thoughts on lex (gle)
Thoughts on LEX | Mary Lynn Hughes | November, 1998
[Note: these off-DL messages are posted with author's consent]
Message 1:
Dear William,
Thanks very much for your message.
To answer your questions about me. I'm in Kazan, which is 500 miles east of Moscow. It's quite a provincial city, but it has its discreet charms. I've been living here for almost a year. Last term I was teaching in a state school (11-14 age group), which I really enjoyed. It was my first experience of teaching children. That went kaput in late August, partly due to the economic situation here, and at the moment I'm only doing a little private teaching (some of my previous pupils). My Russian is scratchy, though improving, and I find that the warmth and generosity of the people I meet makes up for most of the other stuff.
I know little about ELT in Japan, only what I gleaned from Japanese students I had in Dublin (that's where most of my previous ELT life took place). You must be an old hand, after eight years there! Your team-teaching situation sounds interesting. Is it the norm where you work? I've only ever done one brief stint of team teaching (and it was with Japanese students), but I can see it has lots of potential for both teachers and students. How far into the MSc programme are you? (I've only completed the Foundation module and started LEX. I also have IIC languishing on my shelf).
Well, as you say, LEX is not light reading. But it's extremely interesting to me, I'm fascinated by the 'mechanics' of what's going on when we learn, store and activate 'vocabulary'. So much so, that I haven't progressed beyond Unit 3, but find myself perpetually re-reading and finding more and more layers to explore. (Besides the module and attached articles, I'm reading Altmann (97), Eco (84) and Vygotsky (34). They're all interesting, but Altmann is probably the most readable, and up-to-date). I find being a language learner myself helpful in relating the theoretical stuff in the module to concrete experience (I can sometimes see under what circumstances I seem to best acquire new lexis and notice some of the mental processes going on), and that in turn gives me the odd insight re teaching. Although I'm not very far down that road - I can now at least begin to see the processes involved, but exactly how to facilitate them most effectively is another question. Hopefully, that will come.
My current obsession is the apparent conflict between 'words' and 'meaning'. Peter very much supports the view that words themselves don't have meaning ('only people can "mean" Unit 3, top p7) and I completely see what he 'means'(!) without the context, and adequate 'sharing' of the senses of the words we use to communicate, there is no meaning, only words. The social dimension is what determines meaning. OK, but if meaning is so context-specific and socially driven, how to explain, for example, that 'my' meanings so often match the dictionary ones? And then, the important question is, if we only acquire the meaning of a word/lexical item through our experience of it in various ways and over time (see Peter's 'baobob' example - Unit 3, p15-17), how can we provide the right kind of experiences for our students?
I've no idea if any of this interests you! I'm just throwing it out there as a starting point. Any comments you have on Units 1 or 2 are also welcome. What I want to do now is move on through the rest of the module. No doubt there are other interesting issues lurking around the corner. I'd be glad to know what you're working on and what interests you. If you like, we could share reactions to the module, ideas, etc? I'm sure there are different perspectives from which to approach LEX, and it would be a relief to get out of my own head and get some fresh views. I have to warn you that I'm very verbose (as you can see), but I love it when others are more concise!
I'll be away all of next week, but if you send a message, I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
Best of luck with the module.
Cheers,
Mary Lynn
Message 2:
Hello! Feeling guilty about not responding to messages, but as I haven't gone beyond the middle of Unit 4, cannot really comment much on what's been said so far.
Anyway, just for the sake of keeping the lines open, here's my answer to the translation question and what might be going on in the 'black box' re possible L1/L2 lexical item bonding (Unit 3, bottom p26).
Clearly, knowing a translation doesn't necessarily equate to having 'learnt' a word, except in a very restricted sense. It seems to me essentially the same as with an L1 word, ie it depends on one's experiences of it in various contexts, and therefore, the range of corresponding mental concepts available (Peter's 'baobob' and 'physics' examples). We will always find ourselves in situations where our 'knowledge' of words is inadequate because we're unfamiliar with their meaning as used by a particular discourse community. In the case of knowing a translation for a word, the sense(s) known may be inappropriate/inadequate for a particular context of use (Similar to what happens when one consults a bilingual dictionary and meets a bewildering array of 'meanings'). So, measuring 'learning' in this sense seems to mean measuring adequacy of experience to a given context. If assimilated experience matches current context, bingo!
Re the 'black box', I see three immediate possibilities (there may be more), probably depending on circumstances/degree of 'knowness': 1) a direct link (without mediation) between L2 lexis and mental concept; 2) L2 lexis to L1 translation to concept; 3) L2 lexis to concept (unmediated) to L1 translation (as confirmation of accuracy). I'm not so sure about Peter's explanation that an L2 lexical item is bonded to an L1 lexical item, rather than to 'sociophysical experience'. There is, I think, sometimes a direct link between an L2 lexical item and the 'engrammed associations' of experience. [There are some Russian words/phrases, for example, that for me immediately evoke a mental picture (concept) with no need for L1 mediation. Unless, of course, in these cases the L1 'bond' is unconscious, but how will we ever know that? There are also cases where I have to process an L1 translation to get to the concept, and also where I sense the concept, but not being confident that I am right, process the L1 translation anyway. And of course, there's a 4 th situation, where there's no possible mental link between L2 lexis and concept (the lexis is 'unknown')]. At least, it seems to me like that. I'm completely leaving out the factor of context, which I feel sure is significant in determining the particular mental process utilised on any given occasion.
The crux of it for me is that I don't see how there can be an L1/L2 lexical item bonding in memory without some semantic link (and therefore, 'sociophysical experience'). Without 'meaning' in some way adhering to them, I cannot see how lexical items are known/stored at all. (It seems clear that 'meaning' is not contained in the lexical items themselves). What then glues the L2 and L1 lexical items together (so that translation becomes the link to meaning)? Can meaning be associated only with the L1 item? Of course I don't know what form this 'adherence' that I'm thinking of might take. But if it's neural circuitry that's responsible for our mental processes, then maybe there's no separation between the lexical item stored and the 'engrammed association' evoked when it's 'activated'? (See Unit 3 p21-22: 'Massively Parallel Computers' and the two Altmann quotations that follow under the heading 'Lexical Entries'). No need for a dichotomy between 'words' and 'sociophysical experience'. Except in our conscious awareness of the process, a sort of time lag? Does anyone else have an interest in this?
Andrew, in response to your comment (12 November) re the 'system' v 'sharing' perspectives, I guess I started LEX with a roughly 'systems' point of view (language is 'knowable', one can analyse it in a systematic way etc ) and my particular focus was about something I liked to call 'precision' of use in language, ie that words do have at least relative meanings, and that we do, after all, use words to express our meanings. All I can say is that, through reading and pondering Units 1 - 3 and my own experiences with language, I've come to see that meanings are very flexible and I now think that for any understanding (shared meaning) using language as its tool, 'context' must first be established. That even goes for technical definitions that I had thought were understood via the 'words' - I now see that without sufficient shared meaning of the senses (experiences, etc) that the words trigger in us, there is no possibility of understanding. It seems more a question of how much we 'share' with a given discourse community, whether that be a dictionary, any text (ESP or otherwise), speakers, etc. I guess that's just stating the obvious. But the implications for teaching/learning are enormous, I think. And I don't have the answers.
With my own learners (11-14 year olds), I'm trying to figure out how to facilitate the kinds of experience with English that will make these 'words' real to them, and I tend towards Peter's emphasis on use of the language in communicatively meaningful ways, ie to express learners' own meanings. I also find myself looking to my own experiences with Russian, and situations where I've been able to notice what seemed to help me 'acquire' lexis and grammatical systems; and for me, that seems to be firmly linked to repeated meaningful communication (more than systematic study of grammar, lexis, etc). All quite the opposite of what my learners are used to! So, one question is how to effectively incorporate both systems and sharing aspects. I feel there's a place for 'cognitive' learning about language as well as meaningful experience with language. But I have to go beyond my own experience and fuzzy ideas. Perhaps the trick with any systems approach is to make it sufficiently flexible to take into account all that's implied in 'sharing', somehow broadening the 'system' to make it more context-sensitive? Is this a contradiction in terms? The increasing use of concordances and other 'real' language (a problematic concept itself) may be a partial solution. I read a very interesting paper about using concordances in teaching grammar and vocabulary (a specific approach called DDL - data-driven learning) - it gave practical applications, as well as quite a lot of theoretical background. If you're interested in such things, the reference is: Johns, T 1994, From printout to handout, In Odlin, T (Ed), 1994, Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar, pp293-313, CUP.
Any comments?
Has anyone tried out the LEX software?
I hope I'll soon catch up to the rest of you in the module, but don't hold your breath.
Cheers,
Mary Lynn
Message 3:
Dear fellow LEXERS,
Happy Christmas and all the best in 1999!
I will shortly be moving back to Ireland- leaving here late next week. When I get settled, probably second half of January, I'll reconnect with the group (I see my last message- re Unit 3, fell like a lead balloon!).
Overdo during the holliyers and enjoy yerselves!
Best wishes,
Mary Lynn
with 
and 
