7 Strategies for L2 Grammar and

Vocabulary in Context
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Like everything metaphysical, the harmony between thought and reality

is to be found in the grammar of the language.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Language is an “ever-developing” resource (Larsen-Freeman, 2013, p. 1).1 Two of the key

elements of this evolving resource are grammar and vocabulary. Historical changes in a
language occur over time in terms of grammar and vocabulary, as well as other aspects, such
as pronunciation and pragmatics (Chapter 9).2
Grammar is the astounding force that unites the words in sentences, gives them depth,
clarifies their meaning, and makes them ideally practical for communication. Vocabulary has
its own allures: intriguing etymologies and borrowings from other languages, as well as multiple
meanings and implications that make communication an amazing process. However, some
learners might naïvely say, “All we need is vocabulary,” “Words will take care of everything,”
or “Grammar is too hard and too confusing.” A common ethnocentric refrain is, “I don’t have
to learn someone else’s grammar. I expect everyone else to learn mine.”
Humans can sometimes communicate at a rudimentary level just by using words, such as
strategy read book table. We can all get a sense of what that means. Or can we? Question #1 in
the section Questions, Tasks, and Projects for Readers at the end of this chapter will show that
grammatical competence is needed, along with competence in using vocabulary, for optimal
communication any language. “A language cannot work with words alone” (Quirk, 1971,
p. 77, in Bade, 2008, p. 176). Moreover, a language cannot work outside of some form of
context, a view stressed throughout this book and by Oxford and Amerstorfer (2017).
Here is an admittedly extreme but true L1 example of the importance of both vocabulary
and grammar. When a girl named Genie was 20 months old through 13 years old, her father
harnessed her to a child’s toilet during the day; placed her, immobilized, into a screen-covered
crib at night (except when he left her on the toilet all night); fed her minimally; and forbade
other family members to interact with her. When Genie was set free at age 13, she lacked any
verbal language, and her nonverbal communication was at first severely restricted. Scientists
like Susan Curtiss (1977) helped her with language and socialization, and her nonverbal
communication3 became more appropriate. She quickly developed a repertoire of words and used
them in short utterances, which she sometimes strung together. Genie’s oral communication
was always limited by her extremely low competence in expressive grammar. Many researchers
attributed this limitation to Genie’s being past the critical period for language acquisition
(Curtiss, 1977; Curtiss, Fromkin, Krashen, Rigler, & Rigler, 1974; Curtiss, Fromkin, Rigler,
Rigler, & Krashen, 1975), though others disputed that reasoning.4 After Genie was set free,
 244 Live Applications
she did develop enough receptive grammar to understand other people. As presented here, her
story shows a unique case of severely restricted L1 vocabulary and grammar development. It
underscores why vocabulary and grammar are both necessary for optimal communication in
any language.
However, the central emphasis in this chapter is not the evolution of grammar and vocabulary
in any particular language or the importance and utility of grammar and vocabulary. Instead,
the focus is on accessing the L2 by means of strategies for grammar learning and vocabulary
learning. Any L2 learner can benefit from grammar learning strategies and vocabulary learning
strategies, but some learners need the help of these strategies more than others do, and perhaps
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

for a longer time, because of the natures of the L1 and the L2. Importantly, the less similar the L1
and the L2 are, the more strategic the learner will need to become.5 Phrased more technically,
the more distant the L2 is from the L1 in terms of language families, the more difficult the L2
is considered for the learner, and the more helpful grammar learning strategies and vocabulary
learning strategies will be. Yet language features (L1 and L2 closeness or distance) are not the
only important factors contributing to the learner’s perception of difficulty or ease of the specific
L2’s grammar and vocabulary. Other learner factors include learning style, life experience,
interests, and motivation. Additional factors include the affordances of the environment, such
as support from others, helpful materials and technologies, and opportunities to practice and
use the language, not to mention the social prestige (or lack of it) of the L2 in relation to
the L1. Calculating the difficulty or ease of the language for a given person and predicting
the strategies he or she might use for learning grammar and vocabulary would be impossible
without considering the characteristics of the person, the tasks, the context, and the language
features.
The first section of the rest of this chapter contains an important overview of grammar and
vocabulary learning strategies. The second section intensively focuses on grammar learning
strategies, followed by the third section on vocabulary learning strategies.

Overview of Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary Learning

The following definitions are important for this chapter:

sª L2 grammar learning strategies are teachable, dynamic thoughts and behaviors that learners
consciously select and employ in specific contexts to improve their self-regulated,
autonomous L2 grammar development for effective task performance and long-term
proficiency.
sª L2 vocabulary learning strategies are teachable, dynamic thoughts and behaviors that
learners consciously select and employ in specific contexts to improve their self-
regulated, autonomous L2 vocabulary development for effective task performance and
long-term proficiency.

These definitions are short versions of the major strategy definition given in Chapter 1.
The terms grammar-related task, vocabulary-related task, grammar proficiency, and vocabulary
proficiency do not imply that the tasks or the proficiency are strictly for grammar or for
vocabulary. In fact, most L2 tasks, particularly those on the authentic end of the continuum,
and most meaningful measurements of L2 proficiency include a combination of grammar and
vocabulary, as well as a focus on one or more particular L2 skill areas, such as reading, writing,
speaking, and/or listening. See Chapter 1 for more comments on integrated L2 skills and L2
areas.
Because this book is about L2 learning strategies, this chapter employs the terms “grammar
learning strategies” and “vocabulary learning strategies” but with the clear reminder –
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 245
educationally, psychologically, and philosophically based – that language learning can only
occur with the help of some amount of language use. For example, the learner who never
uses L2 grammar or vocabulary for any purpose will have a hard time retaining it. Regarding a
language skill area, a learner who never tries to actually read a story or magazine in the L2 is
unlikely to learn to read in the L2.
When referring to the work of Andrew Cohen and his colleagues regarding strategies for
Spanish grammar, I use the term “Spanish grammar strategies,” just as these specialists do
(e.g., Cohen & Pinilla-Herrera, 2010). The strategies in the Spanish Grammar Website appear
appropriate for both learning and use of the language, seeming to imply that it is difficult to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

separate the conjoined twins of L2 learning and use, although Cohen (2011) emphasized that
learning and using the language are very different. See Chapter 4 for the learning versus use
debate. Fortunately, there is a long and rather illustrious tradition of researching vocabulary
learning strategies. The same cannot be said for grammar learning strategies, which I called
elsewhere the “Second Cinderella” of L2 learning strategy research (Oxford, Lee, & Park,
2007) because of the lack of attention investigators traditionally paid to these strategies.
Grammar itself has been in the spotlight for as long as there have been L2 learners and
teachers, and grammatical principles are now a key to artificial intelligence and computer
programming languages, but grammar learning strategies have until recently been relegated
to a dusty, unvisited corner of the L2 research universe. The first-named “Cinderella” in the
L2 field consisted of inadequately researched listening strategies (Vandergrift, 1997), although
listening strategies have received much attention in the decades since Vandergrift’s early
pronouncement about the first Cinderella (see listening strategies in Chapter 9).
I now turn to L2 grammar learning strategies. These strategies need the attention of teach-
ers, researchers, and learners.

L2 Grammar Learning Strategies

Bade (p. 176) optimistically stated, “Good language learners will develop strategies for
using language to communicate meanings effectively and they will use the new grammar
system to communicate in new situations.” Actually, this is what we should desire for all
language learners. Cohen and Pinilla-Herrera stated, “The problem is that various grammar
forms are not just magically acquired, but rather their learning calls for conscious attention”
through grammar strategies (p. 64). As Pawlak (2013) stated, learning grammar is not just
understanding and remembering grammar rules, but it also involves “trying to use these rules
in spontaneous, real-time communication” (p. 193). This underscores the fact that grammar
learning and grammar use are intertwined.
Are young learners the only ones who can learn grammar? The answer is no. Bialystok
and Hakuta (1999), with an emphasis on grammar, rejected the concept of a critical period
limiting the ability of older learners to develop an additional language,6 and Scarcella and
Oxford (1992) enumerated advantages of younger and older learners in L2 learning. Grammar
learning strategies are helpful to learners of all ages. How do grammar learning strategies work,
who uses them, and under what circumstances are they used? The answer is: We do not know
very much, but we will know more soon.

Grammar Learning Strategy Weather Report: Cloudy but Clearing

Many researchers are unhappy with the state of the art in research on grammar learning
strategies. Anderson (2005) realistically commented, “What is greatly lacking in the research
are studies that specifically target the identification of learning strategies that L2 learners
use to learn grammar and to understand the elements of grammar” (p. 766). As mentioned
 246 Live Applications
earlier, Oxford et al. (2007) called grammar learning strategies the “Second Cinderella”
because they had so little attention. In most empirical studies of learning strategies, grammar
learning strategies have been ignored or hidden away in the cognitive strategy category.
Some researchers have been reluctant to study grammar learning strategies because such
they erroneously think such strategies do not fit the communicative approach to L2 teaching
(Oxford et al., 2007). As a result, grammar learning strategies have garnered the least
interest and concern of any area of L2 learning strategies. Pawlak (2009a) also bemoaned
the situation, saying that “specialists [have] yet to identify, describe, and account for all the
various strategic behaviors that learners fall back on when studying target language grammar,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

not to mention appraise their effectiveness, determine the effects of training or describe the
factors impacting their use” (p. 45).
However, the weather for grammar learning strategies appears to be improving. The gray
clouds are parting, and a few glimmers of sunshine are now visible. Grammar learning strategies
are beginning to attract attention from knowledgeable strategy specialists, who are now
discussing assessment tools and categorization systems for these strategies. There is a long way
to go, but hope is emerging, along with new ideas and research findings. The rest of this section
explains what we know and do not know about grammar learning strategies.

Some Factors Influencing a Learner’s Choice of Grammar Learning Strategies

“L2 learning is the purview of the learner; … no matter what the teacher does, learning
is not guaranteed, and … a given L2 instructional mode does not necessarily predict” a
particular learner’s strategies (Oxford et al., 2007, p. 124). The student is the ultimate
arbiter and user of grammar learning strategies. If a student encounters a given L2 grammar
instruction methodology, he or she is not necessarily motivated to use any particular grammar
learning strategies that might logically be stimulated by that methodology. Moreover, the
student might not be sufficiently aware to recognize what a given grammar instructional
mode implies in terms of strategies for learning or using grammar. Furthermore, the student
might intentionally rebel against a given grammar instruction mode by using strategies that
undermine it or go around it. (Sometimes it is smart to rebel, given the nature of certain
ways of teaching grammar.) Oxford et al. (2007) mentioned many factors influencing the
fit between a grammar instructional mode and a given learner’s grammar learning strategies:
developmental stage, age, gender, ethnic or racial background, linguistic background,
educational level, beliefs, goals, values, and, as discussed below, learning styles.
Research suggests that learning styles, or preferred ways of learning mentioned above and in
Chapter 1, are related to the types of grammar learning strategies that learners select and use.
For example, in my observation, learners whose learning style has been identified as analytic
tend to use grammar learning strategies that involve looking at specific parts (often small) of the
language system, comparing and contrasting, putting information into organized hierarchies,
and testing hypotheses about the L2, whereas learners whose learning style is more holistic
prefer strategies that involve less analysis and that involve seeking the big picture or general
tendencies (Oxford, 1990a, 1990c, 2001). I will also mention the concrete-sequential learning
style now and several times later in this chapter. Learners with a concrete-sequential learning
style have a low tolerance of ambiguity and therefore need clear directions, step-by-step
explanations, and grammar rules to follow, while learners with an intuitive-random learnirng
style want to figure out grammar on their own, would rather ignore teachers’ directions and
explanations, and can easily tolerate the ambiguity of certain grammar instruction modes (the
implicit modes and the explicit, inductive mode).
Richards and Reppen (2014, pp. 11–12) remarked, “Approaches to teaching grammar need
to acknowledge that learners have different learning style preferences when it comes to the
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 247
learning of grammar. Some students like explanations and are uncomfortable when they do
not have a clear understanding of something. They like to find logical relationships, rules,
and structure. Others are more tolerant of ambiguity and do not feel the need for detailed
explanations.” (See also Abraham, 1985; Celce-Murcia, 1991).
Learning style not only helps to shape learners’ choice of grammar learning strategies, but it
also influences learners’ responses to the way grammar is presented in L2 classes and textbooks.
Ellis (2006) noted that appropriateness of inductive instruction versus deductive instruction
depends on a learner’s skill in grammatical analysis. Grammatical analysis skills imply the use
of analytic strategies, with more skilled learners being better able handle the inductive mode
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

and less skilled learners needing the deductive mode.7

Types of Grammar Knowledge, Modes of Grammar Instruction, and Grammar

Learning Strategies
Implicit knowledge is the learner’s intuitively, implicitly held knowledge cannot be put into
words; hence this knowledge is tacit (Richards & Schmidt, 2009). Explicit knowledge is the
learner’s overt knowledge that he or she can explain in words (Richards & Schmidt, 2009).
Learners experience “dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge”
(Ellis, 2005, p. 305).

Four Modes of Grammar Instruction

Oxford et al. (2007) offered a general typology of four modes of L2 grammar instruction:
(a) implicit, purely meaning-focused instruction; (b) implicit, form-focused instruction;
(c) explicit, inductive instruction; and (d) explicit, deductive instruction. We aligned
these modes with types of knowledge (implicit/explicit, mentioned above) and with various
grammar learning strategies. One of the best sources of information on implicit and explicit
learning is De Keyser (2003).

IMPLICIT INSTRUCTION MODES

Two implicit-learning grammar instruction modes exist, one that focuses on meaning and the
other that focuses on form. We might at first think that no consciousness regarding structures
is needed for implicit learning of L2 grammar. However, as noted by Nick Ellis (1994, 1995),
one aspect of consciousness is necessary for implicit learning: detection, which is also known
as focal attention or conscious registration of sensory stimuli (see Chapter 1).

sª Implicit, purely meaning-focused instruction asks students to develop competence

without any awareness of linguistic targets or metalinguistic information and without
intentionality.
ż This mode centers only on real-life communication with comprehensible input. It
encourages learners to develop language through use and theoretically prohibits a
discussion of grammar or any overt teaching of the L2. It could be argued that this
mode is not instruction at all but merely exposure to the L2. This mode is sometimes
described as reflecting the “no interface” position of grammar instruction, because
it holds that no relationship can exist between implicit knowledge and explicit
knowledge. In other words, no amount of explicit knowledge (gained through overt
teaching of the language) can create implicit knowledge. The best known example
of implicit, purely meaning-focused instruction is the Natural Approach (Terrell &
Krashen, 1983).
 248 Live Applications
żOne might assume that this mode of instruction does not involve or benefit from
any learning strategies, because strategies are conscious actions (see Chapter 1
for the complete definitions of strategies and consciousness). However, detection
(conscious registration) is an element of consciousness at a very basic level and is
part of any implicit learning (see Ellis, 1994, 1995 above).
ż Some organized, concrete-sequential style learners, who by definition have a low
tolerance of ambiguity, might generate learning strategies in subtle reaction against
this seemingly unstructured, freestyle teaching mode, simply in order to cope with
the onrushing ocean waves of language. For instance, such learners might pay close
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

attention to repeated words and common structures, write them down in a notebook,
organize them into categories, study this information carefully, and intentionally
use it in class. These grammar- and vocabulary-oriented strategies help learners
become highly conscious of the L2 and allow them to organize it for themselves
in the absence of organization from the teacher, a textbook, or other sources. Such
consciousness-promoting strategies fly in the face of the implicit, purely meaning-
focused instructional mode (e.g., Terrell & Krashen).
sª Implicit, form-focused instruction involves paying attention to rules and structures
incidentally, while in the course of communicating meaning and messages.
ż This is grammar instruction with a “focus on form” (Cullen, 2012; Long, 1991; Long
& Robinson, 1998). It often uses recasts of errors to draw students’ attention to
grammar elements that incidentally emerge in communication-oriented L2 lessons.
Rules are not highlighted or discussed, because that would become explicit grammar
instruction.
ż Sheen (2002) explained that focus on form instruction is based on (a) an assumed
relationship between L1 acquisition and the L2 acquisition, with both based on
comprehensible input, but (b) a simultaneous assumption that mere exposure to L2
structures is not sufficient and that teachers must help learners focus in some fashion
on grammatical features.
ż A battle royal emerged about whether focus on form instruction can aid in grammar
acquisition in a variety of different classroom settings (see Ellis, Loewen, &
Basturkmen, 2006 and Sheen & O’Neill, 2005 on the two sides of the issue).
ż According to Oxford et al. (2007, p. 128), grammar learning strategies associated
with implicit, form-focused instruction might include paying attention to the
way more proficient individuals say something and then imitating it, noticing
grammatical structures that cause obstacles with communication and meaning, and
noticing someone else’s corrections of one’s utterances. In addition, learners might
use strategies such as analyzing, guessing, predicting, reasoning, and asking questions.
ż Although implicit, form-focused instruction grammar instruction might seem more
solid and sound than the prior mode (implicit, purely meaning-focused instruction),
it is still implicit. Therefore, learners with a concrete-sequential style, which involves
intolerance of ambiguity, will be uncomfortable with it. In response to implicit,
form-focused instruction these learners might generate strategies similar to the ones
noted above for fighting against implicit, purely meaning-focused instruction.
ż I argue that once structures are brought into awareness and understood in the learners’
own fashion, they are by definition no longer implicit knowledge. Therefore, it
appears that an implicit type of instruction does not necessarily determine how the
learner deals with the information.
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 249
EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION MODES

Explicit grammar instruction involves an overt focus on forms (rules and structures), in
contrast to the implicit way of focusing on form noted above. In one type of explicit grammar
instruction, the learners must discover the forms inductively, but in the other, the teacher
presents the forms to the learners for deductive use. In either of these modes, the forms are
very important, and learners are expected to use them once they know them.

sª Explicit, inductive grammar instruction involves discovering rules and patterns from input
data.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

ż The teacher does not present rules but instead sets up conditions that help learners
uncover rules on their own. Although the teacher does not talk about rules, learners
themselves might do so in the L2, making grammar a subject of conversation as well
as a vehicle for communication. In this mode, teachers work hard to get learners
to attend to form using some complicated and often obtrusive techniques: garden
path, input practice involving forms, metalinguistic feedback, and many others.
This mode has garnered criticism for being inefficient, confusing, and difficult to
implement, though it has some fervent adherents.
ż In the view of Oxford et al. (2007, p. 128), grammar learning strategies related
to this mode of grammar instruction might be identifying and finding resources,
initiating and participating in rule-discovery discussions, creating and testing
hypotheses about how the target structures work, keeping a notebook of structures
for which the rule is being sought, and checking with more proficient peers about
one’s own interpretation of a rule.
ż As noted several times earlier, learners with a concrete-sequential style have a low
tolerance for ambiguity. They will dislike having to figure out rules and structures
for themselves and will legitimately want to be told the information they need.
One learning strategy they will typically use when facing the explicit, inductive
instructional mode is asking questions, either to get the rule directly from the
teacher or peer or to obtain immediate verification or clarification of what they
think they have discovered.
sª Explicit, deductive instruction involves the conscious application of structures and rules
which are usually provided by the teacher or a textbook, generally in an isolated, discrete
fashion.
ż This is what we know as traditional grammar instruction. It represents the strong
explicit-to-implicit interface position, which says that explicit knowledge can be
transformed into implicit (tacit, automatized, proceduralized) knowledge through
practice (De Keyser, 1995, 1998). This concept is strongly tied to cognitive theory
(Anderson, 1985).
ż Although explicit, inductive instruction mentioned earlier is a type of focus on
forms instruction, we can say that explicit, deductive instruction is the quintessential
focus on forms mode.
ż In Oxford et al. (2007), some grammar learning strategies associated with this mode
are previewing the lesson to identify key forms to be covered, paying attention to
rules provided by the teacher or textbook, applying rules with care, memorizing
rules, memorizing how structures change their forms, making grammar charts, and
using new rules/structures in context as soon as possible.
 250 Live Applications
Balanced Instructional Approaches
Many specialists (Ellis, 2006; Moeller & Ketsman, 2010; Richards & Reppen, 2014) have
encouraged balanced approaches to the teaching of grammar (implicit/explicit; inductive/
deductive), perhaps a variegated mega-approach. This would have the benefit of relating to
wide range of learning styles (see Chapter 1) and might also tend to stimulate the use of an
array of grammar learning strategies.

Comments on the Implicit/Explicit Instruction System Above

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Pawlak (2009a, p. 45) praised the descriptive, implicit/explicit grammar-instruction scheme

of Oxford et al. (2007), shown above, saying that it “can be profitably exploited in the
preliminary stages of research” in the area of grammar learning strategies. Indeed, he used the
scheme himself (Pawlak, 2009a). However, he cautioned that looking at strategies through the
lens of grammar instruction modes makes this scheme teacher-centered, emphasizes cognitive
strategies rather than other types, and “places a premium on noticing, understanding, and
remembering grammar structures without giving ample justice to the ways in which points
of grammar are practiced” (p. 45), such as formal practice and the use of memory strategies
and metacognitive strategies. Some of this argument appears valid to me, especially the need
to look at the way learners practice as well as learn grammar. However, I emphasize that
learning grammar and practicing grammar, including socially, cannot be clearly split. (See
Chapter 4.) We must discern how learners, individually and in groups, work toward grammar
improvement by flexibly employing strategies in cognitive, metacognitive, affective, social,
and other ways (Chapter 4). Optimally, learners will recognize that there are multiple routes
toward grammar improvement.
An important reminder is that if learners are encouraged by an instruction mode to employ
certain thoughts or behaviors, those thoughts or behaviors are not strategic unless learners use
them with at least some elements of consciousness, such as attention, awareness, intentionality,
and control. (See Chapter 1.)

Empirical Studies about Grammar Learning Strategies

Now I present a selection of empirical studies about grammar learning strategies. Some of
the research below is formal and meticulous, but other studies are less rigorous. All of them
provide valuable information.

Early Research on Grammar Learning Strategies

One early line of L2 grammar learning strategy research, i.e., investigations resulting in the
identification of three general categories of strategies for noun gender assignment, occurred
in the period 1977 through 1997, with a key publication on this theme every ten years (e.g.,
Tucker, Lambert, & Rigault, 1977; Cain, Weber-Olsen, & Smith, 1987; Oliphant, 1997).
These studies showed that grammar learning strategies fell into three groups: morphological,
semantic, and syntactic. Choice of strategies for assigning noun gender was dependent on age,
the state of L2 development, and the nature of the L2 and the L1, among other factors. Most
learning strategy experts have tended to not to conduct such sharply focused grammar learning
strategy studies, and investigators studying noun gender assignment and other highly specific
grammar-strategy topics have not tended to cite broader areas of learning strategy research.
Pawlak (2009a) noted that learning strategy research in 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Rubin,
1975; Stern, 1983; Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978/1996) revealed that a strategic
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 251
orientation toward grammatical structures was important for successful language learning.
Effective L2 learners across numerous studies were found to use strategies associated with but
not limited to form. This finding was underscored by Bade (2008) and Oxford et al. (2007).

Grammar Learning Strategy Studies from around the World8

Using a partially open-ended survey, Bade (2008) examined the grammar learning strategies
of a class of EFL students in New Zealand. The class was composed of diverse learners with
different goals for learning English. Some wanted to focus on grammar and vocabulary, while
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

others preferred to concentrate on oral skills. Bade reported that the students “showed an
overwhelming desire to be taught grammar, to concentrate on accuracy, and to have their
errors corrected” (p. 178). Accuracy was thus a high priority, and students employed varied
strategies for learning grammar.
Tilfarlioğlu (2005) studied the relationship between English language attainment of Turkish
students and their use of grammar learning strategies, reporting no differences in the frequency
with which successful and unsuccessful learners used these strategies. The study, however,
showed that strategy selection was influenced by gender, length of study, and educational
background.
In Morales and Smith (2008), American university students of Spanish who had received
strategy instruction to make mental images for forms such as ser and estar outshined students
who did not receive such training. The former were better able to distinguish between correct
and incorrect uses of the forms. In a study by Trendak (2012), students received instruction in
the use of cognitive and memory strategies. This strategy instruction resulted in more frequent
reliance on grammar learning strategies in general. The memory strategy group outperformed
the cognitive strategy group both immediately and in the long term.

Grammar Learning Strategy Studies in Poland, a New Research Hub

We can be thankful for Poland, which has become the site of “a particularly robust line of
inquiry” into grammar learning strategies and that deals with “different ages and educational
levels” (Pawlak, 2009a, p. 46). Droździał-Szelest (1997) conducted a major survey study of
strategies used by high school students in Poland. This study, which concerned the whole
repertoire of learning strategies rather than just grammar learning strategies, discovered
that high school students used primarily cognitive strategies for learning grammar. These
particular cognitive strategies, such as applying rules (using deduction), were unoriginal and
uncreative, reflecting the traditional instructional practices these students encountered in
their school English classes (Droździał-Szelest, 1997). Much less frequent use was made of
most metacognitive strategies, though selective attention was employed.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2008a) employed a modified version of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (in Oxford, 1990b) with senior high students and, unlike Droździał-Szelest,
discovered that high school students used metacognitive strategies the most frequently. In a
different study, Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2008b) gathered data on grammar learning strategy
use from advanced students majoring in English. She employed a checklist included in the
European Language Portfolio for Senior High School Students and Language Learners in Institutions
of Higher Education. Results indicated that these students used strategies such as remembering
example sentences, using reference grammars, and highlighting new structures.
In a longitudinal diary study, Pawlak (2008) found that highly proficient English majors
were aware of a range of strategies but primarily relied on traditional cognitive strategies, such
as formal practice. This was explained by the fact that the end-of-year examination and the
instructional methodology in the classroom stressed this type of grammatical emphasis. In a
 252 Live Applications
study using a data-gathering instrument based on the four-part grammar-instruction system of
Oxford et al. (2007), Pawlak (2009b) found that students claimed to frequently use implicit
learning with a focus on form, but he stated that this finding did not reflect reality.
Pawlak (2009a) examined grammar learning strategy use of English-department students in
relation to their grammar attainment and overall English proficiency. He used a largely close-
ended survey of strategy use, with strategies organized according to three of the four grammar
instruction modes in the Oxford et al. (2007) scheme reported earlier: the implicit, form-
focused mode, in which structures are noticed during meaning-focused activities: the explicit,
inductive mode, i.e., rule-discovery; and the explicit, deductive mode, i.e., rule application.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

The survey did not ask the instruction modes the students’ grammar teachers actually used.
Supposedly reporting the frequency of their strategy use, learners checked off the greatest
number of strategies in the category of implicit, form-focused learning, followed by strategies
related to explicit, deductive learning and explicit, inductive learning. The strategy-use means
for these three categories were relatively high. However, when asked in an open-ended item
to describe their favorite ways of learning grammar, students wrote down only a limited range
of uncreative strategies. Thus, there was a great disparity between Likert-scaled survey results
and open-ended results about strategy use. Responding to the open-ended item, only a few
students referred to ways to learn grammatical structures from spontaneous communication,
so Pawlak determined there was something wrong with the instrument (indeed, he mentioned
quite a few problems with it) or the students were responding in a socially desirable way to the
quantitative items. With very inflated quantitative results about strategy use, the statistical
relationships between the strategy use data and L2 attainment (grammar course grades and
overall proficiency) were low.
Summarizing a number of his own studies and those of Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Pawlak
(2013) repeated the fact that there is a large gap in some studies between what learners
answered on Likert-scaled surveys, which suggested frequent use of grammar learning strategies
related to implicit, focus-on-form learning, and what they said in response to open-ended items,
which revealed a great emphasis on traditional, formal practice. To solve this conundrum, he
emphasized the possibility of using two perspectives in research on grammar learning strategies:
(a) the macro-perspective, which involves gathering data about the use of these strategies by
means of a Likert-scaled strategy questionnaire on a single occasion with no connection with
a specific task or context, and (b) the micro-perspective, which is far more contextualized.
Pawlak’s (2013) micro-perspective

would involve tapping the application of these strategic [grammar-learning] devices in

the course of the performance of different types of activities and tasks (e.g., controlled
and communicative), taking into consideration the impact of context, … as well as
considering individual variables. Clearly, obtaining such data calls for the employment of
a variety of data collection tools, such as immediate reports or think aloud protocols used
during or after tasks, as well as interviews or transcript analysis.
(p. 202)

Pawlak contended that neither the macro- nor the micro-perspective is sufficient by itself,
they should both be used.

A Taxonomy of Grammar Learning Strategies for Possible Use in Future

Research
Pawlak (2013 pp. 200–202) reported the development of a taxonomy of grammar learning
strategies that he constructed on the basis of a strategy categorization that was an updated
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 253
Table 7.1 A Summary of Pawlak’s Grammar Learning Strategy Taxonomy
v Metacognitive strategies (e.g., seeking opportunities to practice structures in different ways,
scheduling grammar reviews, and developing specific goals);
v Affective strategies (e.g., trying to relax when experiencing difficulties in understanding
grammar, encouraging oneself to practice structures that cause problems, and keeping a diary
about learning grammar);
v Social strategies (e.g., asking the teacher to repeat or explain a grammar point, practicing
grammar structures with peers, and helping others understand structures); and
v Cognitive strategies, which are the most numerous and are divided into four groups (strategies
aiding the production and comprehension of grammar during communication tasks, strategies
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

employed in developing explicit knowledge of grammar, strategies employed in developing

implicit knowledge of grammar, and strategies employed in dealing with corrective feedback on
erroneous use of grammar).
Source: Based on Pawlak (2013)

compromise of the rather old strategy systems of O’Malley and Chamot (1990) and Oxford
(1990). The taxonomy also included modified items from the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL, in Oxford, 1990b) and Ellis’s inventory of techniques for form-focused
instruction, modified by Pawlak (2006). Table 7.1 summarizes the taxonomy.
This taxonomy – actually, it would be safer to call it a typology – has already been tested and
will be used further in future research in Poland. For further elaboration of Pawlak’s taxonomy,
I suggest considering strategies from various grammar learning strategy studies mentioned in
this chapter. In addition, researchers’ employment of any taxonomy of grammar strategies must
take into account the complexity of the sociocultural context (see later in this chapter) and
the dynamism of any learner’s use of grammar strategies. In addition, new research modes (see,
e.g., Chapter 10) might be needed for deeply understanding the use of grammar strategies and
other learning strategies in authentic settings.

Strategy Instruction via a Spanish Grammar Strategy Website

Cohen and Pinilla-Herrera9 (2010) reported on the creation of a website containing
72 strategies for learning Spanish grammar (Center for Advanced Research in Language
Acquisition, n.d.). The website creators did not seek to generate a typology of grammar
strategies in general. The website is also not meant to offer Spanish language instruction or
provide a thoroughgoing resource for Spanish grammar or vocabulary. Instead, the creators
based the website on information about the most difficult areas that students and teachers
mentioned in questionnaires and interviews. The website raises learners’ awareness of their
current strategy use and poses strategies for them to consider. It uses English to convey the
grammar strategy information and includes chants, songs, rhymes, diagrams, charts, visual
schemes, drawings, mind maps, acronyms, and other strategic devices. Video and audio clip
descriptions from learners and nonnative teachers are included. The website can serve as a
model for creating grammar strategy websites for other languages.
Cohen, Pinilla-Herrera, Thompson, and Witzig (2011) conducted and reported on a 2009
evaluation of the Spanish grammar strategy website with 15 learners over a period of six to eight
weeks. This useful article reproduces many pages of the website. Users of the website in an earlier
review described it as credible, detailed, not too academic, personable, and interesting due to
audio and video. In the 2009 evaluation, the users gave ratings of the success of the strategies they
selected. Two-thirds of the user-selected strategies were rated as helpful. In interviews and written
reflections, most users expressed that the reason for employing the website was to find strategies
for specific grammar problems. They described the website as attractive to a wide variety of
students. In terms of overall attitudes toward the website, most felt they benefited somewhat,
 254 Live Applications
and some said they benefited greatly. The authors stated that further research was needed to
determine effectiveness of the strategy use on actual Spanish learning.

More about Context

I underscored the significance of context earlier in this chapter and will further highlight
it here. There are many ways to learn grammar, and some are more effective than others.
As an educational psychologist, L2 learning researcher, L2 teacher, and L2 learner, I argue
that trying to learn grammar out of context is a fruitless venture, particularly if the goal is
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

to be able to use the language for reading, listening, speaking, and writing instead of just
fulfilling a language requirement. Learners need to have meaningful tasks in contexts that
relate as closely as possible to authentic language use. Although learners can sometimes
benefit from grammar drills and discrete-point, multiple-choice grammar items on a test,
they more strongly need to learn grammar in context, and they need appropriate grammar
learning strategies to do so.
I have explored grammar learning strategies in relation to knowledge types, instruction
modes, empirical research studies, a recent taxonomy, a promising website, and the need for
context in grammar learning. It is now time to turn to vocabulary learning strategies.

L2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies

This section includes factors in vocabulary teaching and learning, reasons for using vocabulary
learning strategies, specific vocabulary learning strategies, perspectives on contextualization
and on strategies for vocabulary learning, strategies for intentionally learning vocabulary from
reading, strategies for intentionally learning vocabulary with the assistance of technology,
and issues in vocabulary strategy instruction.

Factors in Vocabulary Teaching and Learning

When choosing vocabulary to teach or learn, the following factors must be considered:
frequency of use in real-life situations or in the curriculum; language needs; availability and
familiarity; coverage, or capacity of the word to take the place of another word; range, or the
number of different types of text in which the word will occur. High frequency, wide range
words are the most valuable to teach and learn (Nation, 1990). Vocabulary teaching and
learning should be systematic and networked, because the mind stores words in an organized,
interconnected matter, not as words on a list (Nation, 1990). Teachers should take into
account that many exposures to a word or phrase in different contexts are necessary before it
is learned (Aebersold & Field, 1997).

Reasons for Using Vocabulary Learning Strategies

Two reasons for employing vocabulary learning strategies include (a) the complexity of
knowing a word and (b) the necessity for learning many words and doing so in a rapid fashion.

Reason 1. Complexity of What It Means to Know a Word

Vocabulary instruction should include learning what it means to know a word (Moir &
Nation, 2008; Nyikos & Fan, 2007; Oxford & Scarcella, 1994). Language awareness,
especially realizing that knowing a word means more than just knowing its dictionary
meaning, is important to L2 vocabulary learning. Oxford and Scarcella (1994) outlined the
following types of knowledge as essential to knowing a word (see Table 7.2).
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 255
Table 7.2 What It Means to Know a Word
v Form, e.g., pronunciation, spelling, word parts, changes in form, and ways to combine forms to
build up different forms of the word;
v Grammatical use, e.g., plural forms, prefixes, etc. in real sentences;
v Collocations, including the order in which the co-occurring words should be placed;
v Discourse function in particular situations and contexts (social, geographic, disciplinary);
v Shades of meaning, such as connotations; and
v Receptive and productive uses.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Reason 2. Need to Learn Many Words Quickly

Compared to L2 learners, native speakers have a great edge in vocabulary development.
Let us take the English language as an example. Native English speakers will acquire 1,000
word families each year of their lives, until they reach the level of 20,000 word families (for
a native speaker of English who is a university graduate) (Nation & Waring, 1997), although
Mackey (1965, in Oxford & Scarcella, 1994) reported that college students must understand
60,000–100,000 words. Children who are native speakers of English begin school with about
5,000 word families (Nation & Waring, 1997). However, many adult learners of English as a
second or foreign language know many fewer than 5,000 word families after several years of
study (Nation & Waring, 1997).
Academic achievement rests largely on extensive, readily accessible vocabulary knowledge
for reading, writing, speaking, and listening (Grabe, 1988; Nation, 1990). Vocabulary learning
strategies can facilitate the gaining and accessing vocabulary knowledge for use in all language
skill areas. L2 learners must store much vocabulary in their long-term memory within a short
amount of time, and vocabulary learning strategies facilitate development of schemata where
this vocabulary is stored (Oxford & Scarcella, 1994).

Specific Vocabulary Learning Strategies

A particular vocabulary learning strategy, like any kind of learning strategy, will not necessarily
be effective for every student. Learning style, age, developmental stage, gender, educational
background, culture, and other factors influence strategy effectiveness. However, looking at
the research tells us that certain strategies are valuable in many instances. As noted by Moir
and Nation (2008),

In order to take control of their vocabulary learning, learners need to know what
vocabulary to learn, how to go about learning it, and how to assess and monitor their
progress. This vocabulary requires a range of learning strategies, such as learning the
vocabulary of the subject area … or guessing from context. … There are also deliberate
learning strategies such as word part analysis, learning using word cards, and dictionary use
. . that are important shortcuts to vocabulary growth.
(p. 159)

Intentionally Creating Associations

A number of vocabulary learning strategies involve intentionally creating mental contexts
by means of associations. These associations might involve creating analogies or linking new
words with relevant words or concepts already in learners’ schemata (Oxford, 1990b). Moir and
Nation (2008) mentioned “using mnemonic techniques, especially the keyword technique”
(p. 171), in which images are associated with sounds for learning new words. Keyword
technique was also highlighted by Oxford (1990b) and Beaton, Gruneberg, and Ellis (1995).
 256 Live Applications
Learners make intentional associations on paper or online by creating visual vocabulary
clusters (semantic webs or semantic maps) (Nation, 1990; Oxford, 1990b), semantic grids
(Oxford, 1990b), drawing and completing T-charts (Oxford, 1990b), and making a personalized
dictionary or notebook (Oxford, 1990). Learners employ the kinesthetic and tactile senses
for associating words with physical movements through Total Physical Response techniques
and by linking words with objects (Oxford, 1990b; Thornbury, 2002). Any of these strategies
necessitates the strategy of selective attention (Gu & Johnson, 1996). It is impossible to make
purposeful associations without attending to the information at hand.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Sentence-Production Strategy
Associations and selective attention are not enough; learners benefit from actively
producing new words in communication. Gu and Johnson underscored the value of the
strategy of early, self-initiated use of new words. Similarly, Moir and Nation (2008) stated,
“[N]ew vocabulary needs to be learned both receptively and productively because it is by
productive use of such vocabulary that learners signal that they have become part of their
particular communities” (p. 159).

Dictionary Use Strategies

Gu (2003) cited the debate about whether dictionaries should be used in foreign language
classrooms. He indicated that most studies of dictionary-using strategies were conducted
concerning reading comprehension, not vocabulary learning. Dictionary strategies have
typically been encouraged in a prescriptive way, not giving students much choice (Gu).
Learners carry around their L2 dictionaries, not their grammar books (Gu). Gu mentioned
several studies supporting the advantage of a dictionary in EFL settings in Japan (Luppescu
& Day, 1993) and for reading comprehension and for production of new words in sentences
(Summers, 1988). Research has demonstrated the various advantages of monolingual
dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries, and “bilingualized” dictionaries (Gu).
Scholfield (1982) and Nation (2001), both in Gu (2003), described L2 learners’ dictionary
use as a complicated process of hypothesis testing. However, Gu argued that we do not know
if learners actually approach dictionary use in this way. Neubach and Cohen (1988) examined
the dictionary use of EFL university students in Jerusalem. Using verbal reports and interviews,
the researchers found that advanced students did not need to use the dictionary very much,
and weak students did not use dictionaries effectively. Some low-proficiency students simply
stopped using the dictionary.
Gu (2003) mentioned the need for research on electronic dictionaries. At this point in
history, years after Gu’s article, learners carry around their smartphones and iPads so that they
can instantly look up words in electronic dictionaries. The value of electronic dictionaries
deserves intensive investigation.

Contextual Guessing Strategy

Contextual guessing (and checking accuracy of guesses) was praised by Oxford (1990b) and
was correlated with vocabulary size and overall proficiency in a large Chinese EFL study
(Gu & Johnson, 1996). However, in an Australian study of university learners of Italian,
Lawson and Hogben (1998) showed that contextual guessing was less efficient than some
other strategies, because a rich context reduces the need to focus on the new word itself.
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 257
Rote Repetition Strategies
Research showed that the advantages of rote repetition were inconsistent. In the Gu and
Johnson (1996) study of strategies employed by Chinese EFL learners, rote oral repetition
had a positive relationship with proficiency and size of learned vocabulary, but rote written
repetition was negatively related to vocabulary size. Rote oral and written repetition was
viewed as very important to Japanese EFL learners (Schmitt, 1997) and Australian learners
of Italian (Lawson & Hogben, 1998).
Gu (2003) noted that four key issues concerning the rote learning of word lists are: (a) the
number of repetitions needed to remember a word list, (b) the optimum number of words to be
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

studied at one time, (c) the timing for repetition, and (d) repeating silently versus repeating
aloud. This chapter does not have space to address these issues, so please see Gu.

Mnemonic Strategies
Mnemonic strategies, such as the keyword method (Oxford, 1990b), can be valuable as
long as the goal is to boost retention of simplistic pairings of L1-L2 word sets without deep
processing of information. Gu (2003) stated that mnemonics ignore multiple dimensions
of meaning, such as syntactic, emotional, and pragmatic, and that abstract words are not
amenable to mnemonic learning.

Word-Formation Strategies
Word-formation strategies are based on the work of lexicographers and etymologists. Such
strategies involve learning words based on how they are broken down or added to (affixation)
in a formal sense. Gu (2003) contended that future research should study the seeming
dominance of formal errors among beginning to intermediate EFL learners as associated with
their selection of vocabulary learning strategies.

Semantic Network Strategies

Earlier I mentioned the potential benefits semantic network strategies, such as sematic
mapping and semantic grids, for learning L2 vocabulary. Gu (2003) cautioned the possibly
prescriptive nature of these strategies, but I have never seen or used them in that way.
Apparently Gu’s caution was based on instances of teachers actually teaching specific
semantic associations among words, rather than allowing students to come up with their
own associations.

Perspectives on Contextualization and on Strategies for Vocabulary Learning

Here I mention Gu’s (2003) contextualized, person-task-strategy perspective and other
persectives on contexualization and strategies in vocabulary learning.

A Contextualized, Person-Task-Strategy View

Gu (2003) proposed a person-task-strategy view of vocabulary learning. This view contends
that language learning in general and vocabulary learning in specific are “problem-solving
tasks at different levels of complexity” (p. 2). Meeting a difficult task, learners must use
problem-solving strategies (see Chapter 1). Encountering new words while reading, learners
intentionally must solve the problem of lack of understanding of the words by means of
 258 Live Applications
strategies such as looking up words in a dictionary, integrating dictionary definitions
into the context where the unknown word is found, and checking for collocation and
complementation, part of speech, and breadth of meaning. Gu explained that the success
of such strategies depends on (a) features of learning tasks, such as task complexity and
(b) characteristics of the learner, such as self-efficacy. This study was a step in the right
direction of personalizing and contextualizing research on vocabulary learning strategies.

Contextualized Vocabulary Learning Strategies

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Like Oxford and Scarcella (1994), Nyikos and Fan (2007) distinguished between
decontextualized strategy types (not related to meaningful contexts, authentic tasks, or
normal usages) and contextualized strategy types. According to Nyikos and Fan, examples
of decontextualized strategies include rote memorization, repetition, and associative
strategies,10 as well as the keyword mnemonic. Contextualized strategies included inferring
vocabulary meanings from a reading text, which allows learners to see new words in their
proper grammatical use in varied meanings in an authentic semantic field, with collocations
and connotations (Nyikos & Fan; Oxford & Scarcella). Nyikos and Fan also described other
strategies, such those for looking up words in the dictionary or electronically, and they
mentioned many typically unrecognized complexities involved in such strategies.

Strategies Must Be Linked and Contextualized

Wang (2015) argued against the illogical concept that vocabulary learning strategies can
be used in an isolated fashion outside of any context and added that this lack of logic is
perpetrated by some large-scale questionnaire-based studies. Her study examined vocabulary
learning strategies of two Chinese students in a pre-university course in the UK. The research
used data from interviews, classroom observations, and VOCABlog (with photovoice11 and
diaries). Wang interpreted the results through a holistic combination of sociocultural theory
and cognitive theory. From that double perspective, the results implied that in order to enhance
vocabulary, international students should (a) intentionally use strategy combinations rather
than isolated strategies as they interact verbally with more capable others and (b) seek ways
to interact often with target language speakers in authentic contexts while paying attention
to the nature of those contexts. Wang emphasized that when L2 learning strategies are in use,
they are complex and contextually situated.

Strategies for Intentionally Learning Vocabulary from Reading

Wu, Lowyck, Sercu, and Elen (2013) examined strategies used by university EFL learners
in China for intentionally learning vocabulary from reading tasks. Variables included task
complexity, vocabulary learning self-efficacy beliefs, prior vocabulary knowledge, learning
strategy use, and task performance. The experiment had two task conditions, simple and
complex. The simple task condition was to learn the unknown, target vocabulary during
a reading task (about the psychologist Jean Piaget), for which they were allowed to use
word glosses. The complex task was not only to learn the same target vocabulary but also
to understand the content of the Piaget text. Participants were randomly assigned to simple
versus complex tasks. The researchers administered a Nation’s Vocabulary Level Test to
determine the level of participants’ prior English vocabulary knowledge (vocabulary level).
The vocabulary learning self-efficacy scale, which participants completed after they looked
at the task, was based on research (e.g., Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997) to measure
participants’ beliefs about their ability to initially handle new words, find information about
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 259
words, guess the meaning from contexts, use resources (dictionary/glossary), and establish
vocabulary knowledge. The vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire drew on Gu and
Johnson’s (1996) and included items such as contextual guessing strategies, dictionary
and glossary strategies, note-taking strategies, rehearsal strategies, encoding strategies (eg.,
making mental images), and activation strategies (e.g., make up my own sentences).
Pre- and post-test Vocabulary Knowledge Scales were administered (not the same as
Nation’s test). Results indicated that stronger prior vocabulary knowledge was associated with
greater self-efficacy, higher frequencies of vocabulary learning strategy use, and better task
performance. Although task complexity showed no significant effect, an interaction effect
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

arose between prior vocabulary knowledge and task complexity. Very importantly, path analysis
showed that students’ prior vocabulary knowledge and frequency of learning strategy use had
significant direct effects on task performance. Strategy use was the mediator between self-
efficacy beliefs and task performance. Specifically, self-efficacy beliefs had an indirect effect
on task performance through the effects of those beliefs on frequency of strategy use. The
researchers suggested that “the predictive power of self-efficacy may lie in its association with
mental effort. When learners perceive themselves as more capable in doing the task, they will
invest more effort, and use more learning strategies, and this subsquently helps them perform
better” (p. 176). The researchers suggested that these findings highlight the importance of
learner factors, such as prior knowledge, self-efficacy, and learning strategy use, in vocabulary
learning based on reading tasks.

Technology-Aided Strategies for Intentionally Learning Vocabulary

Smith, Li, Drobisz, Park, Kim, and Smith (2013) noted that many computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) systems have effectively taught L2 vocabulary by (a) making it
interesting with video and images and (b) reducing cognitive load with multimedia glosses
(e.g., hypertexts with definitions, connotations, and words in actual use). Smith et al. noted
that such glosses can have a large, positive effect on L2 incidental vocabulary learning. Most
studies of this topic have not been connected with specific courses.
However, the Smith et al. study concerned L2 intentional vocabulary learning for a specific
EFL course for university undergraduates in China. Smith et al. created a counterbalanced
study (i.e., all students participated in the control and experimental condition but at different
times) based on principles of a “design experiment” (a holistic study that does not artifically
isolate variables but instead examines the entire intervention). The experimental condition
involved using computer games integrated with researcher-created eBooks, specifically called
IMap Books. Together the games and the eBooks were intended to stimulate the learners’
inferencing strategies for vocabulary learning. The combination was designed to encourage
deep processing, or semantic links with other information in memory. Learners were asked
to identify the degree to which they knew, i.e., could infer, researcher-targeted words and, if
possible, to use the words in sentences to indicate their knowledge. The control condition
involved using traditional hardcopies of books, lists of words, and multiple-choice vocabulary
tests. Results indicated that the experimental condition, computer-game-enhanced L2 reading,
in comparison to the control condition, showed greater use of inferencing for vocabulary
development and deep processing.
Lan (2013) reported on a five-week, Taiwanese study involving the intentional, technology-
aided, self-regulated EFL vocabulary learning of sixth-grade EFL students. The study used
“Mywordtools,” a co-sharing vocabulary learning strategy system that enables learners to
self-construct, use, and share vocabulary learning strategies. Learners can employ the system’s
e-tools for vocabulary learning in indoor and outdoor settings during their free time. Results
indicated that learners who used Mywordtools to practice and share their vocabulary strategies
 260 Live Applications

significantly outperformed (a) those who did not use Mywordtools at all and (b) those who
used the system but did not share their strategies with others. The study showed that strategies
are learnable and that scaffolding self-construction of strategies and co-sharing of strategies
enhanced vocabulary learning strategy development and overall vocabulary development. The
author suggested future research on learning styles, gender, and self-regulation with regard to
this type of system.
I am not including significant discussion of the incidental learning of L2 vocabulary, because
such learning, logically speaking, does not involve the use of strategies, which are conscious
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

at least to some extent. On the other hand, Gu (2003) indicated that Parry (1991, 1993)
demonstrated a combination of incidential and intentional vocabulary learning in reading.
Gu argued that this combination fostered development of L2 vocabualry and academic success
in the L2. Gu also noted that the term incidental has varying interpretations and that there is
a blurring of distinctions between intentional and incidental vocabulary learning. Though
traditional studies of incidental vocabulary learning strategies through reading have simply
told learners to read for comprehension, more recent incidental learning studies have asked
learners to look up new words for comprehension and to recall and retell what is read (Gu).
Research has indicated that the more demanding a task is, the greater the reading-based
vocabulary developement will be (Gu). Gu contended that incidental vocabulary learning
strategies can be effective for reading and listening for native speakers and intermediate to
advanced L2 learners.

Vocabulary Learning Strategy Instruction

It is very difficult to internalize and become comfortable using a new strategy after a very
limited exposure during strategy instruction, particularly if that strategy is the opposite of
strategies used in one’s home culture. This is one of the lessons learned by Moir and Nation
(2008) in their study in New Zealand. In their study, adult learners of ESL were enrolled
in a vocabulary program that was designed to raise consciousness about what is involved in
vocabulary learning, to enhance vocabulary learning strategies, and to improve productive
vocabulary. Participants were required to study 30–40 self-selected words per week using
a vocabulary notebook, which contained columns to complete for each word concerning,
among other things, pronunciation, meaning, grammatical use, collocations, use in a
sentence, and associated items from the same word family. Weekly tests assessed progress
in learning the chosen words. At the start of the program participants, whose vocabulary
repertoires were limited, received instruction on vocabulary learning strategies, such as the
keyword method and word cards, and how to choose words to study. Results showed that
although participants selected the words themselves, all but one (Abdi, a very strategic,
motivated, energetic learner) chose words that they felt were unimportant, not personally
useful, and generally too difficult; in short, they chose not to personalize their vocabulary
learning. They worked hard to complete their vocabulary notebooks, but they had little
awareness of what knowing a word implies and had an inflated idea of their vocabulary.
Despite strategy instruction, for cultural reasons they continued to use mundane strategies
for vocabulary learning, such as rote memorizing and copying words, and did not question
their strategies. They did not improve their vocabulary much. Moir and Nation provided
suggestions for future vocabulary strategy instruction: modeling goal setting for learners,
giving practice in setting personal goals for learning, and providing opportunities for learners
to discuss with each other their reasons for selecting words (with an eye toward improved
selection). They also recommended giving more time for learners to become knowledgeable
about and comfortable using a core set of new strategies.
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 261
Nyikos and Fan (2007) urged L2 teachers to incorporate vocabulary learning strategy (VLS)
instruction into language courses and materials. They stated:

Pedagogically, the main lessons of research are: (1) that integration of VLS into instruction
appears to be more effective than non-integration, (2) that significantly better vocabulary
performance is possible with VLS instruction, and (3) that combination of metacognitive
and specific VLS seems to work better than either in isolation. … In short, VLS instruction
should be integrated throughout a course as a crucial pedagogical component in course
materials which are sensitive to the learner’s needs.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

(p. 273)

Conclusion
Although over the years, we have seen more published information on strategies for
vocabulary learning than on strategies for grammar learning, it is very likely that most L2
learners have not received significant strategy instruction in either aspect of the languages
they are learning. The lack of such strategy instruction is reprehensible, because not all
learners can independently figure out how to learn complex new structures or unfamiliar
words. Some linguistically talented learners, such as Abdi, the shining star in Moir and
Nation’s chapter, have a background in personalizing their learning and know how to use
learning strategies, but this is not true of everyone. Many or most learners need help in
“learning how to learn” grammar and vocabulary. Strategy instruction for grammar and
vocabulary must (a) be designed to address what learners need to know; (b) present strategies
in simple, relevant, and learning-style-compatible ways; (c) offer extensive strategy practice;
(d) show how to transfer strategies to new tasks; and (d) overcome cultural barriers to the use
of strategies beyond rote memorization and copying.
Strategy instruction for grammar and vocabulary, like all strategy instruction, should fit
the context, the task demands, the nature of the L1 and the L2, and the characteristics of
the learners, such as interests, age, personality, gender, learning styles, and prior experience,
as well as educational, socioeconomic, and cultural background. One size does not fit all, so
any vocabulary- and grammar-related strategy instruction, to be optimally effective, must
offer choices and alternatives. Encouraging learner choice in terms of strategies, grammar
structures, and vocabulary personalizes strategy instruction and makes it memorable, although
some learners will have to be taught how to make and take advantage of such choices. As
shown by the humor, artwork, acronyms, personalization, and technological enhancements
mentioned in this chapter, strategy instruction for grammar and vocabulary can be exciting
and meaningful. Although such strategy instruction is serious business, it can be leavened with
good humor, lightened with art, and touched by the magic of personalization.

Further Readings
Moir, J., & Nation, I.S.P. (2008). Vocabulary and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.),
Lessons from good language learners (pp. 159–173) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
This is an enlightening description and analysis of well-intentioned and well-orchestrated
vocabulary learning strategy instruction that did not meet the needs of most participants for
cultural, social, and academic reasons. The authors make excellent suggestions for enhanced
instruction in vocabulary learning strategies.

Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Also: Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
 262 Live Applications
University Press. These two are classic works in vocabulary instruction and contain important
implications for vocabulary learning strategies. These books will probably never outlive their
usefulness.

Nyikos, M., & Fan, M. (2007). A review of vocabulary learning strategies: Focus on language
proficiency and learner voice. In A. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies:
Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 251–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press. This
useful chapter provides information on a panoply of vocabulary strategies and calls for the
learner’s voice, i.e., perceptions about cognitive processes such as vocabulary learning, to be
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

heard in a variety of ways.

Oxford, R.L., Lee, K.R., & Park, G. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella
and beyond. In A. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of
research and practice (pp. 117–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press. This chapter presents
a four-part analyis of grammar instruction modes and mentions a range of grammar learning
strategies that is sometimes stimulated by each mode. The authors also indicate that learners’
ways of learning are not determined by instruction modes, and they provide examples of
strategic oppositions to the modes.

Pawlak, M. (2012). Instructional mode and the use of grammar learning strategies. In M.
Pawlak (Ed.). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp.
263–287). Heidelberg and New York: Springer. This chapter is a good introduction to the
(somewhat sporadic) research on grammar learning strategies in many parts of the world and
to the newly flowing stream of research on grammar learning strategies in Poland.

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. London: Longman. This is a very helpful
book for teachers who want to offer lively grammar instruction that goes beyond traditional
classroom techniques. It seems to cater to a number of learning styles, including tactile and
kinesthetic.

For a lighter mood:

1 Gordon, K.E. (1993). The deluxe transitive vampire: The ultimate handbook of grammar for
the innocent, the eager, and the doomed. New York: Pantheon.
2 Gordon, K.E. (1993). The new well-tempered sentence: A punctuation handbook for the
innocent, the eager, and the doomed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
3 Gordon, K.E. (1997). Torn wing and faux pas: A flashbook of style, a beastly guide through
the writer’s labyrinth. New York: Panthenon.
4 Gordon, K.E. (2003). The disheveled dictionary: A curious caper through our sumptuous
lexicon. New York: Mariner.
5 Hale, C. (2013). Sin and syntax: How to craft wicked good prose. New York: Three Rivers
Press/ Random House.
6 Truss, L. (2004). Eats, shoots and leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation. New
York: Penguin.
These delightful books are among my linguistic favorites. They reveal the authors’ exquisite
wit and capacious understanding of the English language. Those of us who are entranced by (or
even mildly interested in) grammar and vocabulary will be overjoyed with these gems, which
provide levity, serious linguistic information, and a sense of the importance of context. Some
of the ideas and exercises might be adaptable to advanced and high intermediate L2 learners,
though instructors will need to be cautious about culture-based humor. Though these books are
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 263
about the English language, they might provide instructional inspiration to those engaged with
other languages and might serve as a basis for creative L2 learning strategy instruction.

Questions, Tasks, or Projects for Readers

Use or adapt these questions, tasks, and projects for your own growth or that of your students
or colleagues.

1 Without words there can be no meaning, but grammar influences the meaning and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

impact of words. Keeping this in mind, answer the following questions.

a. What are the possible interpretations of the following string of words? strategy
read book table. We can create many sentences with these words. Here are a few
possibilities:
v “Yesterday I read the strategy book at the table.”
v “I always read the strategy book at the table, because there is nowhere else to sit
in this room.”
v “Have you read Table 1 in the strategy book? It’s fantastic! Life-changing!”
v “Drat! I can’t find my book! I wanted to read it on the bus. My strategy was to put
it on the table so I would remember to take it with me.”
v “I read the strategy book, and I liked it so much that I put it on the table for you
to read.”
v “My strategy is to hide the tantalizing book under the table so my mother won’t
notice that I am reading it.”
v “If I had read the strategy in the male-female attraction book, I’d be at the table
with a gorgeous date right now.”
v “Strategy, damn it all! We need a better strategy to make a profit for the company!
Let’s read the marketing strategy book and then put all our ideas on the table.”
b. Which of the above sentences do you like and why?
c. What other possible sentences could you make if you added the prefix re-, made
book or table plural, used book or table as a verb (interesting outcomes would occur!),
changed read to an adjective (especially with the prefix un-), employed a preposition
different from under or on, used a dependent clause starting with who or which, or
employed the present progressive?

d. What sentences would be possible if you transformed strategy to a verb by throwing

out the y and adding a few letters (ĺstrategize)?

e. How could you use simple words to help your students learn grammar and vocabulary
in humorous, interesting ways?
2 The critical period hypothesis was refuted by Bialystok and Hakuta (1999), although it
is still supported by some.
a. What is your opinion of this hypothesis based on your experience and observation?
b. What about the sensitive period hypothesis, which was not mentioned in this
chapter? (Look this up if you do not know what it is.)
 264 Live Applications
c. Read research articles and book chapters about critical and sensitive periods for
language learning. Have your beliefs changed based on these readings?
d. How would the presence or absence of a critical period affect older learners’
motivation for learning grammar and the strategies they might use?
3 Go to the Spanish grammar strategy website mentioned in this chapter: http://carla.
umn.edu/strategies/sp_grammar/
a. What strategies on the website do you like the best and why?
b. In your view, what are the most important features of grammar strategy instruction?
Does the website have them? What evidence can you give?
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

c. One key feature of grammar strategy instruction (or any strategy instruction) is
extensive practice with any given strategy. How does the website encourage this?
d. Does the website appeal to you overall and make you want to use strategies? If yes,
in what ways?
e. If you ever studied Spanish, which of the strategies in the website would have helped
you if you had known about them?
f. The website has garnered quite positive responses from students. Why do you think
this happened? (See Cohen, Pinilla-Herrera, Thompson, & Witzig, 2011. Notice
that some of the article authors are interested language students.)
g. As you know, the website is a strategy instruction tool oriented toward traditional-
age university students. However, many non-traditional students, particularly those
in their thirties, forties, and older, are now going to universities. If you were to adapt
the website for these students and had lots of money and time, what would you
need to do regarding the format and the content? Would you need to add any new
grammar strategies? If so, which strategies? If made these changes, would this disturb
traditional-age university learners, and how could you handle this?
h. If you were to adapt the website for learners younger than university age (e.g.,
elementary school students and secondary school students) and had all the time
and funding you required, what would you need to do regarding the format and the
content? Would you need to add any new grammar strategies? If you did make these
changes, would this disturb traditional-age university learners, and how could you
handle this?
i. If you had all the money and leisure in the world, would you create multiple
different grammar strategy websites to meet the needs and interests of various age
groups? Would you include certain strategies in all three websites but present them
differently? What strategies would you omit or include for any particular age group?
4 The Spanish grammar strategy website is obviously for one language at this time, and it
concerns grammar rather than vocabulary.
a. Discuss with a friend or colleague or write down your answers: Would technology-
based strategy instruction be useful for teaching …
v Vocabulary strategies for a particular language?
v Grammar strategies that cut across all languages, not just those for one language?
v Vocabulary strategies that cut across all languages, not just those for one
language?
b. Explain your answers.
c. Give examples of strategies you would include for different purposes.
5 Why do you think there is such a great interest in grammar learning strategies in
Poland? What innovations and insights are arising in the Polish studies of strategies
for vocabulary learning? What else could be done in those studies? Would you ever be
interested in collaborative grammar strategy studies with Pawlak and his colleagues or
with anyone else named in this chapter?
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 265
6 Were you surprised about all the aspects of knowing a word? Choose a word in a language
you have learned. Go through the list of aspects needed for knowing a word. Do you
know all the information for the chosen word? If not, what would you need to find out?
7 Novelist Evelyn Waugh wrote, “One forgets words as one forgets names. One’s vocabulary
needs constant fertilization … .”12
a. Do you think this is true in your native language, as well as in any additional
languages you might learn? Why or why not?
b. Would your strategies be different if you were relearning vocabulary as opposed to
learning it for the first time?
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

8 Read the Wang (2015) study about vocabulary learning strategies. After reading it,
answer these questions:
a. What is meant by the statement that Wang interpreted the results through a holistic
combination of sociocultural theory and cognitive theory? What does this multiple
perspective imply for understanding the results?
b. How was the VOCABlog used and why?
c. Why is important to think about vocabulary learning strategies in the context of
particular tasks and settings? Why are isolated strategies less meaningful?
9 Read Wu et al. (2013). Then answer these questions:
a. In what ways do task complexity and self-efficacy relate to the use of vocabulary
learning strategies in Wu et al. (2013)?
b. How do task complexity, self-efficacy, and the use of vocabulary learning strategies
relate to task performance in this study?
c. This study concerns vocabulary strategies. Can you design (mentally, on paper, or
electonically) a study that measures task complexity, self-efficacy, and strategies for
some other language area, such as grammar or writing? If so, what measures would
that study contain? Would you consider conducting such an investigation?
10 Read Smith et al. (2013) regarding the IMapBooks study, in which games and electonic
books were integrated (for the experimental condition) and which stimulated inferencing
for vocabulary learning. Answer these questions:
a. What do you think of the concept of a “design experiment”? What are its benefits
and drawbacks?
b. How did counterbalancing work in this study?
c. In what way was the strategy of inferencing assessed in this study? In what ways did
inferencing serve for reading and for vocabulary development?
11 Read Plonsky and Loewen (2013) concerning focus on form and vocabulary acquisition
in “instructed second language acquisition” (ISLA), which is divided into meaning-
focused and form-focused instruction (p. 2). This article provides an excellent review of
the literature on vocabulary acquisition from the authors’ viewpoint.
a. How does ISLA compare with Larsen-Freeman’s view about language acquisition?
Do you agree with one view more than the other?
b. How did the researchers select and teach the seven words, and how did they track
the occurrence of specific words over a semester?
c. What did you learn from this study?
d. How did the design and the results of this study compare with those of other studies
in the chapter?
12 In addition to the studies already discussed in this section on Questions, Tasks, or
Projects for Readers, find other interesting studies in the reference list in this chapter or
online.Select two. For each of them, after reading the study answer the questions below:
a. What was the objective of the study with reference to grammar or vocabulary?
b. What age groups were involved?
 266 Live Applications
c. What strategies were mentioned for either vocabulary or grammar?
d. Was the study about strategies for learning or using grammar or vocabulary?
e. What measurement instruments were used?
f. Was strategy instruction conducted, and of so, how and with what outcomes?
g. If strategy instruction was not conducted, what were the study’s findings?
h. Why is this study valuable?
i. Would you recommend it to someone else?
13 In your view, what questions remain to be answered about the best ways to conduct
strategy instruction for grammar and vocabulary?
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Notes
1 Larsen-Freeman (2013) dislikes the term “lanuage acquisition,” as if a language were something
that could simply be acquired, transferred, traded, etc. I agree with her. See Harper (2016a) for the
historical basis of the term “acquire.”
2 A couple of interesting online sources about English language change are www.etymology.com
for vocabulary (Harper, 2016b) and www.thehistoryofenglish.com for English in general (Mastin,
2011). Of course, many books are also available on etymology and historical linguistics regarding
a range of languages.
Within a single language, vocabulary changes. There are always newly coined slang terms,
fresh idioms, and these days unexpected “twitterisms” to deal with. Additionally, there is an
increase in language fusion or “fused lects.” The following are a few of today’s many fused lects:
Chinglish = Chinese + English; Spanglish = Spanish + English; Franglais = French + English;
Fraponais = French + Japanese; Svorsk = Swedish + Norwegian; Englog/Taglish = Tagalog +
English. See Auer (1999) for more on this phenomenon.
Changes in the acceptability of particular grammatical forms also occur within a language.
Witness the great increase in the use “different than” in nonacademic parlance in the U.S. today,
while “different from” is more academically valid, and “different to” is often used in the U.K.
(Grammarist, 2014).
3 This chapter does not have the space to highlight nonverbal communication, which I would
describe as having its own culturally based “vocabulary,” such as gestures and gaze. A culturally
powerful, nonverbal “grammar-pragmatics system” for the body indicates when, why, by whom,
and how various aspects of the nonverbal vocabulary should be employed. Just as the vocabulary
and grammar of a person’s native language are often taken for granted and not thought about, the
vocabulary and grammar of the body in context are often unconsidered, thus creating problems
in intercultural communication. For nonverbal behavior for L2 learners, see Gregersen and
MacIntyre (2016). Even though this book does not cover the “grammar” and “vocabulary” of
nonverbal communication, let us never forget their importance.
4 In the L2 arena, some researchers such as Bialystok and Hakuta (1999) have rejected the concept
of a critical period for language learing, as seen in this chapter. Regardless of what people believe
about the critical period hypothesis or the related hypothesis about a sensitive period, Genie
did make language progress though she started with no language at age 13. Unfortunately, her
verbal language advancement and mental improvement did not continue after the scientists
were suddenly forbidden to communicate with her or work with her any longer. Her language
competence was said to decline even more after Genie endured a long series of often abusive foster
homes and other living situations (James, 2008), although sign language helped.
5 Understanding the distance between languages or their closeness to one another involves the
study of language families. For information on language families see Lewis, Simons, and Fennig
(2016) and Thompson (2015). Even within a given language family, such as Indo-European, there
are often major differences. For instance, Russian, English, German, French, Spanish, Italian,
Albanian, Armenian, Iranian, and many others are in the Indo-European language family. Some,
such as Russian, Armenian, and English, are very distinct from each other. Now consider how
different an Indo-European language is from an Afro-Asiatic language, such as Arabic, Hebrew, or
Somali; from a Niger-Congo language, such as Wolof or Swahili; from a Sino-Tibetan language,
such as Chinese, Burmese, or Tibetan; from an Altaic language, such as Turkish or Mongolian; and
from a Uralic language, such as Finnish or Estonian. Many more comparisons could be given.
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 267
6 Bialystok and Hakuta (1999) contended that any advantages of younger L2 learners can
be explained by social factors unrelated to a critical period, such as nurturing environments,
educational opportunities, cooperative peers, and simplified input. They also mentioned flaws in
studies that supported the critical period hypothesis.
7 Age as a major factor in preference for different grammar instruction modes was raised by Midford
and Kirsner (2005).
8 Thanks to Mirosław Pawlak (2013) for identifying several studies (by Morales & Smith, Tilfarlioğlu,
and Trendak) and for his excellent cooperation in sharing all of the Polish investigations with
me.
9 I appreciate Andrew Cohen for sharing his grammar strategy website research with me and for
allowing me to be an advisor early in the website project. The advising experience was exciting
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

and highly informative, and I honor the website.

10 The term “associative” was used by Nyikos and Fan in a highly particular way: associating one
item with another without any context. However, in broader terms “associating” is a general
process of linking information with information in long-term memory and can occur at various
levels of processing, from shallow to deep. Associating underlies a number of learning strategies.
11 Photovoice is a technique that has participants take photos in response to a prompt, reflect on
the meaning behind a selection of their photos, and share the photos to find common themes
(collaborative interpretation). It is usable as a prewriting activity.
12 Evelyn Waugh’s quotation about vocabulary was retrieved from: http://www.brainyquote.com/
quotes/authors/e/evelyn_waugh.html

References
Abraham, R.G. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL
Quarterly, 19, 689–702.
Aebersold, J.A., & Field, M.L. (1997). From reader to reading teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications. (2nd ed.) New York: Freeman.
Anderson, N. (2005). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook on research in second
language teaching and learning (pp. 757–771). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Auer, P. (1999). From code-switching via language mixing to fused lects: Toward a dynamic typology
of bilingual speech. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3(4), 309–332.
Bade, M. (2008). Grammar and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good
language learners (pp. 174–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beaton, A., Gruneberg, M., & Ellis, N. C. (1995). Retention of foreign vocabulary learned using the
Keyword method: A ten year follow-up. Second Language Research, 11, 112–120.
Bialystok, E., & Hakuta, K. (1999). Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences
for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (Ed.), Second language acquisition and the critical
period hypothesis (pp. 161–191). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cain, J., Weber-Olsen, M., & Smith, R. (1987). Acquisition strategies in a first and second language:
Are they the same? Journal of Child Language, 14, 333–352.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL
Quarterly, 25(3), 459–480.
Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Strategies for enhancing Spanish
grammar. [Website] Spanish Grammar Strategies Web Project, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis. Retrieved from http://carla.umn.edu/strategies/sp_grammar/
Cohen, A.D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language. (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Cohen, A.D., & Pinilla-Herrera, A. (2010). Communicating grammatically: Constructing a learner
strategies website for Spanish. In T. Kao, & Y. Lin (Eds.), A new look at language teaching and testing:
English as subject and vehicle (pp. 63–83). Taipei, Taiwan: The Language Training and Testing Center.
Cohen, A.D., Pinilla-Herrera, A., Thompson, J. R., & Witzig, L. E. (2011). Communicating
grammatically: Evaluating a learner strategy website for Spanish grammar. CALICO Journal
(Journal of the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium), 29(1), 145–172.
Cullen, R. (2012). Grammar instruction. Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language
teaching (pp. 258–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 268 Live Applications
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern-day “wild child”. Perspectives in
neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics. Boston, MA: Academic Press.
Curtiss, S., Fromkin, V.A., Krashen, S.D., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. (1974). The linguistic development
of Genie. Language, 50(3), 528–554.
Curtiss, S., Fromkin, V.S., Rigler, D., Rigler, M., & Krashen, S.D. (1975). An update on the linguistic
development of Genie. In D.P. Dato (Ed.), Developmental psycholinguistics: Theory and applications
(pp. 145–153). Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
De Keyser, R.M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a
miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379–410. doi:10.1017/
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

S027226310001425X
De Keyser, R.M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing
second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Keyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell.
Droździał-Szelest, K. (1997). Language learning strategies in the process of acquiring a foreign language.
Poznań, Poland: Motivex.
Ellis, N.C. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview. In N.C. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit
and explicit leaning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ellis, N.C. (1995). Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of field studies and
laboratory experiments. Language Awareness, 4(3), 123–146.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
40(1), 83–107.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Disentangling focus on form. A response to Sheen and
O’Neill (2005). Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 135–141.
Grabe, W. (1988). Reassessing the term “interactive.” In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D.E. Eskey (Eds.),
Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 56–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grammarist. (2014). Different from, different than, different to. Retrieved from http://grammarist.com/
usage/different/
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. (2016). Optimizing language learners’ nonverbal communication: From tenet
to technique. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gu, Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: person, task, context, and strategies. TESL-
EJ, 7 (2): 1–26.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R.K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes.
Language Learning, 46, 643–679.
Harper, D. (2016a). Acquire. Online etymology dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.etymonline.com/
index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=acquire
Harper, D. (2016b). Introduction and abbreviations. Online etymology dictionary. Retrieved from http://
www.etymonline.com/abbr.php?allowed_in_frame=0
James, S.D. (2008). Wild child Genie: A tortured life. ABC News, May 7.
Lan, Y.-J. (2013). The effect of technology-supported co-sharing on l2 vocabulary strategy development.
Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 1–16.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2013). Saying what we mean: Making a case for “language acquisition” to become
“language development.” Language Teaching 48(4), 1–15. doi: 10.1017/S0261444814000019
Lawson, M.J., & Hogben, D. (1998). Learning and recall of foreign language vocabulary: Effects of a
keyword strategy for immediate and delayed recall. Learning and Instruction, 8, 179–194.
Lewis, M.P., Simons, G.F., & Fennig, C.D. (Eds.). (2016). Summary by language family. Ethnologue:
Languages of the world. (19th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved from https://www.
ethnologue.com/statistics/family
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R.
Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 269
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty &
J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–63). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Luppescu, S., & Day, R.R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language Learning,
43, 263–287.
Mackey, W.F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. London: Longman.
Mastin, L. (2011). The history of English. Retrieved from http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/
Midford, R., & Kirsner, K. (2005). Implicit and explicit learning in aged and young adults. Aging
Neuropsychology and Cognition, 12(4), 359–387.
Moeller, A., & Ketsman, O. (2010). Can we learn a language without rules? In M. Bloom & C.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Gascoigne (Eds.), 2020 vision for 2010: Developing global capabiity: Selected papers from the 2010
Central States Conference (pp. 91–108). Eau Claire, WI: Crown Prints.
Moir, J., & Nation, I.S.P. (2008). Vocabulary and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.),
Lessons from good language learners (pp. 159–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morales, M., & Smith, D. (2008). Mental images in the acquisition of L2 grammar: The case of “ser”
and “estar” in Spanish. Revista Nebrija de Linguistica Aplicada a la Ensenanza de Lenguas, 2, 1–24.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2008a). The use of grammar learning strategies of secondary school
students. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), Investigating English language learning and teaching (pp.139–148).
Poznań and Kalisz, Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. (2008b). Rozwijanie autonomii przy uźyciu Europejskiego portfolio
językowego a podnoszenie poziomu poprawności gramatycznej [Developing autonomy by means
of the European Language Portfolio and increasing grammatical accuracy]. In M. Pawlak (Ed.),
Autonomia w nauce języka obcego – co osiągnęliśmy i dokąd zmierzamy [Autonomy in language learning:
Achievements and prospects for the future] (pp. 197–206). Poznań, Kalisz and Konin, Poland: Adam
Mickiewicz University Press and State School of Higher Professional Education in Konin Press.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H., & Todesco, A. (1978/1996). The good language learner.
Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Newbury House.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nation, I.S.P., and Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists. Retrieved from
http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/cup.html
Neubach, A., & Cohen, A. D. (1988). Processing strategies and problems encountered in the use of
dictionaries. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, 10, 1–19.
Nyikos, M., & Fan, M. Y. (2007). A review of research on vocabulary learning strategies: Focus on
learners’ voice and language proficiency. In A. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner
strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 251–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oliphant, K. (1997). Acquisition of grammatical gender in Italian as a foreign language. Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i, Manoa. Retrieved from http://
www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW07/default.html
O’Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1990a). Language learning strategies and beyond: A look at strategies in the context of
styles. In S.S. Magnan (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp. 35–55). Middlebury,
VT: Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Oxford, R.L. (1990b). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA:
Heinle and Heinle/Cengage.
Oxford, R.L. (1990c). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Important connections for language learners.
In T.S. Parry, & C.W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 67–125). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oxford, R.L. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching
English as a second language (pp. 359–366). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage.
Oxford, R.L., & Amerstorfer, C.M. (2017). Situating strategy use: Language learning strategies and
individual learner characteristics. New York: Bloomsbury.
 270 Live Applications
Oxford, R.L., Lee, K.R., & Park, G. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella and
beyond. In A. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and
practice (pp. 117–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford, R.L., & Scarcella, R.C. (1994). Second language vocabulary learning among adults: State of
the art in vocabulary instruction. System, 22(2), 231–243.
Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 629–653
Parry, K. (1993). Too many words: Learning the vocabulary of an academic subject. In T. Huckin, M.
Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 109–129). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Poznań and
Kalisz, Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Pawlak, M. (2008). Advanced learners’ use of strategies for learning grammar: A diary study. In M.
Pawlak (Ed.), Investigating English language learning and teaching (pp. 109–125). Poznań and Kalisz,
Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Pawlak, M. (2009a). Grammar learning strategies and language attainment: Seeking a relationship.
Research in Language, 7, 43–60.
Pawlak, M. (2009b). Instructional mode and the use of grammar learning strategies. In M. Pawlak
(Ed.), New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. Special issues of
Studies in Pedagogy and Fine Arts, 8. Poznań and Kalisz, Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press.
Pawlak, M. (2012). Instructional mode and the use of grammar learning strategies. In M. Pawlak (Ed.).
New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching (pp. 263–287). Heidelberg
and New York: Springer.
Pawlak, M. (2013). Researching grammar learning strategies: Combining the macro- and micro-
perspective. In Ł. Salski, W. Szubko-Sitarek, & J. Majer (Eds.), Perspectives on foreign language
learning (pp. 191–220). Łódź, Poland: University of Łódź Press.
Plonsky, L., & Loewen, S. (2013). Focus on form and vocabulary acquisition in the Spanish L2
classroom. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition, 4(1), 1–24.
Quirk, R. (1971). The use of English. London: Longman.
Richards, J.C., & Reppen, R. (2014). Towards a pedagogy of grammar instruction. RELC Journal,
45(1), 5–25.
Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (2009). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. New York: Longman.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language leaner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51.
Scarcella, R.C., & Oxford, R.L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the
communicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199–228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scholfield, P. (1982). Using the English dictionary for comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 185–194.
Sheen, R. (2002). “Focus on form” and “focus on forms.” English Language Teaching Journal, 53(3),
303–305.
Sheen, R., & O’Neill, R. (2005). Tangled up in form: Critical comments on “Teachers’ stated beliefs
about incidental focus on form and their classroom practices,” by Basturkmen, Loewen and Ellis.
Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 268–274.
Smith, G.G., Li, M., Drobisz, J., Park, H-R., Kim, D., & Smith, S.D. (2013). Play games or study?
Computer games in eBooks to learn English vocabulary. Computers and Education, 69, 274–286.
Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Summers, D. (1988). The role of dictionaries in language learning. In R. Carter, & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 111–125). London: Longman.
Terrell, T., & Krashen, S. (1983). Natural approach: Language in the classroom. Oxford: Alemany Press.
Thompson, I. (2015). Language families. About world languages. Retrieved from http://
aboutworldlanguages.com/language-families
Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. London: Longman.
 Strategies for L2 Grammar and Vocabulary in Context 271
Tilfarlioğlu, Y. (2005). An analysis of the relationshp between the use of grammar learning strategies
and student achievement at English preparatory classes. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies,
1, 155–169.
Trendak, O. (2012). Exploring the role of strategic intervention in form-focused instruction. Doctoral thesis,
University of Łódź, Poland.
Tucker, G.R., Lambert, W.E., & Rigault, A.A. (1977). The French speaker’s skill with grammatical gender:
An example of rule-governed behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: a
descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387–409.
Wang, K-H. (2015). The use of dialogic strategy clusters for vocabulary learning by Chinese students in
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 17:52 17 January 2017

the UK. System, 51, 51–64. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.04.004

Wu, X., Lowyck, J., Sercu, L., & Elen, J. (2013). Task complexity, student perceptions of vocabulary
learning in EFL, and task performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 160–181.