special issue on vocabulary || teaching vocabulary through opposition

6

Click here to load reader

Upload: william-r-powell

Post on 27-Jan-2017

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Special Issue on Vocabulary || Teaching Vocabulary through Opposition

Teaching Vocabulary through OppositionAuthor(s): William R. PowellSource: Journal of Reading, Vol. 29, No. 7, Special Issue on Vocabulary (Apr., 1986), pp. 617-621Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40029688 .

Accessed: 05/07/2014 11:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Journal of Reading.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 80.4.97.30 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:24:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Special Issue on Vocabulary || Teaching Vocabulary through Opposition

Teaching vocabulary through opposition

William R. Powell

Powell, who teaches reading courses and is interested in the philosophy of

language, is Professor of Education at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

What is the opposite of penny? I'm sorry, but there isn't any...

The opposite of opposite? That's much too difficult. I quit.

Richard Wilbur, Opposites, 1973

Opposition (polarity) is one of the basic structural relations in the vocabularies of any human language. The existence of a large number of antonyms in the

vocabulary of a language would seem to be related to a general human ten-

dency to polarize experience and judg- ment-to think in opposites. Yet in most discussions of word meaning the

concept has been curiously neglected, although much attention has been

given to other semantic relationships, such as synonymy.

A theory of antonymy with its impli- cations for classroom instruction is needed. Such a statement could offer a new expansive approach to vocabu-

lary development in a classroom situa- tion. This article will explore that

forgotten or slighted dimension of a most important semantic relationship.

An antonym is, of course, a word or several words that can be opposed in

meaning to another word. Still, com-

pared to other types of sense relations, particularly when contrasted with the wide choice possible in synonyms, an-

tonyms are few in number. In dictio- naries and thesauruses, antonyms require less space than other types of semantic relations. However, it must be remembered that polarity, by defini- tion, reduces the number of options

617

This content downloaded from 80.4.97.30 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:24:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Special Issue on Vocabulary || Teaching Vocabulary through Opposition

available for choice and that many words do not have antonyms. The re- duction of number could cause them to be overlooked, but their significance should not be given less emphasis. The effective use of polar terms gives us a firmer grasp of the meaning of a word and is necessary for controlled

language use and language teaching. In practice, the significance of polarity for setting the parameters of meaning has not reached the potential it is ca-

pable of fulfilling.

Definition and types of opposition The term antonym was coined in 1867, and is used as a counterterm to work

against another word. Words of oppo- sition tend to negate another term, nul-

lify it. The full definition offered by Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms (1973) is "An antonym is a word so op- posed in meaning to another word, its

equal in breadth or range of applica- tion, that it negates or nullifies every single one of its implications." Anto-

nyms are excluders (Hall, 1963); they rule out something and lead to word

economy. Polar concepts sharpen their differ-

ences in meaning and reveal the diver-

gencies between words. They offer a dialectic in the language providing the

discriminatory power necessary for the identification of meanings for any word

(Odgen, 1967). Yet, differences of

meaning, however great, do not create

opposition. There must be balance, equality, and similarity in one feature between the two terminal items. Polar-

ity is located on the deepest and most abstract level of the semantic network.

Semanticists identify different types of words in opposition, although they do not agree on the labels for identifi- cation. In general, there are three ma-

jor types of basic word oppositeness:

contradictories (complementaries), contraries, and reciprocal (converse) terms. The first is mutually exclusive

(single/married), the second are terms which allow for gradations (ascend/de- scend), and the third type deals with words which reverse or undo the

meaning of the other (buy/sell). Linguists tend to prefer the second

type, contraries, as true antonyms among the differing types of opposition (Lehrer and Lehrer, 1982; Lyons, 1968). This is because this type of

oppositeness allows for gradability of concepts, has a zone of indifference

(Sapir, 1951), and affords an operation of comparison.' However, for the

practical purposes of instruction, the concept of gradability may be

psycholinguistically of secondary im-

portance. For instructional value, rather than

deal with the more technical types, it

might be well to deal with just two forms of antonyms: polar antonyms and scalar antonyms. The first type is

categorical and allows no intermediate terms (husband/wife). Polar terms are dichotomous; the assertion of one im-

plies the denial of the other. Both con-

tradictory and reciprocal terms would fall in this category. Scalar terms, i.e., contraries, allow mediation by grada- tion and are often linked to the process of comparison (hot, warm, tepid, cool, cold). Middle terms are permitted and often possible with a neutral zone at

midpoint in the dimension of meaning. Polar antonyms afford the range and breadth of meaning; scalar oppositions provide the depth and opportunity for word choice.

Power of opposition It is true that polarity is not used with the frequency in most daily usage as much as other forms of semantic rela-

618 Journal of Reading April 1986

This content downloaded from 80.4.97.30 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:24:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Special Issue on Vocabulary || Teaching Vocabulary through Opposition

tionships. However, that does not di- minish its power. It is polarity that gives definitiveness, precision and limita- tions to meaning. Polarity sets the ex- tremities of a word's meaning. Scalarity provides its shading, nu- ances, and fineness.

Antonyms have the advantage of definition by contrast. The meaning of a word is often made clear by the sharp statement of what it is not (prodigal/ parsimonious). Opposition sets the boundaries of word meaning. It marks the limits of sense-relations. Polarity gives strength and gives a statement the opportunity to be made more effec- tive by vigorous antithesis.

Knowing the limits of meaning per- mits the expansion of vocabulary de-

velopment with precision, accuracy, and stability. Oppositeness distin-

guishes, intensifies clarity, and con- trols comprehension.

Perception of opposition is the active

principle of a language act. When once an opposition is established and its

principle understood, then either oppo- site, or any intermediate term, can be at once defined and delimited by its contradiction or by degree to the oppo- sition. Opposition itself becomes one of the explanatory principles of a vo-

cabulary. Through the dialectical nat- ure of language, the fundamental creative force is released. To reduce

opposition in a language is to rob it of its prime force. To fail to capitalize on it is to diminish its vitality. To not use it with balanced effectiveness is to frus- trate its potential.

The concept of opposition has a rich and ancient heritage. From Heraclitus, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, He-

gel, and Tarde, it has affected the his-

torical, sociological, biological, philo- sophical, and mythological aspects of life (Ogden, 1967). Its potential for psy-

chology and education is present in

Vygotsky's (1962) "zone of proximal development" and in Piaget's assimi- lation and accommodation. The re- search in education on the concept is

slight, but its operation is present in several common practices.

Examples of opposition in research and practice In the research area, the efforts have tended to be in studies of word associ- ation. Kimble (1968), using antonyms as one of his associative relationships, confirmed the mediational idea that when a word is presented, it implicitly evokes a concept of which many differ- ent associations are a part. Grossman and Eagle (1970) found antonyms pro- duced fewer false recognitions than

synonyms and other associations.

During recent years, the principle of

spreading activation (connecting meaning from a given word type) has been used as an explanatory principle in semantic studies. Niemi, Vauras, and von Wright (1980) stipulated that

antonym production facilitated subse-

quent synonym production but syno- nym production does not facilitate

opposition. Antonyms are powerful generators of superordinate categories of meaning and the semantic activa- tion of the general domain of a given concept.

Besides research in the psycholin- guistic area, the measurement field has considerable evidence in the use of opposition in assessment and test-

ing. Osgood (1953) used polar dimen- sions in his development of a semantic differential. This technique uses rating scales in the study of connotative

meanings of words. Words are rated

by individuals in terms of such di- mensions as strength, action, or

pleasantness-unpleasantness. Os-

Teaching vocabulary through opposition 619

This content downloaded from 80.4.97.30 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:24:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Special Issue on Vocabulary || Teaching Vocabulary through Opposition

good discusses his differential by refer- ence to personality and the semantic

space of a given individual.

Antonyms have long been used in the assessment of mental abilities and

intelligence testing (Wylie, 1925). Cor- relations between word opposites and scores on an intelligence test average around .77. With a sight word reading vocabulary test, correlations of approx- imately .65 are usually obtained. Word opposition apparently gives about as good an account of reading perform- ance as other standard measures. The recent Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (1983) attempts to mea- sure cognitive abilities though the dia- lectical nature of a successive and simultaneous opposition.

The reading area is not without evi- dence of polarity in its practices and procedures. In a study of direct vocab- ulary testing, Boettcher (1980) used a multiple choice instrument with sec- ondary students. Choices for each were from synonyms, antonyms, orthographically similar words, and

semantically related words. Antonym responses produced fewer wrong re- sponses with greater consistency than any of the other three categories. Anto- nyms apparently offer greater opportu- nity for accuracy and precision than other options.

The placement of youngsters into the proper level of reading material has been done through using word opposi- tion. The Botel Reading Inventory (1966) uses the word opposite test for

designating the instructional reading level of the students. Botel, Bradley, and Kashuba (1970) report correla- tions of .73 to .88 with other standard informal reading inventory measures. Even if one differs with the criteria used and other technicalities, a very strong relationship exists between an

understanding of polarity and the stu- dent's ability to acceptably process a

given level of difficulty. Certainly more research in this area is warranted.

Instructional strategies using oppo- sition in vocabulary development, while not in abundance, have ap- peared in the educational literature. Carnine and Silbert (1979) have pre- sented a blueprint for using modeling in vocabulary introduction. Modeling involves the teacher stating both posi- tive (what it is) and negative (what it is not) examples of word. Through the successive presentation of minimally different pairs, meaning is established by illustration. The technique offers one strategy for the introduction of words in the directed reading lesson which utilizes the power of opposition. It could easily be extrapolated to other procedures as well.

For vocabulary practice, Durrell

(1956) suggests using opposition in

developing word meaning. Through a yes/no response option, students are presented with a word on a card and the teacher asks a verbal question about the word which requires a yes/no answer. For example, the word here is shown on a card. The teacher asks "Can you brush this?" The students must respond verbally yes or no, or better yet use an every-pupil-response card with yes or no on two cards. The pupils respond with the card (in si- lence). All pupils must respond on sig- nal. Everybody is involved, and the teacher can simultaneously diagnose the group and individual performance.

Another strategy for vocabulary de- velopment extrapolated from the work of Wylie (1925) is to use an alphabetic generative approach to vocabulary in- struction. Such a technique would be to present a list of words without the antonyms given, as it is common prac-

620 Journal of Reading April 1986

This content downloaded from 80.4.97.30 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:24:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 6: Special Issue on Vocabulary || Teaching Vocabulary through Opposition

tice in most basal reading programs to-

day. In this instance, production, not

recognition, is required. An example would be to provide a

set of words such as sharp, health, ele-

vate, conceal, etc. and have the stu- dents write a word opposite that begins with d(dull, disease, degrade, divulge). Multiple responses are possible in

many instances thereby offering an ex-

pansiveness in vocabulary develop- ment. By carefully designing simple exercises such as this, a teacher could extend the power of opposition in a

generative and productive (not recog- nition) situation.

One cannot say with accuracy that the use of opposition is not present in current vocabulary instruction, but it is not present in abundance. More re- search on and strategies for its use need to be pursued to increase its ef- fectiveness. Opposition offers both the limit and the unlimited. All that is needed is for us to capitalize on its la- tent power.

References Boettcher, Judith V. "Diagnostic Vocabulary Testing. Pa-

per presented at the Secondary Reading Research

Group at the National Reading Conference, San Diego, Cal.. December, 1980.

Botel Reading Inventory. Chicago, III.: Follett Publishing Co.. 1966.

Botel, Morton, John Bradley, and Michael Kashuba. "The Validity of Informal Reading Testing." In Reading Diffi- culties: Diagnosis, Correction, and Remediation, edited by William K. Durr. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association, 1970.

Carnine, Douglas and Jerry Silbert. Direct Instruction Reading. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1979.

Durrell, Donald D. Improving Reading Instruction. New York, NY.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1956.

Grossman, Leonard, and Morris Eagle. "Synonymity, An- tonymity, and Association in False Recognition." Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 83 (February 1970), pp. 244-48.

Hall, Roland. "Excluders." In Philosophy and Ordinary Language, edited by Charles E. Caton. Urbana, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1963.

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Service, 1983.

Kimble, Gregory A. "Mediating Associations." Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 76 (February 1968), pp. 263-66.

Lehrer, Adrienne, and Keith Lehrer. "Antonymy." Linguis- tics and Philosophy, vol. 5, no. 4 (1982), pp. 483-501.

Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cam- bridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1968.

Niemi, Pekka, Marja Vauras, and Johan von Wright. "Se- mantic Activation Due to Synonym, Antonym, and Rhyme Production." Scandinavian Journal of Psychol- ogy, vol. 21, (1980), pp. 103-07.

Ogden, C.K. Opposition. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Uni- versity Press, 1967.

Osgood, Charles E. Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1953.

Sapir, Edward. "Grading: A Study in Semantics." In Se- lected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality, edited by David G. Mandelbaum. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1951 .

Vygotsky, L.S. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: The M. IT. Press, 1962.

Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1973.

Wilbur. Richard. Opposites. New York. N.Y.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1973.

Wylie, Andrew T. The Opposites Test. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1925.

Readability formulas are losing their textbook role

Readability formulas are playing a smaller and smaller role in the process of selecting textbooks, according to David Cody, a project officer of the U.S. National Association of State Boards of Education. Where state officials adopt textbooks, "I didn't talk to anyone in the 22 states who thought they were important," Cody said. "The general trend is that they're being used less and less."

Jeanne Chall of Harvard (a developer of the Dale-Chall readability formula) says that although readability formulas can help you assess the difficulty of "naturally writ- ten text," they give false positives when people write texts to achieve certain scores.

Adapted from Simply Stated, the monthly newsletter of the Document Design Center, American Institutes for Research, 1055 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Washington, DC 20007, No. 59, September 1985, pp. 1,4.

Teaching vocabulary through opposition 621

This content downloaded from 80.4.97.30 on Sat, 5 Jul 2014 11:24:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions