Choosing words: how many and which ones

The needs of learners are in the centre of all kinds of teaching, including vocabulary teaching.

Beginning to plan one’s vocabulary teaching, a language teacher evaluates how many words learners need in order to be able to use the target language in situations that they are likely to encounter while taking the time reserved for learning them in class into account. That is the ideal situation but in reality, the teachers in Finland at least tend to rely on course books quite heavily (Luukka et al. 2008, Elomaa 2009). The situations most L2 learners are likely to encounter are hardly as diverse as those of a native speaker (Schmitt 2010b:7), so it is not a necessity to learn as many words as a native speaker (Laufer & Nation 2012). Most learners do not necessarily need as large a vocabulary as, for example, university level students, who usually have a vocabulary of around 15,000-20,000 words (Goulden et al. 1990, cited in

Schmitt 2010b:29), either. Of course, the more complex the subjects of conversations, texts and situations are, the more vocabulary the learner needs. As a teacher, one should select the words quite carefully due to the fact that teaching all aspects of word knowledge is not possible within the time constraints of L2 vocabulary learning (Nation 2008).

One of the first things for a teacher to evaluate is how big of a vocabulary one needs to use a second language. Many second language learners aim at being able to communicate in the target language and to read some authentic texts. In second language learning, it has been estimated that the so called core vocabulary or threshold level for being able to operate in daily conversations is about 2,000-3,000 words (Thornbury 2007, Milton 2009, Schmitt 2010b).

Many studies suggest that learning the 2,000 or so most frequent words should be the centre of vocabulary teaching because they accumulate the learning of other words (Nation 2008:5). The threshold level of words includes so called ‘high-frequency’ words, namely words that appear often in the target language (Nation and Waring 1997) which cover about 95% of texts (Schmitt 2010b). If 98% coverage is needed, the number of words needed rises up to 6,000-7,000 words (Schmitt 2010b:7). However, the numbers are not definite since learners may be good users of vocabulary learning strategies and thus, be able to guess the meaning of words from context (Milton 2009, Nation 2008) and therefore be in need of more words than the threshold level of 2000 words. There are also differences in how many words one needs to understand a language and how many words one needs in order to being able to read in that language (Schmitt 2008).

Reviewing studies by other researchers (e.g. Laufer 1989, Bonk 2000, Nation 2006), Schmitt (2008) concludes that anywhere between 2,000 and 9,000 word or word families are needed to understand spoken English but being able to read text within a wide variety of text requires 8,000-9,000. Smaller variety of texts requires only 4,000-5,000 words (Schmitt 2008). It has also been studied that in order to being able to read wider variety of texts, the number of words known is even higher and about 8,000-9,000 words (Schmitt 2011). What is more, one has to take into account the level in which one teaches – the higher the level, the more complex the setting and/or the more specific the need, the wider and larger vocabulary is needed.

Now the teacher has set a goal for how many words his students are to learn in his classroom but one has to decide what words one teaches. One fairly well argued reason is that the word is included in the General Service List of the 2,000 most frequent words in English. These words cover about 80% of words occurring in various every day contexts and so, are very useful also for L2 learners. However, one must be careful when choosing words based on a list of words as the requirements for being included on the list may vary for various reasons (e.g.

inclusion of multi-word items). (Nation 2001). Another reason for choosing to teach a word is its usefulness in a specified context (Laufer and Nation 2012). For example, in a school environment it is useful to teach words found in the classroom, such as blackboard. Adding to the list, especially on a more advanced level and academic context, one may also need to teach academic words. They are common in different academic texts covering about 9% of the words in the texts. What is more, technical words, i.e. words that are common in texts about a very specific topic but not elsewhere, are sometimes needed. They cover up to 5% of texts under the topic in question. (Nation 2001). Location and culture are also variables while choosing vocabulary to teach as it is beneficial for Finnish learners to learn words, for example, about Finnish nature.

The time dedicated to vocabulary learning and teaching is limited under classroom circumstances as have been stated before. In addition to picking words based on their frequency, one should also consider how difficult the words are for the learner. Difficult words may require more time while often easily acquired vocabulary does not. As has been established in chapter 2 of the present study, knowing a word involves multiple aspects from orthographic presentation to different collocations and for learning L2 vocabulary it might prove even more difficult. The next few paragraphs delve into why some words might be more difficult than others and how it affects vocabulary teaching.

Laufer (1997) lists some things that affect the learnability of L2 words: pronounceability, orthographic presentation, morphological characteristics, synformy (i.e. when lexical items sound and/or look alike), grammatical function of words, and various semantic features of a word. These conditions may even vary according to whether or not words are taught through incidentally or explicitly (Lin 2012). Nouns are usually the easiest due to their highly imaginable nature, verbs and adjectives coming the second easiest while adverbs are often relatively hard for L2 learners to learn (Laufer 1997, Ellis and Beaton 1993). If a word is different in pronunciation from learner’s L1, it might prove a problem. In more detail, sounds that do not appear in L1 are often more difficult to remember in L2. (Laufer 1997, Ellis and Beaton 1993). Also, Finnish learners of English might have problem recognising the stressed syllable in words because in Finnish the stress is always on the first syllable. Furthermore, the acoustical familiarity of a word may pose as a factor in word learnability. When the sounds are similar in one’s L1 or one has repeatedly met the L2 word before and practised it out loud, one is more likely to remember that word and other similar sounding words. (Ellis and Beaton 1993). What might also prove particularly difficult for, for example, Finnish L2 learners of

English, is that in English the spelling and pronunciation of words do not necessarily resemble one another. It has been studied by Ellis and Beaton (1993) and Laufer (1997) that if the word’s orthographic presentation is far from how it is pronounced, it is more difficult for the learner.

Laufer (1997) continues that inflexional complexity adds to the difficulty of words: irregular plurals, gender of inanimate nouns and noun cases are more difficult to remember. Using Finnish learners as an example again, one might imagine that –s ending of a verb in third person singular would be easy to learn because Finnish uses a lot of endings. What is more, “the lack of regularity with which morphemes can or cannot combine to create meanings or the multiplicity of the meanings can be a source of difficulty” (Laufer 1997:146). For example, prefixes in- and un- are used for similar functions but unanimate or inbearable are not correct words in English. Similarly, a problem might rise if one thinks that the meaning of the whole word is equal to “the sum of meanings of its components” (Laufer 1997:147). The similarity of lexical items might also pose as an issue. When two words sound or look similar, they are more easily confused with one another. (Laufer 1997). For example, words price and prize have similar phonemic pattern except one consonant and can be easily confused. What is more, abstract nouns (e.g. progress), idiomatic expressions, words with very specific register/context and words with multiple meanings, are also harder to learn as they add to the learning burden of a learner (Lin 2012, Laufer 1997).

The difficulty of vocabulary to be learned has a few implications for teachers. If the words are difficult, one must dedicate more time for each word and furthermore, present fewer words per lesson in comparison to presenting the relatively easier words (Laufer 1997). Laufer (1997) presents that it might be good to avoid presenting synformic words at the same time. For example, words loose and lose sound similar and can easily be confused. Too many difficult words in one lesson might add to the learning burden to an extent that the learner can no longer learn these items. Conclusively, a teacher should take into account the learnability of words while planning one’s vocabulary teaching.