The Hierarchy of Reading-related Vocabulary Exercises Types

Attempts to categorize vocabulary tasks and exercises have used quite different criteria. Among them, Paribakht and Wesche (1996) proposed a classification scheme for reading-related vocabulary exercises, which could be associated with Gass’s (1988)

information processing framework (Nation, 2001). In an attempt to explain how surrounding language data are gradually integrated and stored as learners’ mental knowledge and eventually become manifested in later performance, Gass proposed the information processing framework, describing five stages in the selection and internalization of ambient language data, or input. They are: 1) apperceived input, 2) comprehended input, 3) intake, 4) integration, and 5) output. Gass’s framework was originally proposed for language acquisition, particularly grammatical development, from speech data; in spite of this, Paribakht and Wesche (1996) found the account useful as well for vocabulary acquisition from written text.

To classify word-focused activities that accompany reading texts, Paribakht and Wesche echoed with Gass’s information processing framework and proposed a hierarchy of degree and type of mental processing involved in doing various kinds of post-reading vocabulary exercises. They are: 1) selective attention, 2) recognition, 3) manipulation, 4) interpretation, and 5) production. Paribakht and Wesche used them to categorize reading-related vocabulary exercises, grouping the exercises into 1) those that prompt learners’ attention to certain selected target words i.e. exercises for selective attention, 2) recognition exercises, 3) manipulation exercises, 4) interpretation exercises, and 5) production exercises, respectively. This classifying scheme regard vocabulary acquisition as a “multistage, iterative process” (Paribakht

and Wesche, 1996, p. 155) that requires repeated exposures to new words in meaningful contexts, and the vocabulary exercises nominated in any of their five categories as instructional intervention that can trigger ongoing iterations of the sequence for learners to gradually integrate new words into their mental lexicon and ultimately make them available for later receptive or productive communication.

2.2.2.1 Exercises for Selective Attention

This exercise category uses techniques to draw learners’ attention to the target words. Its aim is to ensure that learners do “notice” or “apperceive” the words to be learned, in accordance with the preliminary psychological condition “noticing” for the establishment of vocabulary knowledge and also corresponding to the first stage in Gass’s (1988) information processing framework “apperceived input”. The importance of this category of exercises lies in the fact that even if a learner is exposed to a significant body of second language data, not all of the data would be utilized by the learner; some language data pass through to the learner while some others do not (Gass, 1988, p. 201). The factors that determine whether the language data might be noticed or utilized for learning, or in this case, the factors that serve as ambient lexical item filter, include salience of the words, learners’ affect, learners’

association or prior knowledge, etc (Gass, 1988, pp. 202-3). Among them, what could be more easily influenced or mediated (and thus pedagogy) is the physical salience of

the words. This category of vocabulary exercises, therefore, intends to raise learners’

consciousness and draw learners’ attention to the target words mostly by increasing the salience of the words.

Vocabulary exercises include: providing a list of target words in the beginning of a text and asking students to read the list and notice where the words appear in the text, or having students highlight the target words in the text by underlining, boldfacing, italicizing, circling, coloring, or attaching asterisks and other visual signal to the target words (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 163).

2.2.2.2 Recognition Exercises

Recognition exercises require learners to recognize the target words and identify their meanings. In other words, learners associate the written form of a target word with at least one of its meaning, which demands only partial knowledge of the word to be learned. This category of exercises is a step towards receptive retrieval (Nation, 2001, p. 159). And since learners move from apperception to at least some level of comprehension of the input when they are striving to identify the meanings of target words in the recognition tasks, the exercises prompts learner to further process the target lexical items, making them “comprehended input” at the second stage of Gass’s (1988) information processing framework.

Vocabulary exercises include: matching the target word with a definition or

synonym, in which usually more definitions or synonyms than target words are provided, recognizing the meaning of the target word from a multiple choice of meanings, choosing the correct picture that represents the target word, choosing a right target word to label a picture, or giving the L1 equivalent of a target word (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 164).

2.2.2.3 Manipulation Exercises

Manipulation exercises involve rearranging and organizing the given word parts of target lexical items to make new words or phrases, i.e., making derivations of target words. This requires learners’ to do structural analysis of target words and thus draws on learners’ morphological knowledge and understanding of grammatical category of the words (Paribakht and Wesche, 1996, p. 164). In other words, the derivation that learners construct is a representation of their internal second language morphological knowledge and grammatical understanding, and the utilization of this existing knowledge and understanding as they strive to transform a target word into its derivation is a demonstration that the target word is in a way connected with learners’

internal second language system. Nation (2001, p. 159) as a result, associates Paribakht and Wesche’s manipulation with the third stage of Gass’s (1988) information processing framework “intake”, a term which was first used by Corder’s (1967, cited in Gass, 1988) and defined as “what goes in and not what is available to

go in” (Gass, 1988, p. 206). The intent of distinguishing intake from input, according to Gass, is to show that learners are not passive recipients of surrounding language information but in fact mentally interact with the ambient language material during acquisition. Gass refers to intake as a process that mediates between target language input and the learner’s internal system, “a process of assimilating linguistic material”

(p. 206). The manipulation exercises, thus, aims to trigger the process of attempted integration of lexical information. These exercises also prompts the condition of

“generation” for vocabulary knowledge to be established, since according to Nation (2001, p. 69) the “generation” or “generative use” of a word can apply to a range of variations “from inflection through collocation and grammatical context to reference and meaning”.

Vocabulary exercises include: giving derivations of words, or using stems and affixes to construct words (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 164).

2.2.2.4 Interpretation Exercises

Paribakht and Wesche’s interpretation exercises demands more precise semantic and syntactic understanding of target words, mostly a command of the relationship of target words with other words in a given context, e.g., the collocations. The collocational practices in this category of exercises lead to the condition of

“generation” that facilitates the establishment of vocabulary knowledge. The analysis

involved during the completion of the tasks, as Nation (2001, p. 159) points out, reflects the fourth stage of Gass’s information processing framework “integration”.

Unlike the previous stage of “intake” that, through the application of existing rules in making derivations, shows what comes in and is stored in learners’ second language system, this stage of “integration” results in a change or a development of learners’

second language system (Gass, 1988, p. 207). The target word that is learned, in other words, is not just a static stored information that just came in, but instead, by attaching new aspects of knowledge to the target word through the building of collocations, the new lexical item in a way reorganize the learner’s lexical network.

This connection of new information with existing information enriches new items with what is already known, and thus leads to improved acquisition (Joe, 1998).

Vocabulary exercises include: finding the inappropriate word in a series of collocationally related words, classifying words according to their discourse functions, such as classifying discourse connectives into cause and effect, contrast, and addition, guessing the meaning of target words in collocational contexts, or multiple choice cloze exercises (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, pp. 164-5). The aim of this type of exercises is to provide learners with a chance to recognize and reinforce the collocational properties or constraints of target words with an attempt to develop and evolve their second language lexical network.

2.2.2.5 Production Exercises

The production exercises reflects the final stage of Gass’s information processing framework “output”, which requires recall and reconstruction. In other words, learners have to recall the form of a target word and produce it in an appropriate novel context, which prompts the final condition, generation. In order to do this, learners need to have control over orthographic, semantic, syntactic, or even functional aspects of the target word; this category of exercises, thus, is labeled as the most demanding type by Paribakht and Wesche (1996, p. 165). Demanding, though, Swain (1985) regarded production, specifically the production of “comprehensible output”, as a necessary phase for successful acquisition to take place. The output, as she claimed, requires more sophisticated analysis and thus pushes second language development.

Vocabulary exercises include: open cloze exercises, labeling pictures, answering a question requiring the target word, seeing or hearing the L1 equivalent or an L2 synonym in a new context and providing the target word (Paribakht & Wesche, 1996, p. 165). The aim of the exercises is to provide an opportunity for learners to have a contextualized and meaningful use of target words and to test their hypothesis about the target word, so that learners can be pushed from a pure semantic or syntactic analysis to an actual use of target words with greater analytical refinement (Gass, 1988, p.210).