[RELC 35.2 (2004) 149-160] ISSN 0033-6882
© 2004 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks CA and New Delhi)
THE ROLE OF GRAMMAR IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL PROCESSING
T. Sima Paribakht
University of Ottawa, Canada
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
The role of grammatical knowledge in second language (L2) lexical proc-
essing is far from clear. Providing evidence from a recent introspective
study, this paper seeks to demonstrate the significant contribution that such
knowledge can make to inferring the meanings of unfamiliar words while
reading, and to possible consequent acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The
findings of the study point to the importance of learners’ knowledge of
grammar in L2 lexical processing and L2 vocabulary acquisition process,
and lends support to the intrinsic value of grammar instruction.
Introduction
The significant role of grammar in L2 learning and use has been well estab-
lished. There is general agreement in the field that grammar learning is
system learning, and that such knowledge provides learners with a basis
for generative and creative use of language and enables them to manipu-
late the language data in both comprehension and production of novel
linguistic input and output respectively. Research has provided evidence
that such knowledge also promotes accuracy in both receptive and produc-
tive use of the target language, leading to more effective communication
and consequently accelerating and enhancing the L2 acquisition process.
However, it is far from clear how grammatical knowledge can assist
learners in their L2 lexical processing and subsequent vocabulary acquisi-
tion. Research on this issue is sparse, but what there is indicates that gram-
matical knowledge is implicated in the process. For instance, research on
the acquisition of formulaic expressions or lexical phrases is a case in
150 Regional Language Centre Journal 35.2 (2004)
point. Lexical phrases or formulaic expressions, which are largely respon-
sible for production of fluent language, are first acquired as chunks, and
are then gradually segmented into smaller lexical units. This segmenta-
tion process normally continues by use of syntactic analysis until all of
the component words are recognized as separate units (Schmitt 2000:
129).
Research on L2 lexical inferencing also indicates that knowledge of
grammar is involved in the process (e.g. De Bot, Paribakht and Wesche
1997; Paribakht and Wesche 1999; Bengeleil 2001). Lexical inferencing
‘involves making informed guesses as to the meaning of a word in light of
all available linguistic cues in combinations with the learner’s general
knowledge of the world, her awareness of context and her relevant linguis-
tic knowledge’ (Haastrup 1991: 40). Since lexical inferencing is a major
strategy that learners use when they encounter unfamiliar words when
reading or listening, a clearer understanding of the process may not only
provide insight into the learners’ language comprehension processes and
problems and their subsequent incidental vocabulary acquisition, it may
also shed some light on the role that knowledge of grammar may play in
lexical processing.
The objective of this paper (notes 1 and 2) is to further illustrate the role
of grammar in L2 lexical inferencing while reading. It cites evidence from
a recent introspective research (Paribakht and Wesche 1999) that exam-
ined lexical processing strategies of a group of ESL learners at a Canadian
university.
The study was, in fact, a follow up to an earlier experimental study
(Paribakht and Wesche 1997), which showed that extensive reading leads
to significant gains in vocabulary knowledge. The goal of the subsequent
introspective study, using the same materials as the previous study, was to
investigate how such learning occurs. More specifically, the study sought
to identify the kinds of strategies learners use and the types of knowledge
sources they draw upon in their attempt to construct the meanings of
unfamiliar words while reading English texts.
Method
Participants
The participants were 10 intermediate level ESL students from various L1
backgrounds (Chinese, Farsi, Vietnamese, Spanish, Arabic and French) at
the University of Ottawa.
PARIBAKHT The Role of Grammar 151
Procedures
Concurrent think-aloud and immediate retrospective data collection pro-
cedures were used in individual research sessions, which lasted up to two
hours each and were all conducted by the same researcher. At the begin-
ning of each session, the participant was trained in think-aloud procedures.
This was then followed by collecting think-aloud protocols as the partici-
pants carried out two reading comprehension tasks (Question Task and
Summary Task) based on the target text on the topic of Acid Rain (see
Appendix A for the text). They were also instructed to verbalize what they
were thinking and doing while performing the tasks. The participants had
access to a dictionary, but the researcher did not answer any questions.
However, she prompted the participants, as needed.
The Question Task required the participants to read the text and answer
a series of comprehension questions. Immediately after answering each
question, they were asked if they had come across any unfamiliar words,
and if so, how they had dealt with each of them.
The Summary Task involved reading the text in segments and summa-
rizing each paragraph, immediately after which the learners were asked
how they had dealt with each unknown word they had encountered while
performing the task.
All research sessions were tape recorded and were subsequently
transcribed.
Results
The results indicated that when encountering unfamiliar words while read-
ing, the learners used a number of strategies. They ignored approximately
half of the unfamiliar words, used appeal for assistance (mainly the dic-
tionary), tried to retrieve the item by repeating the word to themselves, or
attempted to infer the meanings of the words. Inferencing was by far the
most frequent strategy they used in the process (80% of all strategies
used).
A closer examination of inferencing revealed that the participants drew
upon a variety of knowledge sources in the process. A taxonomy of these
knowledge sources was developed and is presented in Figure 1.
As the taxonomy indicates, the participants in this study used both their
L2- and L1-based linguistic knowledge in inferring the meanings of the
unfamiliar words. They also relied on their extralinguistic knowledge (i.e.
world knowledge) in the process.
152 Regional Language Centre Journal 35.2 (2004)
It is also noteworthy that learners often used multiple sources of infor-
mation when inferring the meanings of unfamiliar words. Furthermore,
some of these knowledge sources were used frequently by all of the par-
ticipants, while some were used only occasionally and by only a few
learners.
_________________________________________
I. Linguistic knowledge
A. L2-based linguistic knowledge (intralingual sources)
1. Sentence-level grammatical knowledge
2. Word morphology
3. Punctuation
4. Discourse/text
5. Homonymy
6. Word association
B. L1-based linguistic knowledge (interlingual sources)
– Cognates
II. Extralinguistic/world knowledge _________________________________________
Figure 1. Taxonomy of Knowledge Sources Used in Inferencing
The definitions of these knowledge sources and illustrative examples are provided
below.
(I = interviewer, P = participant, … = pause)
Sentence-level grammatical knowledge. This refers to the knowledge of
speech parts and syntactic relationships among words within a sentence
(e.g. word order and word class). This was the major knowledge type used
by the learners as a group and by most individuals.
Example 1:
I: O.K., and what about ‘infancy’?
P: Infancy is…we are in the infancy of understanding. Is mean under-
standing infancy, I think. So, it describes understanding. Is maybe
…some meaning to describe how to understand or what is under-
stand. But I think it is most…important just talk about understanding.
Word morphology. Learners often used their knowledge of grammatical
inflections (e.g. -s, -ed, -ing) and word derivations (i.e. stems and affixes)
in inferencing.
PARIBAKHT The Role of Grammar 153
Example 2:
P: I cannot…answer to the question because I don’t understand ‘forgiv-
ing planet’.
I: Are you going to do anything with those words to try to understand
them?
P: I know what is ‘planet’, but I don’t understand ‘forgiving’. ‘For’ and
‘giving’, ‘giving’, ‘forgiving’. What is ‘forgiving’?
Punctuation. Knowledge of punctuation and capitalization rules were
sometimes used to guess the meanings of the unknown words.
Example 3:
P: Well, for ‘decay’ and ‘sea spray’, it’s not really important because
they separate with a comma, so…it was just elements, so I could
skip it, the ‘decay’ word.
Discourse/text. Cues from beyond sentence boundaries were occasionally
used by the participants in inferring the meanings of unfamiliar words.
Example 4:
P: I guess the ‘drawback’ is mean…improve. So, I from the context, I
answer this question such as, because the answer was in is start 1981.
So, if the government want to build some…he must be consulted or
referred to the knowledge exchange or the issue of programs. In Para-
graph 4 the author say this writing is a continues and on extensions,
outdistanced by growing knowledge of pollution.
Homonymy. The participants occasionally drew upon their knowledge of
phonetic similarity between the target word and another familiar L2 word
in inferencing. Such association may also occur with an L1 word and is
often misleading and a cause of wrong guessing. (See also Haynes 1993;
Huckin and Bloch 1993). In the following example, the learner takes the
target word ‘bleak’ for ‘weak’ (‘faible’ in French).
Example 5:
I: Were there any words in the paragraph that you didn’t know well
enough, that interfered with your understanding of the paragraph?
154 Regional Language Centre Journal 35.2 (2004)
P: Uum…no…, ‘bleak’.
I: Bleak? O.K., and what did you do with this word in order to under-
stand the paragraph, the meaning of the whole paragraph?
P: I don’t understand it…no, no, I don’t know. I think I understand
‘bleak’ means ‘faible’, no?
Word association. Knowledge of word association, which refers to the
association of the target word with other words in the mental lexicon, was
at times used for guessing the meaning of an unfamiliar word.
Example 6:
I: What did you do with ‘accommodated’?
P: ‘Accommodated’, I guess from accommodation. We have…hotel
reservation, maybe is called, that phrase is accommodation.
I: O.K., from a hotel reservation.
Cognates. Knowledge of French and English cognates was occasionally
used by a few participants of the study.
Example 7:
P: I don’t understand very well ‘controversial’. I think it, it don’t have
the means of ‘controverse’ in French. Because the ‘controverse’ in
the French is…don’t understand ‘controversial’. I can guess, but…
Extralinguistic/world knowledge. The participants frequently used their
background knowledge, mainly their knowledge of the theme and topic of
the text in inferencing.
Example 8:
I: Well, you said, you’re telling me you don’t know the meaning of the
word ‘lethal’. But, you explained the paragraph to me.
P: Because…the theme of paragraph is clear. When the water of snow
enter to water of, to river or lake…because the, of the sulphur acid
that is in the snow, the water of lake and river become…more
acidité. So…that’s clear. And, I think because it is…scientific, proc-
ess chimique. That’s clear.
The proportions of use of the above knowledge sources were also calcu-
lated for both tasks and the combined data. Four of the above eight
PARIBAKHT The Role of Grammar 155
knowledge sources, that is, sentence-level grammar, word morphology,
punctuation and world knowledge constituted the major sources used and
accounted for 70% of cases for both tasks. The minor sources, which
included knowledge of discourse, homonymy, word associations and
cognates, were grouped together as ‘other sources’ and accounted for
30% of the total.
Table 1 presents the percentages of use of different knowledge sources.
It shows that of all the sources used in inferencing, knowledge of sentence-
level grammar was the source most frequently used by these participants
(i.e. 35%). This finding was consistent in both task conditions and all word
categories (see Appendices B and C for a breakdown of the results for
each task condition and each word category).
Table 1. Percentages of Knowledge Sources Used in Inferencing.
____________________________________________________
Major linguistic sources
Sentence-level grammatical knowledge 035%
Word morphology 015%
Punctuation 011%
Minor linguistic sources 030%
Discourse/text
Homonymy
Word association
Cognates
Extralinguistic sources 009%
Total 100% ___________________________________________________
Discussion
The results of this study offer some new insights into the significant medi-
ating influence that learner’s knowledge of grammar may have in the
process of L2 lexical processing, subsequent L2 text comprehension and
vocabulary development. They provide some evidence that such knowl-
edge not only provides a foundation for generative and creative language
use, but can also help L2 learners to overcome difficulties they encounter
in learning other aspects of language knowledge such as lexicon. Learners’
grammatical knowledge appears to facilitate the implementation of their
strategic competence, when they seek to draw on their available L2, L1
156 Regional Language Centre Journal 35.2 (2004)
and other knowledge sources in order to compensate for gaps in their target
language knowledge. As Wray (1992: 10, cited in Wray and Perkins 2000:
13) rightly points out, ‘our grammatical capabilities are on hand for emer-
gencies, rather in the way that an engineer is on stand by at a factory’.
These findings are hardly surprising when one considers the fact that
words occur in a grammatical context and an important aspect of word
knowledge is an expectation of the grammatical pattern the word occurs
in (i.e. its grammatical property). Most researchers agree that lexical and
syntactic knowledge bases are fundamentally interrelated in a kind of
lexicogrammar. This view is further strengthened by evidence from large
language databases which demonstrate the extent of lexical patterning in
discourse (Schmitt 2000). As Schmitt (2000: 14) notes, ‘much of what was
previously considered grammar is actually constrained by lexical choices’.
He further argues that vocabulary and grammar can be conceptualized ‘as
partners in synergy, with no discrete boundary’ (p. 14). It follows then that
any research on the nature of grammar and vocabulary acquisition would
need to address this link.
Such perspective also has clear implications for vocabulary and gram-
mar instruction. The strong focus on communication and fluency in the
1970s and 1980s sidelined the once prominent place of grammar in L2
pedagogy. However, there was a revived interest in grammar and form-
focused pedagogy in the 1990s (e.g. Nassaji 1999; Mitchell 2000) largely
due to the disappointing outcomes of such practice. Dobson (1998: 8; cited
in Mitchell 2000: 288) argued that ‘few pupils show confidence in the use
of language outside controlled situations or the ability to apply language
previously learned to new situations’.
Research such as the one presented in this paper provides further
empirical support for the intrinsic value of learners’ knowledge of gram-
mar in the processes of both L2 use and acquisition. It may also stimulate
further reflection on the contribution to be expected from grammar
pedagogy, particularly in ‘the current climate of enthusiasm for evidence-
based practice’ (Mitchell 2000: 290) and accountability for pedagogical
practices.
REFERENCES
Bengeleil, N.
2001 ‘Lexical Inferencing Processes of Libyan EFL Medical Students While Read-
ing: The Role of Reading Proficiency and the Arabic Language’ (Unpub-
lished PhD thesis, University of Ottawa).
PARIBAKHT The Role of Grammar 157
De Bot, K., T.S. Paribakht and M. Wesche
1997 ‘Towards a Lexical Processing Model for the Study of Second Language
Vocabulary Acquisition’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 309-
329.
Dobson, A.
1998 MFL Inspected: Reflections on Inspection Findings 1996/97 (London: Centre
for Information on Language Teaching).
Haastrup, K.
1991 Lexical Inferencing Procedures or Talking about Words (Tübingen: Gunter
Narr).
Haynes, M.
1993 ‘Patterns and Perils of Guessing in Second Language Reading’, in
T. Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady (eds.), Second Language Reading and
Vocabulary Learning (Norwood, NJ: Ablex): 46-64.
Huckin, T., and J. Bloch
1993 ‘Strategies for Inferring Word Meaning in Context: A Cognitive Model’, in
T. Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady (eds.), Second Language Reading and
Vocabulary Learning (Norwood, NJ: Ablex): 153-78.
Mitchell, R.
2000 ‘Applied Linguistics and Evidence-Based Classroom Practice: The Case
of Foreign Language Grammar Pedagogy’, Applied Linguistics 21.3: 281-
303.
Nassaji, H.
1999 ‘Towards Integrating Form-Focused Instruction and Communicative Interac-
tion in the Second Language Classroom: Some Pedagogical Possibilities’,
The Canadian Modern Language Review 55.3: 385-402.
Paribakht, T.S., and M. Wesche
1997 ‘Vocabulary Enhancement Activities and Reading for Meaning in Second
Language Vocabulary Development’, in J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds.),
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy (New
York: Cambridge University Press): 174-200.
1999 ‘Reading and “Incidental” L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: An Introspective
Study of Lexical Inferencing’, in M. Wesche and T.S. Paribakht (eds.),
Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: Theory, Current Research and Instruc-
tional Implications, Thematic Issue: Studies in Second Language Acquisition
21: 195-224.
Schmitt, N.
2000 Vocabulary in Language Teaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Wray, A.
1992 The Focusing Hypothesis: The Theory of Left Hemisphere Lateralized Lan-
guage Examined (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Wray, A., and M. Perkins
2000 ‘The Functions of Formulaic Language: An Integrated Model’, Language
and Communication 20: 1-28.
158 Regional Language Centre Journal 35.2 (2004)
NOTES
1. This project was supported by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research of Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of
Canada and the University of Ottawa.
2. An earlier version of this paper was presented at RELC Conference, Singapore,
23-25 April, 2001.
APPENDIX A
Reading Text
Acid Rain
For almost half the year, most of northeastern North America is covered in
a thick layer of snow. Hibernating among the snowflakes, awaiting the
bears of springtime, is a potent dose of sulfuric acid that, when released in
the spring runoff, packs the knockout wallop of a heavyweight prizefighter.
As the snow melts and enters lakes and rivers, parts of these bodies of
water can become as much as 100 times more acidic in a very short time.
While this acid bath usually only lasts for a few days to a few weeks, the
pH values are often acutely lethal even in lakes that otherwise do not
appear to be in danger, Dr David Schindler of the Freshwater Institute in
Winnipeg, a pioneer researcher into effects of acid rain on fish, told an
Ontario government committee investigating acid rain. As an example, Dr
Schindler pointed out that Panther Lake in the Adirondacks normally has
a pH of 7. But in the spring runoff it drops to a pH of 5.
Yet the air pollution picture is not totally bleak. Continuing research
offers some hope of improvement. In late 1986 two scientists reported a
chemical process capable of eliminating nitrogen oxides from diesel
exhaust gases and coal-fired boilers. The hot gases, passed over a non-
toxic chemical called cyanuric acid, break down into harmless nitrogen
and water. If later research supports the findings, a giant step could be
taken toward eliminating a major contributor to acid rain and man-made
ozone.
Perhaps the most controversial environmental issue of the decade is
acid rain, but that too is clouded in mystery. We are in the infancy of
understanding the full effects of an atmosphere acidified by burning fossil
fuels, Dr Chris Bernabo, an air-quality expert, told me. In order to really
understand it, we must conduct years of research.
PARIBAKHT The Role of Grammar 159
The federal Clean Air Act of 1970, amended in 1977, expired in 1981.
As of this writing it continues on extensions, outdistanced by the growing
knowledge about air pollution.
We live on a forgiving planet, with mechanisms to deal with natural
pollutants. Decay, sea spray, and volcanic eruptions annually release more
sulfur than all the power plants, smelters, and other industries in the world.
Lightning bolts create nitrogen oxides just as automobiles and industrial
furnaces do, and trees emit hydrocarbons called terpenes. Their release trig-
gers a bluish haze that gave the Blue Ridge its name.
For millions of years the ingredients of such substances have been
cycling through the ecosystem, constantly changing form. They pass
through plant and animal tissues, to sink into the sea, return to the earth,
and are vaulted aloft in some geologic event to begin the cycle again. An
atom of oxygen completes the cycle approximately once every 2,000
years. A portion of the next breath you take could have last been breathed
by Jesus.
Can the earth assimilate the additional 70 millions tons of sulfur that we
release each year? What happens to plants that absorb the additional nitro-
gen oxides (NOx) we create with our miniature lightning bolts inside car
cylinders? Can the atmosphere take on the extra load of carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane, man-made ozone, and chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants
that scientists say could raise global temperatures by the greenhouse
effect?
APPENDIX B
Percentages of Knowledge Sources Used in Inferencing in Each Task Condition
_________________________________________________________________
Major linguistic sources Summary T. Question T.
Sentence-level grammatical knowledge 038% 030%
Word morphology 018% 015%
Punctuation 008% 011%
Extralinguistic sources 008% 011%
Minor sources 028% 033%
Total 100% 100% _______________________________________________________________
160 Regional Language Centre Journal 35.2 (2004)
APPENDIX C
Percentages of Knowledge Sources Used in Inferencing for Each Word Category
_________________________________________________________________
Major linguistic sources Nouns Adjectives Verbs
Sentence-level grammatical knowledge 034% 044% 030%
Word morphology 010% 017% 030%
Punctuation 018% 000% 000%
Extralinguistic sources 013% 000% 005%
Minor sources 025% 039% 035%
Total 100% 100% 100%
_________________________________________________________________
