure of language. Vocabulary teaching has a long history, and applied linguists and language teachers are only beginning to turn their attention to it again after a couple of decades or so of relative neglect. There is much work still to be done and many approaches from many different perspectives to be considered. As the research on learning strategies developed, ESL researchers want to know how English vocabulary is acquired, and why some students can acquire vocabulary more easily than some others. The earlier studies mainly focused on vocabulary memorizing strategies, regarding vocabulary as independent discrete pieces of knowledge. Later studies, however, regard vocabulary as an integral part of the continuous discourse and put more emphasis on the studying techniques. In this research, the students use of both the vocabulary memory strategies and the studying strategies are to be explored and studied.23Vocabulary Memorizing Strategies Much of the earlier research on vocabulary learning strategies, as Meara (1980) reports, has explored various methods of vocabulary presentation and their corresponding effectiveness in retention. Some research, for example, focus on rehearsal strategies, and tried to answer these questions. It is difficult to think of any educational goal for which the ability to retain information is unimportant. Human memory is crucial to the concept of learning. Since language learning is another instance of learning in general, memory is also central to the acquisition of linguistic skills. The ability to understand spoken and written language, and to produce it in speaking and writing depends on the ability to recognize and retrieve information stored in memory, and the difficulty in carrying out such tasks is often contingent upon the weight of memory demands that they require. Given the importance of memory in second language learning, it is surprising to find that relatively little research is devoted to it. Most memory studies deal with material in the first language, while research on the role of memory in L2 learning is still in its infancy. “Mnemonic” means “aiding memory” (Higbee, 1979) and since so much of language learning depends on being able to memorize and retrieve all kinds of language routines, it is somewhat surprising that foreign language learners, who should be prime customers for mnemonic devices, tend to know little about them. Often referred to as “memory tricks,” mnemonics works by utilizing some well-known principles of psychology: a retrieval plan is developed during encoding, and mental imagery, both visual and verbal, is used. They help individuals learn faster and recall better because they aid the integration of new material into existing cognitive units and because they provide retrieval cues. Mnemonics can be adopted voluntarily, and once learned are difficult to forget. They are adaptable to individual learning differences, and most users report that they enjoy using them (Levin, 1981). Although the focus in L2 teaching in recent years has been on the acquisition of grammar, it cannot be overlooked that learners must also remember a great deal of vocabulary. How to memorize vocabulary better holds the most promise. Some strategies that deserve special mentioning here are the keyword method, the visual method, the physical response method, formal groupings (Thompson,1987). The keyword technique developed by Atkinson is a rather strange extension of paired associates. The student learns a word in the target language by associating it with the translation of the word, in the native language in a special way, which sounds similar. For example, in learning the English word “pen”, first we find a Chinese word that sounds similar, for instance, pen (keyword), which means “basin”; then conjuring an interactive image of a pen with a pen, e.g. a pen has fallen into the basin. Thus the English word pen and the Chinese word pen, which initially have no semantic relations at all, are linked by the similarity of sound. The keyword method has been shown to be effective in improving both immediate and delayed recall of vocabulary in several foreign languages Atkinson and Raugh, 1975; Raugh, Schupbach and Atkinson 1977) as well as unfamiliar L1 words (Pressley, Levin, and Miller 1981). It helps adults remember words more easily Pressley, 1977) and in amore lasting fashion (Atkinson and Raugh, 1975). It was found to be more effective in both first and second language than other methods, such as finding roots, learning synonyms, or using a meaningful context (Pressley, Levin and Delaney,1982). Visual method means a word or the contents of a passage can be visualized. This is more effective than mere repetition (Steingart and Glock, 1973; Satz and Dunnenworth-Nolan, 1981). Individuals with low verbal ability benefit more from visual than verbal elaboration (Delaney,1978), the visualization method may be particularly helpful for these learners. Total physical response was advocated by Asher (1965). Here the foreign language is introduced as a series of imperatives which link the language with various kinds of overt action that the students can perform in the classroom., which results in better recall than simple repetition. Subjects who were instructed to pretend that they were doing something (e.g., “ Pretend you are a chef flitting a pancake”) remembered the sentence better than those who merely repeating the sentence “ The chef is flitting a pancake” (Satz and Dunnenworth-nalan, 1981). Formal groupings are by the form of vocabulary items that we usually try to remember a word. For learning vocabulary, the study of morphological features is not a desirable end in itself, but knowledge of basic affixes helps learners decode words and for that reason has long been a part of vocabulary teaching texts. Generally, students are taught to recognize basic forms of words and how they combine with certain commonly occurring affixes. The se affixes have been taught in a variety of ways, most frequently, but not necessarily most effectively, as lists of affixes and their general meanings. Such lists might be memorized more effectively with one of the other mnemonic devices mentioned above. One study conducted by Crair and Tulving (1975) showed that subjects who were instructed to classify words into categories before learning them had better recall than subjects who simply memorized the list. And Chamot (1984) also found that grouping strategies were more favoured by students with greater ESL proficiency than by beginners. Finally, there is some indication that low-proficiency learners rely more on sound similarities in recognizing vocabulary while high-proficiency learners rely more on semantic factors (Henning, 1974). It is clear that what is known so far seems to generally support the notion that mnemonics, particularly the imagery keyword technique, enable learners to memorize vocabulary more efficiently. However, no discussion of mnemonics would be complete without mentioning some of the questions which arise with regard to their potential use in L2 learning. (1) Learning a mnemonic for a small amount of material may take more time than rote learning or some alternative method particularly if learners have to generate the mnemonic cues themselves (Bugelsky, Kidd and Segmen, 1968).(2) The learner who automatically relies on a mnemonic may fail to perceive the inherent meaningfulness of the material to be remembered. Thus mnemonics are probably most useful for language materials which lack inherent structure, such as word lists (Belleza, (1981). At the same time, some researchers worry that forming associations may force attention away from the meaning and contextual use of words, particularly polysemantic ones (Cohen, 1984).(3) It is unclear if keywords can interfere with L2 pronunciation.(4) People vary in their ability to form imagery (DiVesta and Sunshine, 1974) so it may well be that visual imagery may not be helpful to some individuals. (5) It may be difficult to generate mnemonic associations for L2 words representing abstract concepts (Pressley, 1977; Pressley and Levin, 1983). Some classes are easier to learn than through mnemonic devices than others: for instance, nouns are easier than adjectives or verbs (Atkinson, 1975; Raugh, Schupbach and Atkinson,1977).(6) Efficacy of mnemonic devices may depend on individual learning differences. 5