





































Education, Language and Sociology Research 

ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

26 
 

Original Paper 

An Analysis of the Vocabulary List Arrangement in Primary 

School English Textbooks from the Perspective of Frame 

Semantics 

Ziying Xie1 

1 School of English Studies, Xi’an International Studies University, Xi’an, China 

 

Received: August 4, 2024     Accepted: August 22, 2024     Online Published: September 6, 2024 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v5n4p26          URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v5n4p26 

 

Abstract 

With the increasingly close ties between countries all over the world, the acquisition of English as a 

second language is particularly important, in which English vocabulary learning is crucial. But the way 

of vocabulary arrangement and presentation affects students’ vocabulary memorization effect to a great 

extent. As the starting stage for students to learn English, the problem of teaching vocabulary in 

elementary school is worth pondering. Based on the Frame Semantics Theory, this paper examines the 

arrangement of vocabulary lists in elementary school English textbooks by taking the first book of the 

fourth-grade English textbook published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Publishing House 

as an example. It is found that the new words in the vocabulary lists of the current textbooks are simply 

arranged in the order that they appear in the text or in alphabetical order, which is inconsistent with 

students’ cognition. Therefore, we believe that based on the Frame Semantics Theory, a reasonable 

arrangement of vocabulary and the provision of a frame vocabulary list in line with the students’ 

cognition can enable students to spend the less cognitive effort to obtain more cognitive effect, and 

achieve twice the result with half the effort. 

Keywords 

Frame Semantics, vocabulary learning, primary school, English textbooks 

 

1. Introduction 

Among the five skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing and translating), vocabulary is the 

prerequisite for mastering English and the most basic unit in English teaching. Vocabulary is as necessary 

and important to learning English as bricks are to constructing a building, and it is the foundation of all 

English skills. Without sufficient language knowledge and vocabulary, English learning is bound to be 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

27 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

hindered to a greater extent, and even affect the motivation to learn English. In second language learning, 

vocabulary directly affects the performance of students’ language skills.  

However, the large amount of vocabulary and the intricate relationship between the meaning and shape 

of words make it difficult for students to learn and memorize, and students spend most of their time 

repeating and memorizing words in the process of English learning. While the more they remember, the 

faster they forget, and the more unsatisfactory the results they achieve. Memorizing vocabulary and 

mastering vocabulary from conceptual connections is still the subject of vocabulary teaching research 

(Mei, 1983). 

The way vocabulary is presented has an important impact on students’ vocabulary learning. There are a 

lot of new words in each unit of the English textbook, and the new words in the vocabulary list are simply 

arranged according to the order of their appearance in the text or the alphabetical order, which artificially 

isolates one semantically related word from another. Therefore, students who learn and memorize words 

mechanically according to the order in which they appear will not only get half the result with twice the 

effort, but also lose interest in English learning in the long run. Thus, vocabulary arrangement should 

follow a certain method, according to students’ cognitive ability and in line with students’ cognitive laws. 

Fillmore (1985) pointed out that although frames do not depend on language and exist independently, 

language cannot be detached from frames, and linguistic expressions are always linked to the relevant 

frames in people’s memory. That is, when people are exposed to a certain language form in a certain 

context, they always activate a specific frame in their mind, and from that frame, they are connected to a 

specific frame. As a means of human cognitive construction, frames provide the context and motivation 

for the presence of words in language and the use of discourse, and frames combine our experiential 

knowledge and linguistic structure (Pan, 2003).  

A semantic frame is a series of schematic reasoning structures linked to lexical items by linguistic 

conventions. Each frame consists of a set of frame elements. Frame elements are the participants and 

supports of a frame, the conceptual roles that present schematized scenarios. They represent the semantic 

and syntactic features of words through their association with semantic frames. The semantic depiction 

of the frame of a lexical item begins with the identification of the frame that highlights one of the lexical 

meanings, and then explains how the frame elements and combinations of frame elements are realized in 

the structure that is formed around the lexical item. Thus, in order to understand the semantics of a word, 

one must first have an understanding of the word’s conceptual structure, i.e., the semantic frame, which 

serves as background knowledge of the meaning of the word and the existence of its use. Whereas words 

can select and emphasize certain aspects of the basic semantic framework according to certain principles 

or ways through the linguistic structure in which they are located. Thus, to explain the meaning and 

function of words, it is possible to portray the basic semantic frame of the words and then choose which 

aspects of the semantic conceptual elements of the semantic framework to highlight or emphasize 

according to the specific context (Fillmore, 1976). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

28 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The theory of frame semantics has been widely used in psychology, sociology, anthropology and other 

fields. At present, its application to vocabulary teaching is also active, but few scholars have studied the 

vocabulary arrangement of textbooks from the perspective of frame semantics. Therefore, it is very 

meaningful to organize vocabulary based on frame semantics theory, which can present a frame 

vocabulary list in line with students’ cognition, so that students can maximize the cognitive effect with 

minimum cognitive effort and improve their vocabulary learning effect. 

 

2. Literature Review 

Linguists have made relevant studies on Frame Semantics and vocabulary teaching in English textbooks, 

and this chapter will provide a basic introduction to the basic concepts of Frame Semantics as well as the 

current state of research related to vocabulary teaching in English textbooks. 

2.1 Frame Semantics 

Frame semantic theory was proposed by American linguist Fillmore (1977), who interpreted the meaning 

of vocabulary from the perspective of human cognition, emphasizing the importance of the intrinsic 

connection between languages and people’s understanding of language in the process of language use 

(Chen & Bai, 2011). Frame semantics comes out of the empiricist tradition of semantics, linking social 

knowledge to semantics in linguistics, close to the semantics in the field of ethnography. A “frame” is a 

schematic structure generalized from recurrent human experience, a category created by a linguistic 

community, a conceptual representation of language. A frame is a structured system of categories that 

corresponds to some motivating contexts, a schematized situation stored in human experience, which 

may describe either an entity or a pattern of behavioral practices, or even some social institutions, 

customs, etc. (Fillmore, 1982). The coverage of “frame” is very wide, covering a series of concepts in 

natural language understanding, such as “schema”, “script”, “script”, “scenario”, “ideational scafolding”, 

“cognitive model”, and “folk theory” ect.. Frame semantics attempts to use empirical methods to explore 

the connection between human linguistic experience and to study a feasible way of describing this 

connection, i.e., to describe the meaning of words, sentences and texts in a unified “frame”. 

Fillmore (1982) argued that the meaning of a word is governed by the semantic frame in which it is 

located and is defined by that semantic frame, so in frame semantics, understanding the meaning of a 

word must be predicated on an understanding of the entire frame in which the word is located. First, the 

frame semantic theory holds that people understand the meaning of words in the frame activated by the 

word, in which a number of words are intrinsically related to each other. Secondly, frame semantics 

theory suggests that the process of learning is the process of making connections between new knowledge 

learned and existing cognitive background. Learners need to make efforts to make the new knowledge 

of the target language interact with the relevant old knowledge stored in the original cognitive structure 

of the brain, and to stimulate the a priori knowledge in order to obtain the actual meaning represented by 

the new knowledge. Finally, frame semantics theory holds that people’s understanding of the meaning of 

words comes from their knowledge of the world, and that people’s understanding of their social and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

29 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

cultural life will be reflected in language accordingly, so the constraints on people’s understanding of 

language are related to their social customs and beliefs to a certain extent. 

The vigorous development of frame semantics has attracted a group of Chinese linguists, who have not 

only studied the contents of foreign frame semantics, but also further developed and innovated the theory, 

and pioneered the related practical application research, which mainly focuses on the application in the 

teaching of foreign language vocabulary, especially in the teaching of English vocabulary. Chinese 

linguist Pan (2003) believes that language learners can view each frame as a small and abstract “scenario”, 

thus creating a way of observing lexical meanings of words, emphasizing the two important concepts of 

prototype and perspective. Linguist Wang (2011) believes that second language vocabulary teaching 

based on frame semantics by combing, reconstructing and building new second language frames can help 

learners correctly understand and master second language lexical meanings. Tan (2012) suggested that 

the English vocabulary teaching method based on frame semantics is more effective for students’ second 

language vocabulary acquisition than the traditional vocabulary teaching method, and that the positive 

effects of the frame semantics-based vocabulary learning method are reflected in two dimensions of 

vocabulary acquisition, that is, input knowledge and output knowledge. And in the empirical study, it 

was concluded that lower level students made effective progress in the vocabulary teaching vocabulary 

learning method based on frame semantics. You (2016) found in an empirical study that vocabulary 

teaching based on frame semantics can expand students’ vocabulary and improve their learning interest 

and attitude. Based on Brown and Payne’s (1994) five-step vocabulary teaching method and the three-

stage vocabulary learning method proposed by Qian and Zhou (2005), Yin (2020) proposed a new three-

step teaching method, which divides vocabulary teaching based on frame semantics into a pre-frame 

stage, a frame stage and a post-frame stage. In the pre-frame stage, the target vocabulary is approached 

in a specific reading text, and the frame stage serves as the core stage for identifying, describing, and 

analyzing explicit and specific frames, and in the post-frame stage, i.e., the frame reconstruction stage, 

the teacher instructs students to apply the target vocabulary to various contexts, and she argues that 

English vocabulary teaching based on frame semantics improves the vocabulary comprehension of 

students to a great extent, and it can also effectively improve students’ vocabulary production ability.  

2.2 Vocabulary Teaching in Textbooks 

As an important form of language expression, vocabulary is an important part of language ability and an 

important constituent part of language skills, and second language vocabulary teaching, as the foundation 

and core of second language teaching, has always been the focus of linguistic researchers, and the history 

of related research is also long. 

At first, in the view of formalist linguists, second language teaching should be centered on grammar, and 

vocabulary teaching should serve grammar teaching, vocabulary memory should be mechanically 

memorized by learners on the basis of dictionary definitions, focusing on lexical meaning changes, and 

focusing on the study of logical and rational meanings. However, with the deepening of the research, the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

30 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

linguists’ viewpoints about vocabulary teaching have shifted. In order to ensure the smooth progress of 

English speech activities, mastering the necessary vocabulary always plays a pivotal role.  

Therefore, scholars have conducted a lot of research on English vocabulary learning methods. Malley 

and Chamott (1985) believed that the memory of English words can be deepened through repeated 

identification and use of vocabulary. And Schmitt (2000) emphasizes the importance of learning 

vocabulary in context. He believed that by reading a lot and guessing the meaning of words in context 

can effectively increase the vocabulary and enhance word memorization. Chen (2013) found through 

comparative tests that thinking maps are conducive to the formation of students’ English learning 

strategies, such as the cognitive strategies such as “word formation”, “association” and “categorization” 

in cognitive strategies, which were significantly improved. Zhang and Duan (2017) investigated and 

analyzed students’ vocabulary learning strategies and depth of vocabulary knowledge, and found that 

reviewing and testing, guessing the meaning of words, looking up the dictionary, taking notes and 

practicing were positively correlated with the level of depth of vocabulary knowledge. Vocabulary 

memorization affects the efficiency and effectiveness of learners’ learning. Previous scholars have 

conducted a lot of research on second language vocabulary memorization from different perspectives and 

concluded that students use certain strategies to varying degrees and facilitate their learning of new words. 

Overview of the above vocabulary learning strategies, it can be seen that most of the strategies were 

essentially the same, that is, they all emphasize the need to learn English vocabulary in meaningful 

situations, providing students with background knowledge for vocabulary learning, in order to promote 

better understanding and memorization of vocabulary, such as learning vocabulary in context; reading a 

lot, speculating on the meaning of the word in context; and learning vocabulary in relation to the context; 

the strategy of “association” and so on. However, the arrangement of vocabulary lists in students’ English 

textbooks were only mechanical listing of words, which might takes words out of context and cuts the 

connection between words, which is likely to affect students’ vocabulary learning strategies to a great 

extent, and then affect their vocabulary learning efficiency and effectiveness. The textbook is the best 

language sample for classroom teaching, and the basis of language learning is vocabulary learning. The 

arrangement of vocabulary in textbooks should firstly meet the number of vocabulary required by the 

syllabus, and secondly, the rational arrangement and design of vocabulary in textbooks is also very 

important. Sinclair (1991) explored the problem of vocabulary breadth distribution. Chen (2001) studied 

by means of a questionnaire and concluded that most students (74%) used the textbook as the main way 

to learn vocabulary. Xie (2010) explored the vocabulary appendix of secondary school English textbooks 

by using a corpus approach and found that the vocabulary inclusion, vocabulary categorization and 

annotation of the textbook vocabulary lists were deficient and explored the reasons for this. 

Domestic and overseas studies on vocabulary and vocabulary teaching emphasized the importance of 

vocabulary in the teaching of English language teaching textbooks, and researched in terms of the theory 

of vocabulary teaching and the application of the theory. The research emphasizes the importance of 

vocabulary teaching and learning, focuses on vocabulary teaching strategies, emphasizes student-



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

31 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

centered vocabulary teaching, and proposes many instructive teaching methods and vocabulary teaching 

models. And in the development of in-depth research on vocabulary teaching theory, scholars began to 

try to use frame semantics in the theory of second language vocabulary teaching and continued to expand 

related empirical research, demonstrating the value and wide application of frame semantics theory. 

However, past theoretical studies and empirical studies of vocabulary teaching based on frame semantics 

still have many flaws.  

Most domestic and abroad studies focused on the impact of English vocabulary teaching and textbook 

arrangement on students’ foreign language learning in junior high school and above. While only a few 

scholars have paid attention to the impact of vocabulary presentation and vocabulary arrangement of 

elementary school English textbooks on learners’ vocabulary learning, although the primary schools’ 

English textbooks are the preliminary foreign language textbooks for most of the students in China. 

Therefore, there is still a great deal of room for exploration in the study of applying the theory of frame 

semantics to the teaching of English vocabulary in elementary schools. On the basis of the original 

research findings, we can implement more in-depth research on a more solid theoretical foundation. In 

this paper, the primary English textbooks will be selected to examine their vocabulary list arrangement 

from the perspective of frame semantics theory, and try to give a more reasonable and in line with the 

students’ cognitive pattern of new word presentation, to help students better understand and memorize 

the words. 

 

3. Analysis of Vocabulary List in Primary English Textbook 

In this study, the elementary school English textbook was selected as a research sample (taking the first 

book of Grade 4 English published by the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press as an example), 

and its vocabulary list arrangement was analyzed module by module from the perspective of the frame 

semantic theory, in attempt to find out some weaknesses in the vocabulary list selection and design, and 

to try to improve the arrangement of the textbook’s vocabulary lists from the perspective of the frame 

semantic theory, so as to make the presentation more in line with the cognitive rules of the students, and 

to promote the students’ comprehension and memorization of the new words. 

The textbook is divided into ten modules, each of which consists of two units. Pages 66 to 67 of the 

textbook are accompanied by a vocabulary list (Words and Expressions in Each Module), in which the 

key vocabulary words of each module and unit are listed and labeled with their corresponding meanings 

in Chinese, and the thematic contents of each module are listed and analyzed against each other as follows: 

 

Eg 1: Module 1 

Unit 1 Go straight on. 

Unit 2 It’s at the station. 

The first module lists 22 words, examining the vocabulary content and comparing the titles of the units, 

it is found that the module involves the theme of “location”, and the vocabulary mostly involves places 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

32 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of departure, destinations, references and directions, etc., and most of the words are nouns and directional 

words, such as station, street, straight, near, etc. The vocabulary is relatively difficult and the vocabulary 

is relatively large. In this module, the main categories involved in the “location” framework are listed in 

the vocabulary list, and the vocabulary set is relatively comprehensive, but there is a lack of vocabulary 

related to the medium of mobility, such as foot, bus, bicycle, and so on. 

Eg 2: Module 2 

Unit 1 She’s reading a book. 

Unit 2 What are you doing? 

The second module lists 12 words, and this module is mainly concerned with the theme of “action”. The 

vocabulary mainly involves some common actions, mostly verbs, such as read, doing, talk and so on, 

which is relatively simple and the vocabulary quantity is relatively small. While the main categories 

involved in the framework of “action” should take into account such as the action sender, the action 

bearer, the action, etc.. This module focuses on some words related to action, which is relatively 

homogeneous in terms of variety, leaving students with limited space for association, which is not very 

conducive to students’ vocabulary for the series of words under the framework of “action”. Moreover, 

the framework of this module is shallowly connected with the framework of the previous module, so it 

is difficult for students to use the vocabulary of the previous module, which is not conducive to students’ 

coherent learning of English vocabulary. 

 

Eg 3: Module 3 

Unit 1 What are they doing? 

Unit 2 What are the elephant doing? 

The third module lists 25 words, which showed that this module involves the same theme as the previous 

module, mainly “action”. The vocabulary mostly involves the sender of the action, the receiver of the 

action, and the action behavior, etc.. And most of them are nouns and verbs, such as people, row, boat 

and so on, which are relatively difficult and have the largest vocabulary in this textbook. The vocabulary 

is relatively difficult and the vocabulary is the largest in this textbook. The framework of this module is 

closely related to the previous module, and the vocabulary is more rich and complete, students can 

associate and review the words of the previous module, which is conducive to the coherent learning and 

mastery of English vocabulary. But the number of vocabulary is over-arranged, which is a little bit 

stressful for elementary school students to memorize English vocabulary, and may discourage the 

students’ motivation to learn. 

 

Eg 4: Module 4 

Unit 1 Do you want some rice? 

Unit 2 How much is it? 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

33 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Module 4 lists 16 words. Examining the content of the vocabulary and comparing the titles of the units, 

it can be seen that the two units in this module deal with the themes of “eating” and “trading”, and the 

vocabulary is mostly related to the types of food and the action of trading, with most of the vocabulary 

being nouns and verbs, such as juice, tomato, buy, etc. The vocabulary is relatively simple and the amount 

of vocabulary is reasonable. However, the thematic frame of the two units of this module is relatively far 

away from each other, so students may have a relatively poor coherence in learning this module. In 

addition, the categories involved in the frame of “trading” should take into account the buyer, seller, 

quantity and the amount of the transaction, and the vocabulary should be arranged such as buy, sell, 

number, money, etc. Yet, only one category is set in this module, which is not conducive to the students’ 

English cognition of the frame of “trading”. This is not conducive to the establishment of students’ 

English cognition of the frame. The vocabulary of only 16 words in the whole module contains two 

different frames, in which the vocabulary of food is obviously higher, which is not reasonable in quantity 

of vocabulary. 

 

Eg 5: Module 5 

Unit 1 Can you run fast? 

Unit 2 Can Sam play football? 

Module 5 lists 9 words, the theme of which is mainly about “sports”, and the vocabulary mostly involves 

the ways of movement and states of movement, with verbs and adjectives, such as run, fast, etc. The 

vocabulary is relatively simple and the vocabulary size is set to be the smallest in this book. The thematic 

frame of vocabulary in this module is closely related to the second and third modules, which helps 

students to review the previous knowledge. However, the framework of “sports” should basically take 

into account the ways, places and states of sports, etc. This module does not cover the vocabulary related 

to places of sports such as gym, which is not conducive to the complete establishment of students’ 

knowledge of English under this framework. The vocabulary is too insufficient for students to learn easily, 

and the second half of this module is easy to feel boring. 

 

Eg 6: Module 6 

Unit 1 Can I have some sweets? 

Unit 2 Happy Mid-Autumn Festival! 

Module 6 lists 12 words. The two units of this module deal with the frames of “food” and “festival” 

respectively, and the vocabulary words are mostly related to the types of food and the names of festivals. 

The framework of “food” can be associated with food types and flavors, etc. In the fourth module, the 

textbook has already dealt with food types, but the emphasis on food types in this unit may make students 

feel bored with the English vocabulary of this unit. Adding appropriate vocabulary expressions for food 

flavors such as sweet, spicy, etc. is not only conducive to deepening students’ connection and 

consolidation of previous knowledge, but also improves students’ interest in learning to a certain extent. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

34 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In Unit 2, the vocabulary in the framework of “festivals” is relatively small, and the connection between 

the two units is not very close, which is not conducive to students’ coherent learning. 

 

Eg 7: Module 7 

Unit 1 There is a horse in this photo. 

Unit 2 There are twelve boys on the bike. 

Module 7 lists 12 words, and this module deals with the frame of “animals”, the vocabulary words are 

mostly related to the kinds of animals, the number of animals, and the kinds of food, etc.. Most of the 

words are nouns, such as horse, twelve and fruit. In this module, the vocabulary words are relatively 

simple and the vocabulary is relatively small. The frame of vocabulary in this module is mainly based on 

“animals”, but some food expressions are arranged in the vocabulary list, which is easy to confuse the 

students, and the link between this module and the previous one is not close enough, so the consistency 

of the vocabulary arrangement needs to be improved. 

 

Eg 8: Module 8 

Unit 1 We are going to visit Hainan. 

Unit 2 Sam is going to ride a hose. 

Module 8 lists 11 words, and the frame of this module is mainly “travel”, and the vocabulary mainly 

involves the departure time of the trip, the means of transportation, the destination of the trip, and the 

activities of the trip, etc., and the majority of the vocabulary words are nouns and verbs such as tomorrow, 

plane, sea, fish, etc. The vocabulary of this module is relatively rich in variety but relatively small in 

amount. The frame of the vocabulary of this module is relatively unfamiliar to students at this stage, so 

there is a relatively rich variety of expressions of the different elements involved in this module, which 

is conducive to stimulating students’ motivation to learn this module. But the small number of vocabulary, 

which can easily lead to the shallow understanding of students, and the establishment of English 

cognition for this frame is easy to become monotonous. 

 

Eg 9: Module 9 

Unit 1 Are you going to run on sports day? 

Unit 2 I’m going to do the high jump. 

Module 9 lists 14 words. Examining the content of the vocabulary words and comparing the titles of the 

units, it is found that this module mainly deals with the frame of “sports”, and the vocabulary words are 

mostly related to sports movements, units of measurement of sports, and the time and frequency of sports, 

etc.. Most of the words are verbs, quantifiers, and nouns, such as jump, metre, day, etc. The vocabulary 

words are relatively difficult but the amount of vocabulary words is relatively small. The vocabulary 

framework of this module is the same as that of Module 5, but it is relatively rich in the variety of 

elements under the framework, with the addition of expressions related to units of measurement and time 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

35 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

frequency, which is complementary to the vocabulary of Module 4, and it helps to deepen the connection 

and consolidation of the vocabulary under the frame of “sports”. However, the distance between the two 

modules may make it difficult for students to recall the vocabulary they have learned, which is not 

conducive to their further improvement of the frame. 

 

Eg 10: Module 10 

Unit 1 We have a big family dinner. 

Unit 2 Merry Christmas! 

Module 10 lists 12 words, the two units of this module deal with the frames of “food” and “festivals” 

respectively, and the vocabulary mostly involves the types of food and the types of festivals. Most of the 

vocabulary is related to the types of food and festivals, with nouns, such as “peanut” and “Christmas”. 

The vocabulary of Module 10 is relatively difficult but with a relatively small amount. Lastly, this module 

duplicates the sixth module in terms of the frame. Besides, it focuses on the frame of “food” in the first 

unit as Module 6, which makes it easy for students to find it boring. And since this module is a little 

reletiveless from the previous one, it is not conducive to the consolidation of vocabulary that students 

have already learnt. 

 

4. Conclusion and Implications 

Generally speaking, this textbook is relatively close to life in the selection of vocabulary frames, such as 

“food”, “action”, “trade” and other frames close to students’ daily life, which is good for students’ 

understanding and memorization and promotes their daily use of English. This is conducive to students’ 

understanding and memorization and promotes their daily use of English. The frame of “traveling”, 

which students have relatively little contact with, is also partially arranged in the textbook, which is 

conducive to increasing students’ interest in learning, and the selection of the frames is both difficult and 

easy, which is quite reasonable. However, there are still some deficiencies in the selection and design of 

vocabulary lists in the textbook. 

First of all, the textbook does not list the lexical properties of the words and the page numbers, which is 

not conducive to the further understanding of the students. The students may only know the meaning of 

the words in Chinese but do not understand the role of the word in the sentence, and the students will 

waste their time when they look up the words without the index of the page numbers. 

Secondly, the textbook is somewhat lacking in the arrangement of the number and difficulty of 

vocabulary in each module. As mentioned above, the module with the highest number of vocabulary 

words has 25 words, while the module with the lowest number of words has only 9 words, so the number 

of vocabulary words needs to be further averaged. In terms of vocabulary difficulty, the textbook focuses 

on the frameworks of “food” and “action”, which are relatively easy for students to familiarize 

themselves with and understand. However, the main frame of the first module of the textbook is arranged 

as “location”, which is relatively difficult for students to master in the first module, and the large number 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

36 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

of words to be learned may cause unnecessary panic and psychological burden to some students, so that 

they may lose their enthusiasm for learning. The relatively simple and familiar frame of “food” is 

arranged in a relatively later module, which is obviously not in line with people’s cognitive pattern, and 

also aggravates the learning burden of students. 

In addition, the semantic frames of the vocabulary between modules are not sufficiently linked. For 

example, the semantic framework of “location” in the first module is closer to the frame of “traveling” 

in the eighth module, and the frames of the sixth and tenth modules are duplicated, which can be grouped 

under one semantic frame, with the related vocabulary put together to form a semantic framework that 

provides students with background knowledge for students’ vocabulary learning. And it is more 

conducive to students’ understanding and memorization of the words. However, if the arrangement 

between the two modules is too far away from each other, artificially separating the related vocabulary 

that should belong to the same semantic frame, which might increases the students’ burden of 

memorization and makes it difficult for the students to apply the two modules in connection with each 

other. 

Frame semantic theory offers a particular way of looking at lexical semantics. Each frame is seen as 

portraying a “scene” (Fillmore, 1982). In English textbooks of our country, new words are usually listed 

in isolation as a vocabulary list in the back of the textbook as an appendix. When teachers explain new 

words, they also list the vocabulary words separately and explain them independently. This out-of-

context approach is not suitable for students to accept and memorize quickly. If the new words are linked 

by a frame, and a series of words of the same frame are presented to students, a conceptual structure with 

a close internal structural connection can be left in students’ brains, which is more in line with students’ 

cognitive style and the memorization of vocabulary will be more lasting.  

Therefore, the textbook should adjust the unit arrangement appropriately, and the corresponding 

vocabulary lists need to follow the unified arrangement standard to stipulate the number of vocabulary 

words and difficulty, step by step, labeled with the lexical properties and page numbers, in order to help 

students memorize the words more effectively. For example, the textbook should be arranged so that the 

simpler modules 6 and 10 need to be advanced, and modules 1 and 8 should be arranged appropriately 

backward. Then the difficulty may be gradually increased with the passage of time, which will enable 

the students to better adapt to the rhythm of learning English in primary schools. 

 

References 

Brown, C., & Payne, M. E. (1994). Five essential steps of process in language learning. Baltimore: Md. 

Chen, H. (2001). Chinese non-English majors’ strategies for English vocabulary learning. Foreign 

Language Education, 22(6), 46-51.  

Chen, Y. (2013). The application of thinking maps in English vocabulary learning strategy training. 

Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University (Educational Science), 26(11), 117-119.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 5, No. 4, 2024 

37 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Chen, Z., & Bai, J. (2012). Exploring the cognitive motivation in Fillmore’s frame semantics. Modern 

Foreign Language Studies, 7, 14-17.  

Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of 

Science: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 208, 20-32. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x 

Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Syntax and semantics: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press.  

Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics: Lingiustics in the morning calm. Seoul, South Korea: Hanshin 

Publishing Company. 

Fillmore, C. J. (1985). Frame and the semantics of understanding. Quaderi di Semantica, 6(2), 222-254.  

Malley, J., Chamot, A., Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategy used by 

beginning and intermediated ESL students. Language Learning, 35(1), 21-46. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01013.x 

Mei, J., Zhu, Y., Gao, Y., & Yin, H. (1983). An attempt to compile a Chinese analogical thesaurus--

introduction to the synonym thesaurus. Studies in Dictionary, 133-138.  

Pan, Y. (2003). Frame semantics: theory and applications. Foreign Language Research, 5, 15-18.  

Qian, D, & Zhou, Q. (2005). The implications of frame semantics for the teaching and learning of English 

vocabulary. Journal of Suzhou Education College, 2, 59-63.  

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Tan, X. (2012). Empirical Study on L2 Vocabulary Acquisition Based on Frame Semantics. Hunan 

Agricultural University. 

Wang, L. (2011). The Inspiration of Frame Semantics to Second Language Vocabulary Teaching. Foreign 

Language Research, 3, 46-56. 

Xie, J. (2010). A Corpus Analysis of Vocabulary in EFL Course Books for High School. Foreign 

Language Learning Theory and Practice, 1, 55-61.  

Yin, P. (2020). The application of Frame Semantics Theory to English Vocabulary Teaching in Senior 

High School. Nanjing Normal University. 

You, Y. (2016). An Experimental Study on English Vocabulary Teaching Based on the Theory of Frame 

Semantics in Senior High School. Guangzhou University. 

Zhang, W., & Duan, G. (2017). A study of the relationship between English vocabulary learning strategies 

and depth of vocabulary knowledge. Foreign Language Education and Research, 5(1), 34-42. 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01013.x

