Glossary in foreign language learning

It is generally agreed that linguistic proficiency is one of the key prerequisites for the making of an interpreter (Brisau, Godijns, & Meuleman, 1994; Gerver, Longely, Long, & Lambert, 1989; Moser-Mercer, 1985). As interpreters must learn at least one

10

more language in addition to his/her mother tongue, it is worthwhile to examine the role of glossary in foreign language learning and see whether the use of glossary is already present in foreign language acquisition.

Vocabulary is considered the cornerstone of language learning. An extensive body of literature exists on the use of word lists³ as a learners’ strategy to acquire the vocabulary in a foreign language (Beck, 1983; Crow & Quigley, 1985; Frazer 2007;

Griffin & Harley, 1996; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Hoshino, 2010; Newton, 2001;

Sanaoui, 1995). In fact, Gu & Johnson (1996) argued that the word vocabulary has long suggested word lists, although expert opinions differ on its use, content, and efficacy. Some word lists are produced by learners themselves in the form of a

vocabulary log, a notebook with words learned, or a word chart (Beck, 1983; Newton, 2001; Sanaoui, 1995). Such self-made lists to boost vocabulary may contain words, definitions, example sentences, and collocations (Beck, 1983; Newton, 2001). These lists of new words are said to help autonomous learners “keep track of the words they are learning” and motivate learners to be responsible for their learning and

independently record and revise new words (Beck, 1983, p. 181; Newton, 2001). An example of a vocabulary log proposed by Newton (2001, p. 36) looks like the following (form adapted by the researcher):

3 In this context, a word list can be seen as a glossary because the list is compiled for a special purpose (i.e. foreign language learning). Both “word list” and “glossary” will be used interchangeably in this section.

11

Vocabulary log

Look back over the words you met for the first time in this task. Decide on five that you think will be useful for you. Then complete the table.

New Words

Example sentence, collocation, definition

1 2 3 4 5

Show your words to another learner, and explain your plan for revising these words.

Notes:

Newton (2001) maintained that self-made vocabulary logs help increase the encounters learners have with new words and establish a procedure for reviewing them. However, the efficacy of such practice remains uninvestigated so far in the literature.

Other word lists are not generated by the learners but are prepared in advance for them. Newton (2001) suggested that a glossary prepared by the teacher before

teaching can save students the hassle of navigating around difficult words. Beck (1983) also pointed out that a glossary can often be found at the back of the text for students to consult. Newton (2001) went further to suggest that an interactive glossary

12

may be a better option than a normal glossary because in such glossaries learners have to guess words from context and answer questions related to the new words.

Indeed, teaching vocabulary in context has been a proven method to teach word meaning (August, Carlo, Dressler & Snow, 2005; Beck, 1983). Crow & Quigley (1985) proposed that vocabulary practice needs to be as contextualized as possible, although a word list incorporating lexical items that have little internal consistency is still adopted. The benefits of contextualized learning of vocabulary have been

recognized, as Gu & Johnson (1996) argued:

... [vocabulary] words thus required retain not just their referential meaning but also the syntactic, pragmatic, and even emotional information from their context. Most important, vocabulary is no longer thought of as acquired as separate items; it is an integral part of discourse and is developed along with reading strategies such as contextual guessing. (p.

646)

Several strategies have been proposed for the making of word lists for learners.

Frazer (2007) discussed the need to create lists of the specialized vocabulary of certain fields in that “[providing] learners with the language they require for specific purposes to a larger extent means providing them with the words they need” (p. 127).

In his study, Frazer attempted to create a word list representative of the field of pharmacology by researching into the characteristics of specialized language and using frequency and range criteria⁴. The artificially-created list, claimed the author, had a high coverage on two different pharmacology corpora and had the potential to equip learners with an extremely useful group of words for comprehension. However, the created list in the study is monolingual and contains only terms without definition.

4 According to Frazer (2007, p. 130), frequency is defined as the “total number of occurrences,” and range is defined as the “number of different texts in which a word is found.”

13

Other researchers have proposed a semantic field approach of vocabulary teaching and learning. Hoshino (2010) demonstrated through an experiment that presenting words in categorical lists that share a common semantic field (e.g.,

moth/wasp; asthma/diabetes) is a more effective way for second-language learners to memorize vocabulary. Crow & Quigley (1985) also proved the long-term efficacy of the semantic field approach through an experiment that had the control treatment using the traditional alphabetical list with words and definitions, and the experimental treatment using a keyword learned with four additional words in the same semantic field. The experiment method of Crow & Quigley’s study has drawn criticism by Hoshino (2010), who declared that the two groups of subjects in fact used two different methods to learn two different word types, which may have confounded the results. Still, Crow & Quigley (1985) summarized that learning theorists have long pointed out the better long-term retention of information organized into cognitive categories than that of material presented randomly.

Still other researchers have cautioned against presenting related new words at the same time (Higa, 1963; Nation, 1994, as cited in Gu & Johnson, 1996; Tinkham, 1993; Tinkham, 1997; Waring, 1997). These studies have found that putting related words (e.g. synonyms, antonyms, categorical words) together for learners impeded vocabulary acquisition. Tinkham (1993), for example, found that learners learned new words more quickly when presented with a set of unrelated words than with semantic clusters. Tinkham (1997) went on to find that vocabulary was better learned through thematic clusters⁵ than through semantic or unrelated clusters. However, Hoshino

5 Based on Tinkham’s (1997) distinction, semantic clusters (e.g., eye, nose, ear, mouth, chin) share semantic and syntactic similarities, while thematic clusters (e.g., frog, green, hop, pond, slippery, croak) are cognitively rather than linguistically derived and are based upon psychological associations between clustered words and a shared thematic concept.

14

(2010) suggested that thematic words are harder to memorize because they share fewer common features than semantic words. The studies cited above seem to indicate that researchers are still divided over how to present new words to learners.

No matter what presentation method is adopted, it is clear that rote-memorization of word lists is neither encouraged nor meaningful (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Tinkman, 1993). Instead, learners are encouraged to use a combination of ways to increase vocabulary retention. Sanaoui (1995) summarized previous findings and conducted case studies of adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages.

Learners’ autonomous activities included “using dictionaries, memorizing lists of words, making up word charts, practicing words, learning words in context, repeating words, using mental imagery, and reviewing previously learned words;” “[asking] a friend to quiz them about specific pages of their vocabulary notebook;” “compiling new vocabulary items and finding ways to use them” and “kept extensive records of vocabulary items;” “immediate/spaced repetition (read words mentally or out loud);”

“talking about the lexical item with someone” (pp. 16-24).

The strategy of talking about lexical items with someone is equally noteworthy, as Beck (1983) also encouraged students to use new words in their own conversation and writing. Indeed, Gu & Johnson (1996) suggested that vocabulary knowledge must be integrated into discourse to be of real use. In their study, Gu & Johnson

investigated the relationship between learners’ strategies and learning outcomes. It was found that some learners believed in actively finding opportunities to use English outside of the classroom and were doing so successfully. Using “vocabulary in action”

(p. 659) has enabled the students to know how to use a word in real-life contexts.

Learners who use multiple strategies to boost involvement with new words have seen better learning outcomes. Gu & Johnson (1996) found that oral repetition

correlated positively with general proficiency, a finding that is consonant with

15

previous studies. The same paper also showed that “visual repetition of new words was the strongest negative predictor of both vocabulary size and general proficiency”

(p. 668) and that vocabulary retention strategies correlated more with vocabulary size than proficiency in general. In other words, to effectively retain new words, learners are encouraged to go beyond mere memorizing of words. This is because active processing of the new words lead to better learning (Newton, 2001) and greater recall and understanding of meanings (Perez, 1981, discussed in August et al., 2005). In the same vein, intentional learning also leads to better retention (Hoshino, 2010).

Of course, an in-depth discussion of foreign language vocabulary acquisition is beyond the scope of the present study, but it is clear that learning vocabulary through a word list is a widespread practice among learners. Second, learners use a variety of strategies that go beyond memorization to interact with items in the list to achieve better learning outcomes. Third, although traditional approaches to teaching vocabulary used alphabetical listings of random samples or words that occur most frequently (Crow & Quigley, 1985), new ways of arranging items in the list (e.g.

through semantic/thematic clustering) have been proposed and proven to bring better learning results.

Again, as a potential form of glossary, word lists in foreign language learning are made to serve a special purpose. What’s more, the existing literature shows that most learners of a foreign language are likely to have adopted list-learning at some point in their learning process. The same may well hold true for interpreters, who have to hone their foreign language skills throughout their career. As Jiang’s survey of conference interpreters (2013) revealed that the majority (81.3%) of respondents used the glossary to learn vocabulary, it would be worthwhile to examine how interpreters of varying expertise levels utilize the glossary for assignments.

16

2.2.2 Glossary in the interpreting profession