The impact of lexical clustering on beginner Chinese learners: a comparative study of semantic and thematic approaches
-
Rongyan Liu
Abstract
The impact of semantic and thematic clustering in beginner-level Chinese vocabulary instruction remains underexplored. This study conducted a nearly four-month classroom-based intervention with 44 Russian-speaking beginner-level Chinese learners. Quantitative data from standardized exams, contrastive translation tests, and vocabulary assessments were analyzed alongside qualitative data from text analysis, questionnaires, and interviews. Results indicated that both clustering methods enhanced vocabulary retention, contextual application, and lexical processing compared to traditional instruction. Thematic clustering, in particular, yielded superior outcomes in productive tasks, including sentence construction and dialogue completion. While semantic clustering facilitated systematic vocabulary organization, its efficacy was constrained by participants’ limited word capacity and underdeveloped morphological awareness. Both methods alleviated cognitive load and contributed to enhanced retention during the experimental period, with thematic clustering proving especially beneficial by embedding vocabulary in meaningful contexts. These findings offer theoretical and pedagogical insights for optimizing vocabulary instruction in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language (TCSL).
See Table A1.
Exercise formats in semantic clustering instruction (Class A).
| Exercises | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Synonym listing | Reviewing and listing previously learned words within a specific semantic category. |
| Visual vocabulary activation | Using images to stimulate learners’ associations and recall of semantically related words. |
| Morphological expansion | Identifying or generating related words using productive morphemes (e.g., roots, prefixes, suffixes). |
| Semantic categorization | Categorizing or ordering words based on semantic features to deepen understanding of lexical relationships. |
| Antonym matching | Pairing semantically opposite words to reinforce contrastive relationships. |
| Sentence construction | Creating dialogues or short passages based on semantically related words to enhance practical language application. |
Exercise formats in thematic clustering instruction (Class B).
| Exercises | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Thematic word association | Learners list related vocabulary based on a given topic. |
| Thematic text gap-fill | Completing fill-in-the-blank exercises in thematic passages to reinforce word meaning and usage. |
| Dialogue expansion | Engaging in group-based dialogue exercises to strengthen communicative competence. |
| Thematic schema completion | Filling in missing words in thematic schemas to enhance understanding of lexical relationships. |
| Thematic text creation | Writing short passages or dialogues using thematic vocabulary within a structured framework to promote active vocabulary application. |
See Table B1.
References
Aksoy, F. 2014. A controversy in presenting new vocabulary in an EFL class: Semantically related sets (SR), semantically unrelated sets (SU), thematically related sets (TR). Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2(2). 71–97.10.14706/JFLTAL15227Search in Google Scholar
Alabsi, T. A. 2016. The effectiveness of role play strategy in teaching vocabulary. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6(2). 227–234. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0602.02.Search in Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. 1997. Human memory: Theory and practice. East Sussex: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Channel, J. 1981. Applying semantic theory to vocabulary teaching. English Language Teaching Journal 35(2). 115–122.10.1093/elt/XXXV.2.115Search in Google Scholar
Criado, R. 2013. A critical review of the presentation-practice-production model (PPP) in foreign language teaching. Homenaje a Francisco Gutiérrez Díez 6. 97–115.Search in Google Scholar
Dastjerdi, H. V. 2011. An investigation into the impact of traditional vs. blended teaching on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition: M-Learning in focus. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 1(15). 202–207.Search in Google Scholar
Drown, L., N. Giovannone, D. B. Pisoni & R. M. Theodore. 2024. Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: Long-form assessments. Linguistics Vanguard 9(1). 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0115.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2017. The production-oriented approach: Moving forward. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 40(4). 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2017-0027.Search in Google Scholar
Erten, İ. H. & M. Tekin. 2008. Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words in semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System 36(3). 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.005.Search in Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, M. & J. Nicol. 2003. Semantic category effects in second language word learning. Applied Psycholinguistics 24(3). 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716403000195.Search in Google Scholar
Halici Page, M. & E. Mede. 2018. Comparing task-based instruction and traditional instruction on task engagement and vocabulary development in secondary language education. The Journal of Educational Research 111(3). 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1391163.Search in Google Scholar
Hashemi, M. R. & F. Gowdasiaei. 2005. An attribute-treatment interaction study: Lexical-set versus semantically-unrelated vocabulary instruction. RELC Journal 36(3). 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688205060054.Search in Google Scholar
Heidari-Shahreza, M. A. 2015. The effect of semantic clustering on the acquisition of quantitative and qualitative knowledge of vocabulary. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 50. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ilshs.50.1.Search in Google Scholar
Higa, M. 1963. Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2(2). 170–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(63)80082-1.Search in Google Scholar
Hippner-Page, T. 2000. Semantic clustering versus thematic clustering of English vocabulary words for second language instruction: Which method is more effective? Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED445550).Search in Google Scholar
Hoshino, Y. 2010. The categorical facilitation effects on L2 vocabulary learning in a classroom setting. RELC Journal 41(3). 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210380558.Search in Google Scholar
Hunt, R. R. & J. M. Elliot. 1980. The role of nonsemantic information in memory: Orthographic distinctiveness effects on retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 109(1). 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.1.49.Search in Google Scholar
İnal, H. & A. Cakir. 2014. Story-based vocabulary teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 98. 675–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.467.Search in Google Scholar
Ishii, T. 2013. Reexamining semantic clustering: Insight from memory models. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction 2(1). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v02.1.ishii.Search in Google Scholar
Karabulut, A. & Y. Kesli Dollar. 2016. The effects of presenting different types of vocabulary clusters on very young learners’ foreign language learning. Education 3–13 44(3). 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2014.904391.Search in Google Scholar
Khayef, E. & I. Khoshnevis. 2012. The effect of thematic versus semantic clustering of English vocabulary. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 2(5). 5007–5016.Search in Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. 1974. Semantic fields and lexical structure. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Search in Google Scholar
Lewellen, M. J., S. D. Goldinger, D. B. Pisoni & B. G. Greene. 1993. Lexical familiarity and processing efficiency: Individual differences in naming, lexical decision, and semantic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 122(3). 316. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.122.3.316.Search in Google Scholar
Maftoon, P. & S. N. Sarem. 2015. A critical look at the presentation, practice, production (PPP) approach: Challenges and promises for ELT. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience 3(4). 31–36.Search in Google Scholar
Mediha, N. & M. Enisa. 2014. A comparative study on the effectiveness of using traditional and contextualized methods for enhancing learners’ vocabulary knowledge in an EFL classroom. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 116. 3443–3448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.780.Search in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. 2000. Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: Dangers and guidelines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1002/j.1949-3533.2000.tb00239.xSearch in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. & S. A. Webb. 2011. Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.Search in Google Scholar
National Language Commission. 2021. Chinese proficiency grading standards for international Chinese language education. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. 1975. Componential analysis of meaning: An introduction to semantic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Papathanasiou, E. 2009. An investigation of two ways of presenting vocabulary. ELT Journal 63(4). 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp014.Search in Google Scholar
Rahimi, H. 2014. The effect of method of vocabulary presentation (code-mixing, thematic clustering, and contextualization) on L2 vocabulary recognition and production. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 98. 1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.568.Search in Google Scholar
Sarıoğlu, M. & Ö. Yıldırım. 2018. The effects of clustering new words in semantic, thematic or unrelated sets in teaching vocabulary to EFL learners. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 18(2). 1064–1085. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2018.-431475.Search in Google Scholar
Stoller, F. & W. Grabe. 1993. Implications for L2 vocabulary acquisition and instruction from L1 vocabulary research. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes & J. Coady (eds.), Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning. 24–45. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Tinkham, T. 1993. The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System 21(3). 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(93)90027-e.Search in Google Scholar
Tinkham, T. 1997. The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. Second Language Research 13(2). 138–163. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897672376469.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, J. 2019. Advanced Chinese classified vocabulary teaching course: Design and practice. Journal of International Chinese Teaching 6(03). 25–39. [王军. 2019. 高级汉语集合式词汇课程的设计与实践. 国际汉语教学研究 6(03). 25–39].Search in Google Scholar
Waring, R. 1997. The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: A replication. System 25(2). 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00013-4.Search in Google Scholar
Webb, S. 2007. The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 28(1). 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml048.Search in Google Scholar
Wei, R. & Y. Li. 2024. Effects of integrated form-focused instruction on vocabulary learning for Chinese English learners. Interactive Learning Environments 32(10). 6477–6495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2266478.Search in Google Scholar
Wen, Q. 2018. The production-oriented approach to teaching university students English in China. Language Teaching 51(4). 526–540. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026144481600001x.Search in Google Scholar
Wilcox, A. & A. Medina. 2013. Effects of semantic and phonological clustering on L2 vocabulary acquisition among novice learners. System 41(4). 1056–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.012.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Z. 2018. Differences in serious game-aided and traditional English vocabulary acquisition. Computers & Education 127. 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.014.Search in Google Scholar
Zeng, J. X. 2007. The influence of modes of word presentation on intentional vocabulary learning. Foreign Language Research 30(04). 131–135. [曾建湘. 2007. 词汇呈现方式对刻意学习英语单词的影响. 外语学刊 30(4). 131–135].Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, H. 2008. Vocabulary teaching based on semantic categorization: An experiment report. Chinese Teaching in the World 22(04). 56–62 [张和生. 2008. 利用汉语义类进行词汇教学的实验报告. 世界汉语教学 22(04). 56–62].Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
