1

The Role of Vocabulary in English Language Teaching (ELT): The

Past, Present, and Challenges Ahead
:

Jeng-yih Tim Hsu

Department of English
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology

justice@nkfust.edu.tw

Abstract
In the past few decades, the role of vocabulary in English language teaching has
been receiving a tremendous amount of attention and often the center of discussions
as well as debates. This paper, serving as a brief review, takes the readers back to the
initial point at which vocabulary regained its popularity in recent eras of ELT. It also
examines how the emphasis on weighting vocabulary turns into a widely recognized
teaching approach (Richards & Rogers, 2001), i.e., the Lexical Approach, which
inspires researchers, classroom practitioners, and commercial textbook writers to
openly embrace and prioritize teaching frequency-based vocabulary. This growing
lexis-focused trend, while bringing new possibilities, is actually creating more
questions than it answered. By presenting findings and reports from some current
corpus-based studies, this paper calls for more empirical studies to be done, hoping
the field of ELT to respond jointly to the challenges posted while determining the
status of vocabulary.




2

1. Historical and Current Trends
Though vocabulary is prominent in language learning, it has been undervalued in
the past 50 years of ELT history (Carter & McCarthy, 1988; Seal, 1991; Zimmerman,
1997a; Odell, 1997). The role of vocabulary is typically considered in terms of the
classic ELT methodologies and the theories of reading models.
When the Grammar Translation Method was first introduced to teach modern
language, vocabulary received limited attention and was selected only if it could
illustrate grammatical rules, and direct vocabulary instruction that isolated words in
the form of lists was included (Brown, 1994; Zimmerman, 1997a; Richards & Rogers,
2001). The Direct Method that came next emphasized exposure to oral language and
the direct use of the L2. Vocabulary was kept simple and familiar, and was assumed to
be acquired naturally through the interaction during lessons and connected with
reality as much as possible (Schmitt, 2000). In the 1970s, while the Audio-lingual
Method was dominating, language learning was believed to be a process of habit
formation. Systematic attentions were paid to pronunciation and oral drilling of
sentence patterns. New words were then taught through drills, but only enough to
make the drills possible (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). The idea that learning too much
vocabulary in the early learning process created a false sense of security was even
suggested (Zimmerman, 1997a). The Communicative Approach, deriving in the 80s,
once again gave vocabulary a secondary status. As the CA focused more on the
meanings, the appropriate use, and the communicative competence of an L2, little
explicit attention has been given to vocabulary in either theoretical or pedagogical
publications (Zimmerman, 1997a). It was assumed that if L2 learning took place in
communicatively meaning contexts, vocabulary would take care of itself (Coady,
1993; Schmitt, 2000).
Only in the Vocabulary Control Movement and the Natural Approach did
vocabulary receive significant attention. During the Vocabulary Control Movement,
the first attempt to compile a list of minimum necessary English vocabulary appeared
under the influence of Ogden and Richards (in Carter & McCarthy, 1988; Schmitt,
2000) whose works became Basic English consisting of 850 words. The second
attempt, partially reacting to the Direct Method, was collectively recorded in the
Carnegie Report (in Schmitt, 2000) in which word frequency was the main criterion in
selecting words. This list, containing about 2000, words was eventually published as
the General Service List of English Words by West (1953, in Richards & Rogers,
1986; Nation, 1990 & 2008; Zimmerman, 1997a; Schmitt, 2000). For the first time,
vocabulary was treated as one of the most important aspects of L2 learning and efforts
were given on developing a scientific and rational basis for selecting vocabulary
content of language courses. Krashens Natural Approach, which models the natural


3

process of L1 development (Coady, 1993) and emphasizes comprehensible and
meaningful input, also highly values vocabulary as it is seen as a bearer of meaning.
Vocabulary teaching methods in the Natural Approach stress the importance of
interesting and relevant input, and learners understanding of messages (Zimmerman,
1997a).
Meanwhile, L2 reading models have powerful influence on the role of second
language vocabulary (Coady, 1993). The psycholinguistic, top-down approach
(Goodman, in Coady, 1993) that requested reader to actively process several
sub-skills, such as prediction and anticipation, in order to achieve comprehension paid
a lot of attention to guessing unknown words via contextual clues. The following
interactive model that used both the top-down and bottom-up processes emphasized
the prior knowledge (i.e., schemata). Vocabulary is viewed in terms of the learners
background knowledge of concepts as well as word-forms.
Two decades ago, Grabe (1991) predicted that vocabulary development would
still remain vital for the 1990s. Seal (1991) affirms Grabes prediction as he foresees
that the new focuses of ELT education would include: (1) the de-emphasis on
grammar, (2) learners increasing needs for vocabulary in order to increase
communication; (3) the perceived needs of EAP (English for Academic Purposes)
students who are always disadvantaged due to their small size of L2 vocabulary.
The current trend of L2 vocabulary instruction focuses on its natural occurring
discourse and stresses that words should be always taught and learnt in contexts
(Nattinger, 1988; Brown, 1994; Aebersold & Field, 1997; Nation, 2008). With the
assistance of computer, it is now possible to record how words are actually used in
English. The COBUILD Project (Sinclair & Renouf, 1988) contains a corpus of 20
million words, accounting for actual English use. New directions of the L2 vocabulary
research call attention for (1) the study of word relationship, such as collocation, i.e.,
words co-occurring that happens very often and more frequently than would happen
by chance (Seal, 1991; Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997; Schmitt, 2010); (2) the
re-examination of former word frequency list (Schmitt, 2000); (3) the integration of a
lexical syllabus into former topic-, notion-, or function-based syllabuses (Willis, 1990;
Lewis, 1993; Odell, 1997; Schmitt, 2000); (4) the integration of the Communicative
Approach with a focus on naturally occurring vocabulary in classroom activities
(Zimmerman, 1997a; 1997b).

2. Major Issues in the Teaching and Learning of vocabulary
Main issues centering L2 vocabulary acquisition include: (1) What do we mean
by knowing a word? (2) Should teachers offer direct instruction of vocabulary? (3) If
so, how and what should teachers teach first?


4

Although researchers all notice the complicate nature of vocabulary and
acknowledge that the vocabulary consists of many degrees of knowledge (Channell,
1988; Stoller & Grabe, 1993, 1997), their arguments have been on the issue whether
we should emphasize the receptive or productive knowledge of a word. Nation (1990,
2008) proposes that a native speaker must master the followings in order to know a
word: the meaning(s), written and spoken form, grammatical behavior, collocations,
register, associations, and frequency of the word. However, Schmitt and McCarthy
(1997) note that such a list gives just a descriptive picture of a word, it is best to think
of vocabulary knowledge as an integrated whole. Gu (1994) perhaps provides the best
working definition for the minimum word knowledge an L2 learner needs to know. It
should at least include the form, the referential meaning, and the basic syntactic
behavior of each word.
Debates on whether vocabulary should be taught explicitly/directly or
implicitly/indirectly have been severe. The direct instruction of vocabulary is often
tied with 2 further sub-issues: (a) the sequence of vocabulary teaching; (b) the
acceptance of a core vocabulary. On the other hand, the indirect vocabulary
instruction has been proposed to be best attempted via the use of extensive reading
(Fox, 1987; Seal, 1991; Cho & Krashen, 1994; Day & Bamford, 1998). The current
consensus can be best summarized as the followings:
(1) The beginning learners need more direct vocabulary instruction before
reaching a threshold level.
(2) As learners proceed, indirect vocabulary teaching as well as extensive
reading will gradually take over the direct emphasis of vocabulary.
(3) Beyond the threshold level or the beginners paradox, students learning of
new words is taken care of by conducting L2 reading directly, including free,
pleasure, or extensive learning.
Regarding the vocabulary teaching sequence, most researchers (Nation & Coady,
1988; Carter & McCarthy, 1988; Coady, 1993; Aebersold & Field, 1997; Schmitt,
2010) indicate that pre-teaching vocabulary will not contribute too significantly to
learners learning. Direct vocabulary teaching benefits most if used as an after-lesson
reviewing technique that widens and deepens learners word knowledge (Nation,
1990). However, caution is also given concerning what constitutes the most important
and prioritized words that need learning. Wests General Service List (in Nation, 1990)
of 2000 high-frequency headwords is the most quoted one and a good place to start.
For EAP learners, Xue & Nation (1984) add 836 more words in their University Word
List, with which they claim that these two lists will cover 95% of most English texts.
Though additional high-frequency words are further suggested (Hirsh & Nation, 1992;
Nation & Waring, 1997), a core vocabulary consisting of the most common


5

3000-5000 words is recognized and accepted by most L2 researchers (OKeeffe,
McCarthy, & Carter, 2007). These words deserve first attention while other
low-frequency words can only be learnt by incidental learning through repetitive
encounters in L2 reading (Krashen, 1989, Cho & Krashen, 1994; Nation, 1990; Coady,
1993; Stroller & Grabe, 1997; Day & Bamford, 1998). Laufer (1997), as an advocate
of the threshold, claims that below such threshold, reading strategies become
ineffective.

3. Some Effective Ways of Teaching and Learning Vocabulary
Based on the research reviewed above, it seems reasonable to conclude that
students with different proficiency levels should be taught vocabulary learning skills
with different emphases. Nevertheless, since there is no clearly marked stages of
transition, techniques that aim to promote best teaching and learning of L2 vocabulary
should be built along with a vocabulary learning continuum (Carter & McCarthy,
1988; Coady, 1993) during which a mixture of approaches should be adopted (Long &
Richards, 1987; Carter & McCarthy, 1988; Coady, 1993; Nation, 2008).
As far as effective vocabulary teaching is concerned, some valuable
recommendations are offered. Seal (1991) distinguishes unplanned vocabulary
teaching from planned vocabulary teaching and warns teachers whom are
consistently being questioned by students searching for unknown words that 3Cs
techniques (i.e., convey, check, and consolidate a words meaning) avoid certain
dangers in the unplanned teaching situations. Hatch and Brown (1995), supporting
Seal, add in the 4
th
C, connect the meaning and the form of a word together.
Regarding the planned vocabulary teaching, teaching techniques never stop
accumulating. To tackle the beginners below-threshold syndrome, Nation and Coady
(1988), Laufer (1997), and Schmitt (2000) suggest that the mastering of the core
vocabulary and a large sight vocabulary (i.e., words whose form and common
meanings are recognized automatically, irrespective of contexts) help learners to take
off.
Beyond threshold, teachers and students equally participate in the teaching and
learning process. Teachers are encouraged to conduct needs analysis before any
further vocabulary instruction (Altman, 1997; Zimmerman,1997b). Class activities
should be set up to meet the following criteria:
(1) exposures to words in meaningful contexts and in 4-skill (i.e., listening,
speaking, reading, and writing) activities;
(2) connection between new and old words;
(3) rich and elaborative rehearsal about each word (e.g., describing word
meanings, ordering words, and collocational matching games);


6

(4) use of various techniques (e.g., word unit analysis, mnemonic devices,
semantic mapping, dictionary skills)
(5) multiple exposures to words;
(6) active participation by students in the learning process
(Sokmen, 1997; Zimmerman, 1997b, 2009).

While repetitive encounters of words can be done through teachers emphasis on
in-and-out-of-class extensive reading, students at higher levels are expected to take
responsibility in their learning process. Sokmen (1992), Hatch and Brown (1995), and
Zimmerman (1997b) propose the use of students self-generating vocabulary as they
all anticipate that ultimately students become independent vocabulary learners
capable of determining their needs and applying learner strategies (e.g., guessing and
inferring from context, paraphrasing, affixes analysis) to handle each newly
encountered word.

4. Popularizing and Prioritizing Vocabulary
4.1. The lexical approach
The publication of the second edition of Approaches and Methods in Language
Teaching (Richards & Rogers, 2001) marked the arrival of a vocabulary-targeted
approach. In their most quoted textbook, Richards and Rogers allocating one chapter
in which the lexical approach was recognized and introduced. Collocations, along
with computer-generated lists containing single words and longer lexical units, and
concordance samples, were introduced and granted a higher status.
Concerns on the role of collocations in language acquisition have been raised by
scholars and researchers in the late 1960s. Discussions and studies of collocations are
developing mainly among three groups: corpus linguistics, second language
acquisition and instruction, and ELT vocabulary education. They may seem to have
approached and studied collocations with different emphases.
Sinclair, a lexicographer and a leading character of corpus linguistics, led the rest
to capture the distributional regularities (Ellis, 2008, p. 4) of a language by
introducing his idiom principlea language user has available to him or her a large
number of semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choice, even though they
might appear to be analyzable into segments (Sinclair, 1991, p. 100). Arguing
based on the results of corpus investigations, Kjellmer (1991) and Kennedy (1998),
both reached a conclusion similar to Sinclairs by stating that collocations are
indispensable components upon which our language are made. Basically, collocations
are more like by-products corpus linguists have found while building up their data
(e.g., Biber and his colleagues multi-word lexical items, 1999; Sinclairs


7

concordances, 2003), these scholars recognized the importance of such statistically
high frequency word strings in the process of analyzing million-word corpora. In the
recent works of Sinclair and Biber, they have attempted to take their corpus studies
further by applying them into language teaching. For instance, Sinclair (2004) and his
associate Bernardini (2004) proclaimed that corpus is the most powerful tool made
available for in-class lexical structures learning activities. Biber (2006) proposed that
the adoption of EAP corpus actually promotes the learning of vocabulary and
grammar use.
As for the scholars concerning second language acquisition and instruction,
Pawley and Syder (1983), Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) should be given the credit
for directing our attention to re-consider lexicalized stems or lexical phrases. In
their observation of second language learners, Pawley and Syder, had seen many
lexicalized stems being segmented and reassembled as new units, functioning like
independent word combinations which lead to longer sentence structures. They
believed these stems are the building blocks for later stages of L2 acquisition.
Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992), emphasizing more on the socio-pragmatic function
of lexical phrases, also noticed both L1 and L2 learners made extensive use of
prefabricated chunks of speech. Scholars of this group suggested that second language
instruction should concentrate on lexical stems/phrases. In fact, their observations
were soon embraced by pedagogists with methodological concerns. Lewis (1993,
1997, & 2000) brought in the lexical approach which peaks the status of lexis. In the
lexical approach, plentiful exposure and consciousness-raising of lexis lie in the
center of every classroom activity. Language teaching foregrounds vocabulary in the
forms of single words, most frequent words, and word combinations (i.e.,
collocations). How to maximize the opportunities for learners to receive enough
exposure of multiword units in actual language use became the predominant issue.
The lexical approach has been experiencing a series of persistent resistance
partially because of its lack of tried method for teaching and partially teachers
preference of interactive and message-based Communicative Language Teaching
(Kennedy, 2008). Nevertheless, such a new idea in the methodological change has
been proved to be revolutionarily influential. It stirred up debates over the issue
whether collocations deserve specific attention and later attracted researchers of ELT
education to begin systematic studies of vocabulary, an aspect of language learning
long neglected (Nation, 2008). The earlier works of Coady and Huckin (1997),
Schmitt and McCarthy (1997), and Schmitt (2000) not only provided the most
comprehensive reviews of the development of vocabulary studies but also pinpointed
the key issues in teaching and learning ELT vocabulary. Recent works of Thornbury
(2002), Folse (2004), and Zimmerman (2009) also contributed to the understanding of


8

vocabulary pedagogy. Collocations are presented by these scholars with a three-fold
argument: (a) collocational knowledge is an important part of word knowledge
(Nation, 2001; 2008), (b) collocational knowledge is an aid to fluent and appropriate
language use (Ellis, 2008; Thornbury, 2002), and (c) collocation teaching activities
are vocabulary-richness activities which should be encouraged (Nation & Newton,
1997; Folse, 2004; Schmitt, 2008; Zimmerman, 2009).
The interest in studying collocations did not stop at the reports of the three
groups of researchers and scholars. The project on formulaic sequences headed by
Schmitt (2004) in University of Nottingham carried on the torch. Taking a purely
quantitative approach, Schmitt and his research team have devoted tremendous
amount of time investigating what they call formulaic sequences or lexical
patterning, (both of which include collocations), collected from learner language.
Reporting the results of twelve studies, Schmitt repeatedly underscored the
importance of formulaic sequences as they play an essential role in our speech
(Kuiper, 2004), comprehension of texts (Schmitt & Underwood, 2004), and language
of EAP context (Jones & Haywood, 2004). In addition, other applied linguists,
including Ellis (2008) and Coxhead (2008), have joined Meunier and Grangers (2008)
action research project on phraseology in order to advance our skills in extracting,
describing, teaching, and learning phraseological units. In sum, to many researchers,
phraseological units, i.e., collocations, are the heart of language (Ellis, 2008) and it is
certain to see more research conducted to investigate the role of collocations in
language acquisition.
Nevertheless, even with all the studies reported so far, few have examined the
relationship between the acquisition of collocations and ELT learners general
proficiency; fewer have looked into specifically the effects of direct collocation
instruction on English language skills, such as listening, reading, writing, and
speaking. To date, only five empirical studies, Tseng (2002, collocations and writing),
Lien (2003, collocations and reading), Boers, Eyckmans, Kappel, Stengers, and
Demecheleer (2006, collocations and speaking), Hsu and Hsu (2007, collocations and
listening), Lin (2007, collocations and reading), investigated if direct collocation
instruction enhanced L2 learners language proficiency. The findings reported are
promising and encouraging. Whereas Tseng did not report any obvious improvement
in her students writing, the other four studies all revealed that teaching collocations
brings positive influence on learners knowledge of collocations as well as language
skills.

4.2. Advocating the teaching and learning of English collocations
Classroom-centered studies on collocations began in the early 1990s and they


9

happened to be conducted with participants in EFL settings, presented with
quantitative results. Pioneer researchers placed their foci on determining learners
collocational competence (e.g., Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Farghal & Obiedat 1995;
Keshavarz & Salimi, 2007) or analyzing L2 learners errors of lexical collocations
(Liu, 1999; Lombard, 1997; Chen, 2006; Jeng, 2006; Chen, 2002). Studies of
correlational nature followed afterwards. Their findings jointly endorsed that
knowledge and use of lexical collocations significantly correlate with EFL students
writing (Zhang, 1993), overall English (Al-Zahrani, 1998), speaking, (Sung, 2003),
and online writing (Hsu, 2007) proficiency.
Recent research focus has shifted to the impact of teaching and learning lexical
collocations. Studies of instructional design, including Tseng (2002), Lien (2003),
Hsu and Hsu (2007), Boers et al. (2006), and Lin (2007), are discussed below in
details because they provided valuable guidelines for this present study of the similar
nature.

4.3. Teaching collocations in Taiwanese contexts
Working with 94 senior high school Taiwanese students in a twelve-week period,
Tseng (2002) taught her experimental group lexical collocations explicitly during
classroom activities. She employed a questionnaire, an identical pre-/post-course
fill-in-blank collocational knowledge test, and two essays to examine the differences
of her students in the experimental group in contrast to the control group. Her results
showed that EFL high school students clearly could not acquire collocations on their
own. Teaching of collocations, in Tsengs case, was proved to have direct effects on
broadening students knowledge of collocations, although obvious improvement on
writing was not reported.
Lien (2003) investigated the effects of collocations on Taiwanese college English
majors reading comprehension. She divided 85 students into three participant groups
according to their academic levels, and provided each group in a random order three
kinds of instruction: lexical collocations, single-item vocabulary, and no instruction,
in three consecutive weeks. Immediately following each instructional treatment, an
essay-question reading test was given to the students in order to measure their reading
comprehension. Lien concluded: (a) collocational instruction enhanced her
participants reading fluency to some degree, (b) single-item vocabulary instruction,
almost like no instruction, had no positive effect on the students reading
comprehension, and (3) upon receiving collocation instruction, the lowest level (i.e.,
sophomore) students performed even better than the other two higher levels. Lien
further stated that knowledge of collocations deserved more attention because it might


10

have encouraging influence on L2 students fluency and it is not something non-native
speakers can acquire without explicit teaching.
Also examining the effects of lexical collocations on Taiwanese EFL students
reading fluency development, Lin (2007) placed her focus on vocational high students.
Adopting a control-versus-experimental model, she taught the two classes herself in
an 18-week semester. Lin used one set of identical pre- and post-course test,
consisting of a reading fluency and a collocation competence test, in order to measure
her two student groups language development. In addition, a delayed post-course
reading test was given to the participants again one month later as a follow-up reading
fluency check. Lins findings were relatively encouraging as she found that the
experimental group, with explicit and systematic collocation teaching, made
significantly greater progress in the reading fluency test than its counterpart. She even
reported direct collocation instruction was beneficial to EFL students of all
proficiency levels, a finding contrasted to Liens (2003) in which only the lowest level
made more obvious improvement.
Hsu and Hsu (2007), adapting a research design similar to Liens (2003), gave
two groups of college English majors (i.e., sophomores and juniors) collocation,
single-word, no instruction treatments and tested these students listening
comprehension reflected by a multiple-choice TOEFL model test. The results showed
that the instructional treatments had more effect than the academic levels on the
participants performance of listening comprehension. The two groups both reacted
best after receiving instruction which emphasized lexical collocations. Because the
students test scores after the single-word and no instruction were so close, Hsu and
Hsu went on to claim as a language learner, he/she may as well not receive any
instruction at all as he/she is receiving single-item vocabulary instruction (p. 26-27).
In short, the studies targeting Taiwanese EFL students yielded some meaningful
results. For example, the majority of the research findings support that direct
collocation teaching seems helpful to students language fluency whether the
instruction is one-time only or longitudinal. It is however difficult to determine if L2
students of higher or lower language levels would benefit more from the
collocation-focused instruction.

5. Implications for Teaching Vocabulary in the ELT Classrooms of Taiwan
Arden-Close (1999) reports that English teaching currently in Taiwan is still
Grammar-Translation-Method based. While reading skill is the means to other aspects
of language learning, teaching approach always follow the isolated vocabulary
teachinggrammar rules explanation main reading text translation pattern. Based


11

on the literature reviewed above, I am proposing the following changes to EFL
vocabulary teaching in Taiwan:
1. Introduce and integrate the core vocabulary into the current Taiwanese EFL syllabi
in order to build a more scientific, probable, lexical-based L2 teaching.
2. By adapting the spirit of the Communicative Approach, learners needs ought to be
taken into consideration. At the same time, Taiwanese students should be taught to
take more active roles in their L2 learning process.
3. Independent vocabulary learning strategies as well as student-led, pleasure-bound,
extensive reading should be encouraged and even required as a part of each class,
thus highly motivated learners will progress in their own path automatically.
References
Aebersold, J. A., & Field, M. L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and
strategies for second language classroom. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Altman, R. Oral production of vocabulary: A case study. In J. Coady, & T.
Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 69-97). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Arden-Close, C. (1999). Taiwanese university freshmens difficulties with reading in
English. Reading in a Foreign Language,12(2), 325-354.
Bernardini, S. (2004). Corpora in the classroom: An overview and some
reflections on future developments. In J. Sinclair (2004). (Ed.). How to use corpora in
language teaching (pp. 15-38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and
written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Conard, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic
prose. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.). Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig
Johansson. (pp. 181-190). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman
grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carter, R., and McCarthy, M. (Eds). (1988). Vocabulary and language teaching. New
York: Longman.
Channell, J. (1988). Psycholinguistic considerations in the study of L2 vocabulary
acquisition. In R. Carter, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp.
83-96). New York: Longman.
Cho, K., & Krashen, S. (1994). Acquisition of vocabulary from the Sweet Valley Kids
series: Adult ESL acquisition. Journal of Reading, 37(8), 662-667.


12

Coady, J. (1993). Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in
context. In T. Huckin, M. Hyanes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and
vocabulary learning (pp. 3-23). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Coady J., & Huckin, T. (1997). (Eds.). Second language vocabulary acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coxhead, A. (2008). Phraseology and English for academic purposes: Challenges
and opportunities. In In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.). Phraseology in foreign
language learning and teaching. (pp. 149-162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Day, R, R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. (2008). Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In In F.
Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching.
(pp. 1-14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fox, L. (1987). On acquiring an adequate second language vocabulary. In M. H. Long,
& J. C. Richards (Eds.). (1987). Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp. 307-311).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading research. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(30), 375-406.
Gu, Y. (1994). Vocabulary learning strategies of good and poor Chinese EFL
learners. (ERIC 370 411).
Hatch, E., & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hirsh, D., & Nation, I.S.P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read
unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 689-696.
Hsu, J-Y. (2005). The effects of direct collocation instruction on the English
proficiency of Taiwanese college students in a business English workshop.
Soochow Journal of Foreign Languages and Cultures, 21, 139.
Hsu, J-Y. (2007). Lexical collocations and their impact on the online writing of
Taiwanese college English majors and non-English majors. Electronic Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 4(2): 192-209.
Hsu, J-Y., & Hsu, L-C. (2007). Teaching lexical collocations to enhance listening
comprehension of English majors in a technological university of Taiwan. Soochow
Journal of Foreign Languages & Cultures, 24:1-32.
Hsu, J-Y., & Chiu, C-Y. (2008). Lexical collocations and their relation to
speaking proficiency of college EFL learners in Taiwan. Asian EFL Journal, 10(1):
181-204.


13

Kenndy, G. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. New York: Pearson
Longman.
Kenndy, G. (2008). Phraseology and language pedagogy: Semantic preference
associated with English verbs in the British National Corpus. In F. Meunier & S.
Granger (Eds.). Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. (pp. 21-42).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kjellmer, G. (1991). A mint of phrases. In K. Aijmer, & B. Altenberg (Eds.).
English Corpus Linguistics. (pp.111-127). London: Longman.
Kuiper, K. (2004). Formulaic performance in convetionalised varieties of speech.
In N. Schmitt (Ed.). Formulaic sequences (pp. 37-54). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional
evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you dont
know, words you think you know, and words you cant guess. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin
(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 20-34). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. London:
Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theories into practice.
London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach.
London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lien, H-Y. (2003). The effects of collocation instruction on the reading comprehension
of Taiwanese college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.
Lin, Y-P. (2007). The effects of collocation instruction on the development of reading
proficiency of vocational high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Liu, C-P. (1999). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The Proceedings
of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 483-494). Taipei, Taiwan:
Crane Bookstore.
Lombard, R. J. (1997). Non-native speaker collocations: A corpus-driven
characterization from the writing of native speakers of Mandarin. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Texas at Arlington.
Long, M. H., & Richards, J. C. (Eds.). (1987). Methodology in TESOL: A book of
readings. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.


14

Meunier, F., & Granger, S. (2008). (Eds.). Phraseology in foreign language learning
and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury
House.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston:
Heinle, Cengage Learning.
Nation, I. S. P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter, & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97-110). New York: Longman.
Nation, P., & Newton, J. (1997). Teaching vocabulary. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.).
Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 238-254). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In
N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.
6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, J. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In R. Carter, & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 62-82). New York: Longman.
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Odell, F. (1997). Incorporating vocabulary into the syllabus. In N. Schmitt, & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 258-278).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OKeeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom:
Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pawley, A., & Syder, H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection
and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richard & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and
communication (pp. 191-225). New York: Longman.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching (2nd

edition). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitt, N. (2004). (Ed.). Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


15

Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language
Teaching Research, 12(3), 329-363.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In N.
Schmitt (Ed.). Formulaic sequences (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). (Eds.). Vocabulary: Description,
acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., & Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic
sequences through a self-paced reading task. In N. Schmitt (Ed.). Formulaic
sequences (pp. 173-190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Seal, B. D. (1991). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a second or foreign language( pp. 296-311). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sinclair, J. (2003). Reading concordances. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Sinclair, J. (2004). (Ed.). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Sinclair, J., & Renouf, A. (1988). A lexical syllabus for language learning. In R. Carter,
& M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 140-160).. New York:
Longman.
Stoller, F. L., & Grabe, W. (1993). Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and
instruction from L1 vocabulary research. In T. Huckin, M. Hyanes, & J. Coady (Eds.),
Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 24-45). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Stoller, F. L., & Grabe, W. (1997). Reading and vocabulary development in a second
language: A case study. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary
acquisition (pp. 98-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sokmen, A.J. (1992). Students as vocabulary generators. TESOL Journal, 1(4), 16-18.
Sokmen, A. J. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N.
Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.
237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sung, J. (2003). English lexical collocations and their relation to spoken fluency of
adult non-native speakers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, USA.
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Zimmerman, C. B. (1997a). Historical trends in second language vocabulary
instruction. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp.
5-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


16

Zimmerman, C. B. (1997b). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a
difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 121-140.
Zimmerman, C. B. (2009). Word knowledge: A vocabulary teachers handbook.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus. London: Collins-COBUILD.
Xue, G., & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and
Communication, 3(2), 215-229.