David hirsh current perspectives in second language vocabulary research 2012

DavidHirsh(ed.)•CurrentPerspectivesinSecondLanguageVocabularyResearch
Reflecting growth in research interest in second
language vocabulary over the past 30 years,
this edited volume explores the current themes
and possible future directions in second lan-
guage vocabulary research. The collection
brings together review papers and quantitative
studies, and considers vocabulary in the con-
texts of teaching, learning and assessment.
Key themes explored in the volume include
multidimensionality of vocabulary knowledge,
the nature of word learnability, the interface
between receptive vocabulary knowledge and
productive vocabulary use, the partial-to-precise
continuum of vocabulary knowledge, conditions
favouring vocabulary learning and use, and the
use of corpora to develop word lists to inform
second language teaching. The themes pre-
sented in this volume reflect current thinking
and research avenues at the interface between
research enquiry and second language teaching
practice.
ISBN 978-3-0343-1108-3
David Hirsh is senior lecturer in TESOL (Teaching
English to speakers of other languages) at the
University of Sydney. His research focuses on
vocabulary development, academic adjustment,
and indigenous language revitalization. He has
published in Reading in a Foreign Language and
Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, and in
the volumes Teaching Academic Writing: An intro-
duction for teachers of second language writers
(2009) and Continuum Companion to Research
Methods in Applied Linguistics (2010). He is co-
editor of University of Sydney Papers in TESOL.
li155 li155 Studies in Language and Communication
Linguistic Insights
PeterLang
David Hirsh (ed.)
Current Perspectives
in Second Language
Vocabulary Research
www.peterlang.com
li
155

Current Perspectives
in Second Language Vocabulary Research

Studies in Language and Communication
Edited by Maurizio Gotti,
University of Bergamo
Volume 155
Linguistic Insights
PETER LANG
Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien
Advisory Board
Vijay Bhatia (Hong Kong)
Christopher Candlin (Sydney)
David Crystal (Bangor)
Konrad Ehlich (Berlin / München)
Jan Engberg (Aarhus)
Norman Fairclough (Lancaster)
John Flowerdew (Hong Kong)
Ken Hyland (Hong Kong)
Roger Lass (Cape Town)
Matti Rissanen (Helsinki)
Françoise Salager-Meyer (Mérida, Venezuela)
Srikant Sarangi (Cardiff)
Susan Šarcevi´c (Rijeka)
Lawrence Solan (New York)
Peter M. Tiersma (Los Angeles)
^

PETER LANG
Bern • Berlin • Bruxelles • Frankfurt am Main • New York • Oxford • Wien
David Hirsh (ed.)
Current Perspectives in Second
Language Vocabulary Research

ISSN 14248689
ISBN 9783034311083 pb. ISBN 9783035103793 eBookUS-ISBN 0-8204-8382-6
© Peter Lang AG, International Academic Publishers, Bern 2012
Hochfeldstrasse 32, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
info@peterlang.com, www.peterlang.com, www.peterlang.net
All rights reserved.
All parts of this publication are protected by copyright.
Any utilisation outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without
the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution.
This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming,
and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems.
Printed in Switzerland
Bibliographic information published by die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche National-
bibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet
at ‹http://dnb.d-nb.de›.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data: A catalogue record for this
book is available from The British Library, Great Britain
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Current perspectives in second language vocabulary research / David Hirsh (ed.).
p. cm. – (Linguistic insights: studies in language and communication; v.155)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-3-03-431108-3
1. Second language acquisition. 2. Vocabulary--Study and teaching.
3. Language and languages--Study and teaching. I. Hirsh, David,
P118.2.C865 2012
401’.93–dc23
2012005696

Contents
DAVID HIRSH
Introduction ..........................................................................................7
Section 1
The Research Field
DAVID HIRSH
Vocabulary Research: Current Themes, New Directions...................13
Section 2
Constructs of Vocabulary Knowledge
HUA ZHONG
Multidimensional Vocabulary Knowledge:
Development from Receptive to Productive Use ...............................23
CHEN-CHUN LIN
The Nature of Word Learnability in L2 Contexts ..............................57

Section 3
Conditions for Learning
YU-TSE LEE / DAVID HIRSH
Quality and Quantity of Exposure in L2 Vocabulary Learning .........79
CHEN-CHUN LIN / DAVID HIRSH
Manipulating Instructional Method:
The Effect on Productive Vocabulary Use.......................................117
Section 4
Corpus-based Research
WARREN MATSUOKA
Searching for the Right Words:
Creating Word Lists to Inform EFL Learning..................................151
Notes on Contributors.......................................................................179

DAVID HIRSH
Introduction
I have observed a steady increase over the past 20 years in the number
of academics embracing an interest in second language vocabulary
research, and this has seen a corresponding rise over this time in the
number of higher degree research students identifying vocabulary as
the focus for their research. This volume is the product of growing
research interest in the contribution of vocabulary to second language
acquisition.
In this volume, Hirsh reviews second language vocabulary re-
search to date to identify current themes, and then considers possible
future directions to guide novice and accomplished second language
researchers in identifying suitable research topics in the area of vo-
cabulary studies. Zhong explores the current model of second lan-
guage vocabulary learning as multidimensional, taking account of
learner variability in terms of partial-precise, receptive-productive,
and depth dimensions (see Henriksen 1999), and in doing so offers a
critique of assessment tools used to measure vocabulary knowledge.
Lin sheds light on the importance of properties of word form in the
process of learning L2 words (see Bogaards/Laufer 2004), reviewing
the findings of studies into the role of orthography (word decoding, L1
cognates), morphology (affixes, derivatives) and word length (number
of syllables) in L2 word learnability for specific L1 groups.
Lee and Hirsh adopt a quantitative approach to consider Laufer
and Hulstijn’s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis in the design of
their comparison of the effects of quantity and quality of exposure to
new words on vocabulary learning, with use of immediate and delayed
post-test measures of word acquisition. Lin and Hirsh use quantitative
data to measure the effect of explicit and incidental approaches to
word learning on the quantity and accuracy of target word use in a
subsequent writing task (see Lee/Muncie 2006).

8 David Hirsh
Matsuoka presents an overview of corpus-based research aimed
at identifying and compiling lists of the most frequent and uniformly
dispersed words occurring in L1 academic texts for use in EFL con-
texts – a methodology based on the premise that L1 language use can
serve as a model for L2 vocabulary learning. How such word lists
could be used to inform EFL pedagogy and ELT materials design is
also discussed.
The contributors identify themselves as TESOL researchers and
share a concern for the teaching and learning environment. This
shared concern has resulted in a volume with clear implications for
teaching and learning, as informed by the recent TESOL literature and
research findings. The contributors also share an awareness of the
need to tailor the teaching and learning process to suit local needs,
constraints and opportunities. Thus, they wish teachers (and their
learners) to reflect on the significance of theory to their own teaching
and learning environment, and adopt practices that are both informed
by theory and sensitive to the local context.
It is hoped that this volume inspires prospective and accom-
plished TESOL researchers to reflect on existing theory as the starting
point for defining important issues and current concerns, and then
explore ways in which their own program of research could contribute
in a meaningful, albeit modest, way to our developing understanding
of the lexical component of second language acquisition.
References
Bogaards, Paul / Laufer, Batia 2004. Introduction. In Bogaards, Paul /
Laufer, Batia (eds) Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection,
Acquisition, and Testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vi-xiv.
Henriksen, Birgit 1999. Three dimensions of vocabulary development.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21/2, 303-317.

Introduction 9
Laufer, Batia / Hulstijn, Jan 2001. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in
a second language: The effect of task-induced involvement
load. Applied Linguistics 22, 1-26.
Lee, Siok H. / Muncie, James 2006. From receptive to productive:
Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a postreading
composition task. TESOL Quarterly 40/2, 295-320.

DAVID HIRSH
Vocabulary Research:
Current Themes, New Directions
1. Introduction
Prospective research students with an interest in second language vo-
cabulary studies frequently ask me for a list of suitable topics as a
starting point for developing their own research trajectories. I suggest
they refer to a number of texts which have attempted to represent this
field of research. These include Nation’s (2001) Learning Vocabulary
in Another Language, the introduction to Bogaards and Laufer’s
(2004) Vocabulary in a Second Language, Hirsh’s (2010) chapter
titled Researching vocabulary appearing in the Continuum Compan-
ion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics and Schmitt’s (2010)
Researching Vocabulary. In addition, vocabulary research is regularly
published in the leading TESOL and Applied Linguistics journals,
with occasional special issues devoted to vocabulary research, and
these are useful starting points for research-focused reading.
This chapter identifies some of the more prominent current
themes in second language vocabulary research, and then moves on to
present possible areas for future research, and in doing so brings the
reader in touch with some of the key thinkers and their publications in
this area of second language research.

14 David Hirsh
2. Current themes
One important theme in second language vocabulary research is
measurement of second language vocabulary knowledge. This has
been driven by recognition of the impact of learner vocabulary size on
the quality of language comprehension and use, and by interest in
tailoring programs of study to suit the specific needs of groups of lan-
guage learners. Vocabulary tests have been developed to measure the
quantity of vocabulary knowledge, reporting ‘vocabulary size’ (see
Laufer/Nation 1995; Laufer/Nation 1999; Meara/Fitzpatrick 2000;
Nation 1983) and to measure the quality of vocabulary knowledge,
reporting ‘depth of knowledge’ (see Haastrup/Henriksen 2000; Meara
1996; Read 1993, 1998, 2004).
The development of such assessment tools has given rise to a
series of studies measuring learners’ vocabulary knowledge and learn-
ers’ vocabulary growth in terms of size (e.g. Nurweni/Read 1999;
Zhong/Hirsh 2009) and in terms of depth (e.g. Qian/Schedl 2004).
A second important theme in second language vocabulary re-
search is the nature of word knowledge, with lines of enquiry investi-
gating the dimension of receptive to productive knowledge (see
Laufer 1991, 1998; Lee/Muncie 2006), and the dimension of partial to
precise knowledge (see Barcroft 2008; Barcroft/Rott 2010; Henriksen
1999). Wesche and Paribakht’s (1996) Vocabulary Knowledge Scale
is an attempt to measure second language vocabulary knowledge in a
way which takes account of its multidimensional nature.
Another important theme in second language vocabulary re-
search is the process of learning, with an interest in the effect of inci-
dental and explicit forms of learning, and an interest in the effect of
learner involvement. Cases are presented in the literature for develop-
ing vocabulary knowledge incidentally through exposure to compre-
hensible input (see Nagy/Anderson/Herman 1987; Krashen 1989) and
through explicit instruction focusing on target vocabulary (see Laufer
2001). A case is also presented for engaging learners deeply in the
process of vocabulary learning (see Joe 1995; Newton 1995), giving

Vocabulary Research: Current Themes, New Directions 15
rise to the concepts of task-induced involvement and deep processing
evident in Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis.
A further important theme in second language vocabulary re-
search is the identification of the most suitable words for language
learning based on how words appear in texts written for native speakers
of English. Word lists have been developed which have guided ESL
learning (see Thorndike 1921; Thorndike/Lorge 1944; West 1953),
informed the development of specialised word lists (see Coxhead 2000;
Coxhead/Hirsh 2007), and provided lexical categories for analyzing
word use in texts (see Hirsh/Nation 1992; Matsuoka/Hirsh 2010).
3. New directions
There has been significant research interest to date in describing and
measuring vocabulary knowledge, and yet there remains work to be
done in this area. One area worthy of future attention is understanding
better the nature of vocabulary learning, particularly in terms of trans-
fer of word knowledge from receptive to productive use, and identify-
ing ways of measuring this transfer (see Zhong, this volume, for a
review of this area). Related to this is a need for improved understand-
ing of the concept of partial word knowledge, as opposed to precise
word knowledge, and how this relates to the likelihood of a word be-
ing used productively (see Lin, this volume, for a review of this area).
There is also a need for improved understanding of the concept
of ‘depth’ of vocabulary knowledge in terms of measurable differ-
ences between learners in how well they know individual words (see
Henriksen 1999 for more on this topic area). In addition, there is scope
to explore in more detail Meara’s model of productive knowledge
measurement based on ecological sampling of animal species numbers
(see Meara/Alcoy 2010) in an attempt to accurately account for and
measure the productive lexicon.
Vocabulary is dealt with in research as separate word forms, as
semantic family groups, in the company of other words (i.e. colloca-

16 David Hirsh
tions and concordance tables), and as recurring multiword sequences
or ‘lexical bundles’ (see Biber 2006). In a related area, there is a de-
veloping interest in the concepts of connected words, semantic maps
and semantic networks (see Meara 2009), and in the lexical effect of
knowing one word on the learning of others (see Laufer 1990). The
view of vocabulary knowledge as a complex network provides a start-
ing point for considerations of how to describe and capture the interre-
latedness of word knowledge in a way which accounts for observed
patterns of vocabulary learning and vocabulary use.
I expect that, in the coming years, there will be more interest in
the process of vocabulary loss (see Meara 2004), and how this is in-
fluenced by choices learners make in their continuing involvement
with the target language following completion of a program of lan-
guage learning. This would reflect the expected rise of importance of
autonomous and self-directed learning in the context of improved
online and interactive digital learning environments.
4. Final words
Thoughts about the number of words learners require have been
shaped over time by changing ideas about the purpose of second lan-
guage learning. The search for effective approaches to vocabulary
development needs to consider the overall purpose of language learn-
ing for the learners involved, as this will guide teachers in setting ap-
propriate vocabulary learning objectives and designing an appropriate
program to encourage meaningful vocabulary learning.
The search for effective approaches to vocabulary development
also needs to consider the opportunities provided for vocabulary learn-
ing in and out of the classroom environment, and to identify ways to
assist learners in maximising those opportunities. There is the possi-
bility now for teachers to develop vocabulary lists suited to their
learners through development of a specialised corpus (see Ward
1999), and the possibility for teachers to identify reading material

suited to their learners through lexical analysis of a range of texts (see
Hirsh/Coxhead 2009). There is also the possibility for learners to ac-
cess online resources to report on their use of vocabulary in writing
and to investigate how specific words appear in texts written for na-
tive speaking audiences (see Cobb n.d.).
The expansion in second language vocabulary research has pro-
vided teachers with empirical data and assessment tools to inform
their decisions about what words to teach and how to embed vocabu-
lary learning into the broader program of language learning. It is im-
portant to keep in mind, however, that words need a context in order
to develop into language, and as the vocabulary size of learners in-
creases, so should the complexity of the language they are engaging
with and producing.
References
Barcroft, Joe 2008. Second language partial word form learning in the
written mode. Estudios de Linguistica Aplicada 26/47, 53-72.
Barcroft, Joe / Rott, Susanne 2010. Partial word form learning in the
written mode in L2 German and Spanish. Applied Linguistics
31/5, 623-650.
Biber, Douglas 2006. University Language: A Corpus-based Study of
Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bogaards, Paul / Laufer, Batia 2004. Introduction. In Bogaards, Paul /
Laufer, Batia (eds) Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection,
Acquisition, and Testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, vi-xiv.
Cobb, Tom n.d. Compleat Lexical Tutor. Available online at <www.
lextutor.ca>.
Coxhead, Averil 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly
34, 213-238.
Coxhead, Averil / Hirsh, David 2007. A pilot science-specific word
list. French Review of Applied Linguistics 7, 65-78.

18 David Hirsh
Haastrup, Kirsten / Henriksen, Birgit 2000. Vocabulary acquisition:
Acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. Inter-
national Journal of Applied Linguistics 10, 221-240.
Hirsh, David 2010. Researching vocabulary. In Paltridge, Brian /
Phakiti, Aek (eds) Continuum Companion to Research Methods
in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum, 222-239.
Hirsh, David / Coxhead, Averil 2009. Ten ways of focussing on science-
specific vocabulary in EAP classrooms. EA Journal 25/1, 5-16.
Hirsh, David / Nation, Paul 1992. What vocabulary size is needed to
read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Lan-
guage 8/2, 689-696.
Joe, Angela 1995. Text-based tasks and incidental vocabulary learn-
ing. Second Language Research 11, 149-158.
Krashen, Stephen 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by read-
ing: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Lan-
guage Journal 74, 440-464.
Laufer, Batia 1990. Words you know: How they affect the words you
learn. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Further Insights into Contrastive
Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 573-593.
Laufer, Batia 1991. The development of L2 lexis in the expression of
the advanced learner. Modern Language Journal 75/4, 440-448.
Laufer, Batia 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary
in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics
19/2, 255-271.
Laufer, Batia 2001. Reading, word-focused activities and incidental
vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Prospect 16, 44-54.
Laufer, Batia / Hulstijn, Jan 2001. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in
a second language: The effect of task-induced involvement
load. Applied Linguistics 22, 1-26.
Laufer, Batia / Nation, Paul 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical rich-
ness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16, 307-322.
Laufer, Batia / Nation, Paul 1999. A vocabulary size test of controlled
productive ability. Language Testing 16, 33-51.

Matsuoka, Warren / Hirsh, David 2010. Vocabulary learning through
reading: Does an ELT course book provide good opportunities?
Reading in a Foreign Language 22/1, 56-70.
Meara, Paul 1996. The dimensions of lexical competence. In Brown,
Gillian / Malmkjaer, Kirsten / Williams, John (eds) Perform-
ance and Competence in Second Language Acquisition. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 35-53.
Meara, Paul 2004. Modelling vocabulary loss. Applied Linguistics 25,
137-155.
Meara Paul 2009. Connected Words: Word Associations and Second
Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meara, Paul / Alcoy, Juan 2010. Words as species: An alternative
approach to estimating productive vocabulary size. Reading in a
Foreign Language 22/1, 222-236.
Meara, Paul / Fitzpatrick, Tess 2000. Lex30: An improved method of
assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System 28/1, 19-30.
Nagy, William E. / Anderson, Richard C. / Herman, Patricia A. 1987.
Learning word meanings from context during normal reading.
American Educational Research Journal 24, 237-270.
Nation, Paul 1983. Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines 5, 12-25.
Nation, Paul 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newton, Jonathan 1995. Task-based interaction and incidental vocabulary
learning: A case study. Second Language Research 11, 159-177.
Nurweni, Ari / Read, John 1999. The English vocabulary knowledge
of Indonesian university students. English for Specific Purposes
18, 161-175.
Qian, David / Schedl, Mary 2004. Evaluation of an in-depth vocabu-
lary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance.
Language Testing 21, 28-52.
Read, John 1993. The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary
knowledge. Language Testing 10/3, 355-371.

20 David Hirsh
Read, John 1998. Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary
knowledge. In Kunnan, Antony (ed.) Validation in Language
Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 41-60.
Read, John 2004. Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of
vocabulary knowledge be defined? In Bogaards, Paul / Laufer,
Batia (eds) Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acqui-
sition, and Testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209-227.
Schmitt, Norbert 2010. Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Re-
search Manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thorndike, Edward L. 1921. The Teacher’s Word Book. New York
City: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Thorndike, Edward L. / Lorge, Irving 1944. The Teacher’s Word Book
of 30,000 Words. New York City: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Ward, Jeremy 1999. How large a vocabulary do EAP engineering
students need? Reading in a Foreign Language 12, 309-324.
Wesche, Marjorie / Paribakht, Tahereh Sima 1996. Assessing second
language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Cana-
dian Modern Language Review 53/1, 13-40.
West, Michael 1953. A General Service List of English Words. Lon-
don: Longman, Green & Co.
Zhong, Hua / Hirsh, David 2009. Vocabulary growth in an English as
a foreign language context. University of Sydney Papers in
TESOL 4, 85-113.

Section 2
Constructs of Vocabulary Knowledge

HUA ZHONG
Multidimensional Vocabulary Knowledge:
Development from Receptive to Productive Use
1. Introduction
Vocabulary, as an essential building block of language, has been
found to predict success in reading (Laufer 1992; Lervåg/Aukrust
2010; Qian/Schedl 2004), listening (Stæhr 2009), speaking (Daller van
Hout/Treffers-Daller 2003; Hilton 2008; Yu 2010), writing (Laufer/
Nation 1995; Yu 2010) and in general academic performance
(Harrington/Carey 2009; Zareva/Schwanenflugel/Nikolova 2005).
One stream within the broad field of second language vocabulary re-
search which is receiving growing interest is the interface between
receptive and productive vocabulary use (see Fan 2000; Laufer 1998;
Webb 2005), seen as an ‘intriguing’ area to explore (Henriksen/
Haastrup 1998: 77).
The purpose of this chapter is to explore the theoretical basis for
research into the interface, and to introduce test instruments available
for future research into the development of vocabulary knowledge
from receptive to productive use. This chapter will first describe vo-
cabulary knowledge as a multi-dimensional construct and define each
dimension of this construct and its containing aspects of vocabulary
knowledge. It will also critically review vocabulary assessment in-
struments, and analyse the constructs of these instruments. Implica-
tions for vocabulary teaching and assessment will be discussed at the
end of the chapter.

24 Hua Zhong
2. Quality and quantity of receptive and
productive vocabulary knowledge
Research looking into the development of receptive and productive
vocabulary use is primarily associated with size (see Gallego/Llach
2009; Laufer 1998; Laufer/Goldstein 2004). Many research findings
show that L2 learners’ receptive vocabulary size is larger than their
productive vocabulary size (Laufer 1998; Laufer/Goldstein 2004;
Laufer/Paribakht 1998; Webb 2008). It is assumed that gains in recep-
tive vocabulary knowledge often appear before productive develop-
ment (Melka 1997). Comparing two groups of high school English
learners in Israel, Laufer (1998) found that learners who had a larger
receptive vocabulary size also had a larger productive vocabulary size,
and the gap between receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge
increased as the level of language proficiency improved. Laufer’s
study concluded that these two types of vocabulary knowledge devel-
oped at different rates – the productive vocabulary size grew slower
than the receptive vocabulary size – as learners proceeded with their
L2 learning.
Zhong and Hirsh (2009) revealed a different developmental pat-
tern in which productive vocabulary size grew faster than receptive
vocabulary size after a four-month classroom instruction period
among a group of Chinese students whose English proficiency was at
an intermediate level. Their study suggests, from a teaching perspec-
tive, that the developmental pattern in vocabulary size could be influ-
enced by the types of vocabulary learning tasks used in the classroom
(see also Griffin/Harley 1996; Mondria/Wiersma 2004; Waring 1997;
Webb 2005, 2009; Wei 1999).
Acknowledging the limited information about learners’ vocabu-
lary knowledge that measures of vocabulary size could reveal, re-
searchers began investigating further the depth of vocabulary knowl-
edge in terms of receptive and productive use (see Laufer 1991; Lee/
Muncie 2006). The concept of ‘depth’ in vocabulary research is de-
fined in general terms as ‘the quality of the learner’s vocabulary
knowledge’ (Read 1993: 357). There are two approaches to under-

Multidimensional Vocabulary Knowledge 25
standing the quality of vocabulary knowledge, one of which is the
strength and breadth of the lexicon network (Haastrup/Henriksen
2000; Meara/Wolter 2004), and the other being the multi-aspect
knowledge of a word (Ishii/Schmitt 2009; Zareva 2005).
When depth is viewed as a network construction, the number of
words linked and the strength of these links are examined
(Meara/Fitzpatrick 2000; Meara/Wolter 2004). The bigger the net, the
larger the vocabulary size; the more links between one word and an-
other, the deeper the word is known (Meara 2009). The depth dimen-
sion of vocabulary knowledge is measured receptively as in V_Links
(Meara/Wolter 2004) which requires learners to identify association
pairs of words and to report the strength of association between the
words. Trials on 147 Japanese learners of English and a group of na-
tive speakers suggested that there was a significant difference between
the two groups with regard to their mental organizations of vocabu-
lary.
A similar productive network association test known as Lex30
(Meara/Fitzpatrick 2000) is claimed to be able to detect the basic de-
velopmental pattern in L2 productive vocabulary (Meara 2009). The
results from both receptive and productive association tests imply that
learners with high vocabulary proficiency have denser and more or-
ganized networks than lower proficiency language learners.
When depth is explored as a representation of multi-aspect
knowledge (see Nation 1990, 2001; Richards 1976; Ringbom 1987), it
includes all lexical characteristics and can also be considered as a sum
of sub-knowledges (Qian 1999; Qian/Schedl 2004). Nation has pro-
vided the most comprehensive list to date of aspects of vocabulary
knowledge which are systematically categorized into form, meaning
and use (2001: 27), as follows:
Form: pronunciation, spelling, word parts
Meaning: form-meaning relationship, concept and referents, associations
Use: grammatical functions, collocations, constraints on use (e.g. register, fre-
quency)
In this definition, word use is considered as a component of knowing a
word. Nation (2001) proposed that each of the components of knowl-

26 Hua Zhong
edge can be observed in comprehension and use. The research in
measuring either size or single/multiple aspects of vocabulary knowl-
edge in depth – though obviously important – does not reveal the
process of how an individual word is developed for use. Henriksen
and Haastrup (1998: 77) suggested that it is an ‘ambitious’ goal in the
research of second language vocabulary acquisition to explore what it
takes for a word to develop from receptive to productive use. This is
in part because knowledge of second language vocabulary acquisition
is built on fragmentary studies (Nation, in an interview by Schmitt
1995). In order to understand vocabulary growth from receptive to
productive use, a broader approach in addition to considering depth
and size is needed for measurement.
3. Vocabulary as a multidimensional construct
Taking the construct of vocabulary knowledge development in terms
of size and depth as a departure point, Henriksen (1999) viewed vo-
cabulary knowledge development as a multidimensional continuum,
comprising: (i) a partial-to-precise knowledge dimension where levels
of knowledge are operationalized as degrees of understanding; (ii) a
depth-of-knowledge dimension which reveals the multi-aspect nature
of word knowledge, and extends to a word’s syntagmatic and para-
digmatic relations with other words; and (iii) a receptive-productive
dimension which refers to the mastery levels of vocabulary knowledge
reflected in the learners’ comprehension and productive ability. The
first two dimensions are related to comprehension of word knowledge
while the third dimension is associated with the ability to access and
use a word.
The partial-precise dimension indicates that knowledge moves
from recognition to vague understanding of meaning and later to the
mastery of precise comprehension. This represents a continuum of
growth in meaning (Waring 2002). The better the word meaning is
known, the further the development is along the partial-to-precise

dimension. The development along the continuum of the partial-
precise dimension starts with identifying the certain combination of
letters or sounds that could be used to refer to objects or abstract con-
cepts. Clark (1993) described this process as mapping written or pho-
nological form to meaning. The recognition of the existence of the
word in a language is considered as the first step in vocabulary acqui-
sition. This process turns potential vocabulary into real vocabulary.
The acquisition progresses with different levels of partial knowledge
(Brown 1994). The mapping between form and meaning continues to
strengthen as the understanding of meaning gradually changes or
deepens after the word is encountered more and more in different con-
texts (Henriksen 1999).
The depth dimension in Henriksen’s model is viewed in line
with the network building approach as the process of ‘creating both
extensional and intensional relations’ (Henriksen 1999: 312). The
extensional relations refer to the links between the concept of the
word and its referent. For example, the concept of cup is a small con-
tainer used for drinking, and its referent is the physical item of the
small container. The intensional relations refer to paradigmatic (an-
tonymy, synonymy, hyponymy and gradation) and syntagmatic rela-
tions (collocational restrictions). The results from measurements of
network building in lexical knowledge reveal a general state of the
learners’ vocabulary knowledge rather than showing a detailed profile
of how much each word is known (Meara 2009).
The advantage of viewing depth of knowledge as a network
building rather than the sum of many aspects is that it provides an
overview of a learner’s state of vocabulary knowledge at a certain
point of time (Read 2004). The network building view of depth re-
flects the degree of mastery of vocabulary as a whole property in the
learner’s mind. Meara (1996 cited in Read 2004: 217-218) said that ‘it
misses the wood for the trees’ when the depth measurement targets
only the general state of a learner’s vocabulary knowledge rather than
how well the word is known. In order to understand how well a word
is mastered, aspects of words need to be explored.
There are overlaps between the network building and multi-
aspect word knowledge approaches when they are examined at a mi-
cro-level. Being able to construct the links between words, language

28 Hua Zhong
learners should have mastered the aspects of knowledge at an individ-
ual word level. For example, in order to produce the link between
contract and agreement, a learner has to firstly understand the mean-
ing of both words, secondly know their grammatical function as
nouns, and thirdly, in the association task, know their constraints of
use. To some extent, the concept of network building can be viewed as
a comprehensive understanding of multiple aspects of vocabulary
knowledge.
Further developed from Henriksen’s model, the depth dimen-
sion can be conceptualized as the ability or mastery of different as-
pects of vocabulary knowledge, in line with the multi-aspect word
knowledge approach. In order to distinguish the categories of aspects
in the depth dimension from Nation’s (2001) form, meaning and use,
new categories of form, semantic association and pragmatic factors
are introduced to the discussion in this chapter. Form includes ortho-
graphic, phonological and morphological aspects. Semantic associa-
tion refers to antonym, synonym, hyponymy and gradation. Pragmatic
factors refer to collocational restrictions, register and frequency.
The third dimension of vocabulary knowledge is the receptive-
productive dichotomy. Read (2000) points out that not all researchers
define the receptive-productive dichotomy in the same way. This has
created problems when it comes to comparisons between these two
kinds of knowledge. For example, Waring (1997) regards the ability to
provide a specific first language (L1) translation of the second lan-
guage (L2) word as receptive knowledge, and the ability to provide a
specific L2 equivalent for an L1 word as productive knowledge. This
concept is further developed by Laufer et al. (2004) who describe
receptive knowledge as retrieval of the word’s form, and productive
knowledge as retrieval of the word’s meaning.
In Webb’s (2008) study, receptive vocabulary knowledge is de-
scribed as the ability to recognize the form of a word and to define or
find a synonym for it, while productive vocabulary knowledge is seen
as the ability to recall the form and meaning of a foreign language
word. Nation (1990) said that receptive vocabulary use essentially
involves perceiving the word form while listening or reading and re-
trieving its meaning, and productive vocabulary use is the ability to
retrieve and produce the appropriate spoken or written form of a word

in expressing a meaning by speaking or writing. These definitions
restrict the concept of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge
to the form and meaning aspects.
Nation (2001) suggested that receptive and productive knowl-
edge of a word should cover all aspects of what is involved in know-
ing a word. For example, knowing how a word sounds is the receptive
dimension of spoken form and knowing how the word is pronounced
is the productive dimension of spoken form. In other words, each of
the aspects in the partial-precise and depth dimensions can be mas-
tered at a receptive or productive level for use. Therefore, adapting
Nation’s (1990) definition of receptive and productive vocabulary
knowledge, receptive vocabulary knowledge can be conceptualized as
the comprehension ability in reading and listening, and productive
vocabulary knowledge can be conceptualized as the ability to apply
the word appropriately to fit into a context in writing and speaking.
Laufer (1998) subdivided productive vocabulary knowledge
into controlled productive and free productive, thus enriching the
components of vocabulary knowledge in the receptive-productive
dimension (Laufer/Paribakht’s 1998 study also adopted the same sub-
division of productive knowledge). Controlled productive knowledge
indicates the degree of producing the words when a cue is given, as is
the case of completing the word bicycle in ‘He was riding a
bic_______’ (Laufer/Nation 1999: 46). Free productive knowledge
refers to the spontaneous use of a word without any specific prompts,
as is the case of free composition.
4. Implications for research on
productive vocabulary development
From the conceptual framework of three-dimensional vocabulary
knowledge, it can be concluded that the partial-precise and depth di-
mensions are the components of comprehension of vocabulary knowl-
edge. Comprehension enables the learner to use a word appropriately

30 Hua Zhong
in a context which is a comprehensive ability that can be subdivided
into the mastery of partial-precise and depth dimensions when ob-
served at a micro level. The partial-precise and depth dimensions de-
scribe the internal competence of a learner in vocabulary understand-
ing, while the receptive-productive dimension is the performance of
applying the comprehension of a word. Exploring the developmental
changes associated with the partial-precise and depth dimensions may
provide an understanding of the vocabulary knowledge growth pattern
in the receptive-productive dimension.
Based on the preceding literature review of a multi-dimensional
construct of vocabulary knowledge, the hypothesized relations among
the dimensions are represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Hypothesized relations among three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge.
Building on this hypothesized relations model of multi-dimensional
vocabulary knowledge, the development from receptive to productive
vocabulary knowledge can be explored by looking at the direct rela-
tionship from comprehension to use (two arrows pointing from par-
tial-precise and depth dimensions to productive knowledge) and the
intermediate relationship of partial-precise and depth dimensions to
productive vocabulary knowledge via receptive knowledge (two ar-
Comprehension Use
Partial-precise
dimension
Depth
dimension
Receptive
knowledge
Productive
knowledge
Receptive-
productive
dimension

rows from partial-precise and depth dimensions to receptive knowl-
edge and the arrow from receptive knowledge to productive knowl-
edge) and how these relationships change over time.
To examine the changes of relationships over time, a longitudi-
nal research design is needed. It is more valid to explore the changes
by tracking one group of learners over time than to compare the dif-
ferences between two groups of learners whose proficiency is at dif-
ferent levels. Schmitt’s (1998) longitudinal study tracked the acquisi-
tion of eleven words over one academic year among three university
students (Lithuanian, Chinese, Indian). Four aspects of vocabulary
knowledge were measured: spelling, associations, grammatical infor-
mation and meaning. Interviews with the same procedure and ques-
tions were conducted with the three university participants at the be-
ginning, in the middle and at the end of the academic year.
Findings indicate that participants did not experience difficulty
in spelling because a word could be spelt correctly based on the pro-
nunciation without acquiring the meaning. 72% of the target words
remained stable in the knowledge of meaning senses while the number
of target words with improvement in meaning sense was 2.5 times
more than the number showing deterioration in meaning. The deterio-
ration happened more often in the shift from receptive knowledge to
unknown status than in the shift from productive knowledge to recep-
tive or unknown status. Association knowledge was seen to proceed to
more native-like levels after a year of study.
The study also demonstrated that some of the knowledge as-
pects were interrelated. However, to date, we do not have a clear
model of this development in different aspects of vocabulary knowl-
edge. It is of research interest to look at vocabulary development from
a multi-dimensional perspective to see how these dimensions are re-
lated to each other (Henriksen 1999). Zareva (2005) set out to test a
three dimensional model of vocabulary knowledge by using a revised
Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Wesche/Paribakht 1996: 551), as fol-
lows:
1) I have never seen this word before.
2) I have seen this word before but I don’t remember what it means.
3) I think this word means _______. (synonym, translation, or brief explanation)

32 Hua Zhong
4) I know that this word means _______. (synonym, translation, or brief ex-
planation)
5) I associate this word with ______, ______, ______.
73 target words were selected from a dictionary and showed a similar
percentage of a spread across different vocabulary frequency levels.
Both native and non-native speakers with intermediate to advanced
levels of English proficiency participated in the study. Students’ re-
sponses were coded with different methods and were transferred to six
scores representing: a) students’ actual vocabulary knowledge, b) self-
reported vocabulary knowledge, c) vocabulary size, d) vocabulary
frequency effect, e) native-like commonality of associations, and f)
number of associations.
Results from regression analysis show a statistically significant
relationship between students’ actual vocabulary knowledge and the
other five aspects of vocabulary knowledge. A particularly strong
predictive power was found in self-reported vocabulary knowledge to
the actual vocabulary knowledge. Overall, the best predictors of actual
vocabulary knowledge among all the aspects were self-reported vo-
cabulary knowledge and vocabulary size.
Zareva’s (2005) study relies on a method of transferring the test
results into scores for different aspects. Assigning one to four points
according to participant responses to levels 1 to 4 is treated as self-
reported vocabulary knowledge, whereas awarding one to four points
according to participants’ correct responses to levels 1 to 4 is treated
as actual vocabulary knowledge. These two scores exhibit high simi-
larity. The regression analysis which is based on correlation analysis
(Keith 2005) has high probability of generating biased statistic results.
Therefore, when it comes to measuring the dimensions so as to verify
the hypothesized relations, a multi-task approach is seen as valuable.
Figure 2 is a suggested multi-task approach that operationalizes the
hypothesized relations shown in Figure 1.
Receptive knowledge, defined as comprehension, is a mental ac-
tivity that cannot be measured directly. However, it can be verified by
production in the L1 or receptive L2 tasks such as selection and judge-
ment. This verification should be done for each aspect. Defining pro-
ductive vocabulary as comprehensive ability to use a word in context

enables the observation of the mastery of different aspects in the partial-
precise and depth dimensions from a single spoken or written task.
Figure 2. Operationalized relations between receptive and productive vocabulary
knowledge under a three-dimensional framework.
5. Assessing vocabulary knowledge
5.1. Partial-to-precise dimension
Waring (2002) proposed that an incremental process of vocabulary
development can be transferred into scales of vocabulary knowledge1
.
One of the most widely known scale checklists is the Vocabulary
Knowledge Scale (VKS) (Wesche/Paribakht 1996: 30), as follows:
1 See section ‘Continua and vocabulary assessment’ in Waring (2002) from
<www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/scales.htm>.
Productive
vocabulary
knowledge
meaning form semantic
association
pragmatic
factors
Controlled
productive
knowledge
Free
productive
knowledge
Receptive
vocabulary
knowledge
Partial-precise
dimension
Depth
dimension

34 Hua Zhong
I. I don’t remember having seen this word before.
II. I have seen this word before, but I don’t know what it means.
III. I have seen this word before, and I think it means _________. (syno-
nym or translation)
IV. I know this word. It means _________. (synonym or translation)
V. I can use this word in a sentence: ______________________. (If you
do this section, please also do Section IV.)
The significance of VKS is its self-reporting feature which excludes
the learners’ test skill of guessing in the performance. It is claimed to
better reflect the real ability a learner has than using several tasks to
capture the degrees of knowledge because the difference in scores
from several tasks may result from the difficulty difference among
tasks (Waring 2002).
Criticism of VKS lies in its linearity (Waring 2000, 2002). The
knowledge required in VKS is multi-faceted. In Level III, learners are
asked to recognize the word (‘I have seen this word before’) and retrieve
its meaning (‘I think it means_________.’). However, the scoring is
linear because stages are arranged in sequence and each is assigned one
score according to how much it reflects the learner’s overall word
knowledge. A total score from all five levels indicates an acquisition
level of the word. However, this approach to scoring does not distinguish
between learners who achieve the same score but complete different
levels. The data collected from the VKS is nominal rather than ordinal.
Linearity could never be achieved when VKS is used to meas-
ure the development of vocabulary knowledge as a whole because of
the complex nature of multiple dimensions of vocabulary knowledge.
However, it is useful when applied to measure a single dimension of
the vocabulary knowledge continuum, particularly the partial-precise
dimension of meaning. A continuum view of vocabulary development
along the partial to precise dimension assumes that knowledge moves
from less to full, which suggests the following arrangement (Waring
2002: 9):
a) I do not know this word.
b) I know a little of the word meaning.
c) I know this word meaning quite well.
d) I know this word meaning very well.

The linearity lies in how well the meaning is known. The four stages
are viewed as unknown (a), partially unknown (b and c) and known or
well-known (d). The unknown stage is what Palmberg (1987) called
potential vocabulary – words learners do not know at all. The descrip-
tion for this stage could be ‘I don’t remember I have seen or heard of
this word before.’ The known stage indicates mastery of word mean-
ing. Learners at this stage know the meaning receptively and this can
be verified by asking them to produce a translation in L1 for the
words. Therefore, this stage can be described as:
x I know this word, and it means _________________. (translation) (adapted
from De la Fuente 2002: 112)
x I know this word well enough to give its definition: _______________. (trans-
lation or explanation in L1) (adapted from D’Anna et al. 1991: 117)
Partial knowledge is the intermediate stage between an unknown and a
well-known word. The intermediate stage includes recognition of ex-
istence (Dale 1965; Shore/Durso 1990) and rough characterization or
vagueness of word meaning (Bruton 2007; Dale 1965; Henriksen
1999; Smith 1987; Wesche/Paribakht 1996). Recognition of existence
– in other words the acknowledgement of the formal features – does
not indicate the knowledge of word meaning (Henriksen 1999). It can
be described as ‘I have seen or heard of this word before, but I don’t
know what it means’ (Wesche/Paribakht 1996: 30). It is a scale that
cannot be verified. Learners could mistake the target words for other
words they have seen but don’t know the meaning of. This stage is at
a higher level than ‘unknown’ and at a lower level than ‘having a
rough idea of what the word means’.
In the literature, there are two major methods to assess partial
word knowledge. One method is using a checklist instrument and a
statement to capture the learners’ uncertainty in mastery of the mean-
ing comprehension, such as ‘I think it means _______’ (De la Fuente
2002: 223; Wesche/Paribakht 1996: 30) or ‘I know its meaning a little,
and what I know is _________’ (adapted from Waring 20022
). The
2 See section ‘Continua and vocabulary assessment’ in Waring (2002) from
<www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/scales.htm>.

36 Hua Zhong
other method, usually used with a multiple choice instrument, is to
adopt a polytomous scoring method, giving half a point to answers
that fall somewhere between right and wrong (Schwanenflugel/
Stahl/McFalls 1997; Smith 1987). Schwanenflugel et al. (1997: 7)
considered ‘a domain-related but essentially incorrect definition or a
checked word’ as a correct response when measuring the comprehen-
sion of meaning of the target word.
The polytomous scoring method recognizes a stage at which
learners start to sort out the relations among words by clarifying the
fine shades of the target word. However, there is no proof which stage
is higher within the range of partial understanding. Therefore, the
stage could be described as ‘I recognize this word, and it has some-
thing to do with ________’ (adapted from Dale 1965: 898). The ad-
vantage of this statement is its non-confinement to the sequence of
acquisition stages (Smith 1987). It opens up the opportunity to explore
whether there are different stages in partial understanding. The two
modified versions of unidimensional vocabulary knowledge scale in
meaning are suggested as follows:
Version A
I. I don’t remember I have seen or heard of this word before.
II. I have seen or heard of this word before, but I don’t know what it
means.
III. I recognize this word, it has something to do with __________.
IV. I know this word. It means _________. (translation)
Version B
I. I don’t remember I have seen or heard of this word before.
II. I have seen or heard of this word before, but I don’t know what it
means.
III. I have seen or heard this word before, and know its meaning a little.
What I know about it is ____________________.
IV. I know this word well enough to give its definition: _________ (trans-
lation or explanation in L1)

5.2. Depth dimension
The depth dimension indicates a comprehensive word model which
includes three categories of knowledge aspects listed as follows:
x form – orthographic, phonological and morphological aspects
x semantic association – antonymy, synonymy, hyponymy and gradation
x pragmatic factors – collocation restrictions, register and frequency
Schmitt (1995) pointed out that the form and meaning aspects are
apparently acquired earlier and used more than the other aspects in the
process of learning. When the words are encountered repeatedly in
different contexts, collocational and register aspects will be learned.
Though acquired at a later stage, association is an indicator of vocabu-
lary retainment (Zareva 2007). It facilitates the appropriate use of
words in context by enabling learners to compare the similarity and
difference among words (østifci 2010). Collocational knowledge in-
creases fluency and makes the language more understandable as well
as native-like (Fan 2008). Hoey (2005) proposed that grammar is the
outcome of the systematic structure of commonly co-occurring words.
There is a significant contribution of form, semantic association and
collocation to the productive and creative use of vocabulary. Register
and frequency in the depth dimension are indicators of an advanced
level of vocabulary use in the context, which is closely related to the
culture of the target language.
Receptive tests measuring meaning, form, semantic association
and collocation, as well as productive tests of morphological aspects
will now be reviewed. The frequency aspect will be briefly introduced
in conjunction with form and meaning. To the knowledge of the au-
thor, there is no vocabulary test assessing the register use of a word.
Tests of productive vocabulary knowledge will also be examined.
5.2.1. Form
Form is often measured in association with meaning and vocabulary
size, such as the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Nation 1983; Schmitt
et al. 2001), and the Yes/No test (Meara/Buxton 1987; Meara/Milton

38 Hua Zhong
2005). Both of the tests target the receptive ability of recognizing the
form of the word.
The VLT is a diagnostic vocabulary test for use by teachers (Na-
tion 1983, 1990). It provides an estimate of vocabulary knowledge in
meaning, form and frequency by asking test takers to match meanings
to the target words at four frequency levels as well as at an academic
vocabulary level. This test provides teachers and curriculum designers
with information of whether a student is likely to reach the vocabulary
threshold to cope with certain language tasks (Schmitt et al. 2001). The
four frequency levels consist of the 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 most
frequently used words and the academic section samples words from
Campion and Elley (1971). Each level contains 18 items.
Read (1988) did some initial validation on the test and found
that it was reliable enough to be adopted in other research studies (e.g.
Laufer/Paribakht 1998; Schmitt/Meara 1997). Because of the diffi-
culty in extrapolating a learner’s vocabulary size beyond a relatively
small sample from a pool of several thousand words, this test is more
effective at low frequency levels than higher frequency levels
(Meara/Fitzpatrick 2000).
Two further tests have been developed from this test. One is a
new version of the VLT (Schmitt et al. 2001) which includes 30 items
at each level and an academic section which samples words from the
Academic Word List (AWL) (Coxhead 2000). Validation studies have
produced reliability figures above .90 (Schmitt et al. 2001). The sec-
ond test is the Controlled Productive Vocabulary Levels Test
(CPVLT) (Laufer/Nation 1999) which will be discussed in the produc-
tive vocabulary tests review.
The first Yes/No test (Meara/Buxton 1987) requires learners to
report whether they know the target words by ticking ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
The words for measurement include both real words and pseudo-
words. This allows adjustment to the scores for test-takers responding
‘Yes’ to pseudo-words. This simple format makes it possible to ad-
minister on computer, such as orthographic tests of X-Lex (Meara/
Milton 2005) and Y_Lex (Meara/Miralpeix 2006), and the phonologi-
cal test of Aural_Lex (Milton/Hopkins 2005). The Yes/No test cap-
tures multiple degrees of vocabulary knowledge. A response of ‘Yes’
may indicate either recognition of the form or knowing the meaning

very well, or even the ability to use the words (Read 2007). In order to
capture only orthographic knowledge, Webb (2005, 2009) designed a
receptive orthography task that requires learners to choose the cor-
rectly spelled target words from three distractors. The distractors are
created to resemble the target words both phonetically and ortho-
graphically. An example of the receptive version is as follows:
(a) dirrect (b) diret (c) direct (d) derict
5.2.2. Morphological aspect
The morphological aspect, also referred to as grammatical knowledge
(Schmitt/Meara 1997) or derivatives, is important to the productive use
of a word in context. It is closely related to the knowledge of word
families, which is considered a critical aspect of knowing a word
(Nation 2001; Schmitt/Meara 1997). The receptive use of vocabulary in
reading and listening largely depends on the meaning and form aspects.
Knowing the basic form or the frequently used word classes (noun or
verb) of a word will facilitate understanding of the meaning of its ad-
verb or adjective. Therefore, knowing one word in a family receptively
facilitates the learning of other members (Schmitt/Zimmerman 2002).
However, the productive use of a word requires the mastery of
productive morphological knowledge. When it comes to writing or
speaking, learners need to be able to choose the appropriate word
classes or even grammatical forms to fit the context. Therefore, it is
necessary to measure this aspect productively rather than receptively.
The instrument Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002: 169) used is a sen-
tence completion task where context is provided for the prompt word,
as in the following:
ASSUME
Noun He made an ____________ that she likes meat.
Verb He can _____________ that she likes meat.
Adjective He had an ____________ idea that she likes meat.
Adverb He decided _____________ that she likes meat.
Test takers are required to produce the appropriate derivative form of
the prompt word in each sentence and put a cross when the elicited

40 Hua Zhong
derivative form does not exist. The test is intended to assess the con-
textualized use of words. It measures the receptive ability of other
words, because learners need to know them in order to understand the
context. It presents a higher requirement on learners’ breadth of vo-
cabulary knowledge than a decontextualized task would. Ishii and
Schmitt (2009: 10) published another simple and decontextualized
task to measure the morphological aspect, as follows:
Target word Noun Verb Adjective
stimulate stimulation stimulate stimulating
educate
The task was developed and validated by Ishii (2005) among a group
of Japanese undergraduate students whose proficiency level is inter-
mediate. The test was originally developed with all four word classes
(noun, verb, adjective and adverb) for measurement, but the adverb
column was later deleted because of its low reliability. The researchers
also found that the completion of adverbs is largely associated with
knowledge of adjectival forms. Learners who could write the correct
form of the adjective tended to produce its adverb form correctly. The
reliability of the test without the adverb column was .94 (Ishii 2005).
5.2.3. Semantic association
The Word Association Test (WAT) by Read (1995, 1998) captures the
knowledge of both semantic association and collocational aspects in
pragmatic factors. The test requires learners to choose four out of
eight words that associate with the given word. The eight associates
are in two groups, one group reflecting semantic association of the
target word and the other group testing knowledge of frequent collo-
cates. Validation of the Word Association Test produced a high reli-
ability of .93 (Read 1998). An example3
is as follows:
BEAUTIFUL
enjoyable expensive free loud education face music weather
3 The example is from Read’s (1998) web-based test <www.lextutor.ca/tests/
associates>).

Schoonen and Verhallen (2008) further revised the word association
test by reducing word associate options from eight to six for young
Dutch learners of English (9-12 years old). The findings indicate a
concurrent correlation with a definition test at .82, and Cronbach’s
Alpha ranges from .75 to .83 on the basis of an item reliability test.
The study concluded that the 6-option word association test is valid
and reliable for use among young learners.
Schmitt et al. (2011) further validated the two versions of the
word association test – 8-option (Read 1998) and 6-option (Schoonen/
Verhallen 2008). Despite the fact that both versions of the test are
vulnerable to guessing, the word association test provides a good
measure of the depth construct 56% (8-option) and 64% (6-option).
The probability of guessing could be controlled by giving special care
to the selection of the associates and distractors.
5.2.4. Collocational aspect in pragmatic factors
The validated version of Read’s WAT (1995, 1998) focuses on the
collocations of adjective + noun, because the selected target words are
all adjectives. However, it is possible to extend this format of multiple
choices to other word classes. It is argued that this multiple choice
format may not present the collocation as a whole (Revier 2009), be-
cause the collocates can be placed before or after the target word when
WAT is extended to other word classes. An example is shown below:
COMFORT
Synonym Collocation
favor relief help tell large great fetch offer
The correct collocations – ‘great comfort’ and ‘offer comfort’ – are
not presented in the right word order as in use in this multiple choice
format. When the target word is a verb, it is inevitable that the article
is omitted between the target word and the collocates (most likely will
be a noun). Taking these points into consideration, Revier (2009) con-
structed the CONTRIX (constituent matrix) which examines the
whole collocations in the format of verb + (det) + noun. An example
taken from Gyllstad (2009: 129) is:

42 Hua Zhong
The quickest way to win a friend’s trust is to show
that you are able to ....
tell a/an joke
take the secret
keep — truth
The validation was carried out among a group of 56 Danish EFL stu-
dents from Year 10 to 1st
year university students. Results show mod-
erately high reliability of .89 (Revier 2009) and evidence for accept-
able criterion prediction validity (Anastasi/Urbina 1997) among stu-
dents with different proficiency. Revier (2009) claims that the advan-
tage of this format is that the presentation is of a whole collocation
and the correct word order as well as that the collocations are exam-
ined in a meaningful context. It is argued that measuring vocabulary in
a context is more valid than decontextualized measurement, because it
is the authentic way of using the words in communication (Gyllstad
2009; Laufer et al. 2004). However, whenever linguistic context is
provided in the task, recognition and recall of the other words in the
context are involved, which involves constructs seen as less relevant
to measuring target word knowledge (Messick 1995).
There are two decontextualized collocation measurement tools
developed by Gyllstad (2009). COLLEX (collocating lexis) is a multi-
ple choice test where three collocations are presented, and test takers
need to select the one that they think is the most frequently used. One
point is given when a correct selection is made. The other called
COLLMATCH (collocation matching) is in a Yes/No format where
test takers need to decide whether the presented sequence of words is
a collocation or the most frequently occurring combination of words.
Points are awarded for correct recognition of collocations and correct
rejection of frequently used word combinations.
These two formats of collocation tests, though easy to construct
and administer, assess the recognition ability of the collocation. They
may function well as a self-assessment instrument for English learn-
ers. However, they may not provide sufficient information for teachers
or researchers when the purpose is to diagnose or explore learners’
collocational knowledge, because, as with the form and meaning
Yes/No tests, neither COLLEX nor COLLMATCH reveals the de-
grees of knowing.

5.3. Productive vocabulary knowledge
The Controlled Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (Laufer/Nation
1999) developed from the Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation 1983,
1990) prompts test-takers to produce predetermined target words by
supplying a sentence context, a definition and the beginning letters of
the target word. The test presents 18 items at five levels: 2,000, 3,000,
5,000, University Word List (Xue/Nation 1984) and 10,000 word
level. Completing the test requires the knowledge of meaning, form,
morphological aspect, and collocations of the target word. In addition,
reading comprehension of the context is required in gaining the clues
to complete the task.
Measuring free productive vocabulary usually requires learners to
produce target words in context without a prompt. The most commonly
used is the Lexical Frequency Profile (Laufer/Nation 1995). It requires
learners to compose a short essay based around a prompt/topic. There-
fore the test is topic-restricted (Meara/Fitzpatrick 2000). Learners tend
to avoid using words they know but are not able to master fully.
In addition to this, free productive vocabulary tests require a
long word count to generate more than a handful of infrequent words
(Meara/Fitzpatrick 2000). Laufer and Nation (1995) reported that a
stable estimate on a learner’s vocabulary size requires two 300-word
essays from each learner. Producing essays of such length is a time-
consuming and demanding task for learners of low language profi-
ciency. Taking this into consideration, Meara and Fitzpatrick (2000)
designed Lex30. Lex30 contains word association tasks which provide
a stimulus word and require test takers to write as many responses to
that stimulus as they can. Different from the word association tasks
introduced earlier in this chapter, Lex30 does not have any criteria of
whether the responses are indeed related to the stimulus. Thus the sum
of all the responses resembles a collection of words as in an essay.
These responses, excluding the stimulus words, are lemmatized
according to the criteria of affixes described in Bauer and Nation
(1993). Both of these tests count the number of frequent and infre-
quent words and calculate the percentage of these two groups of
words. The higher the infrequent words’ percentage counts, the larger

44 Hua Zhong
the size of productive vocabulary a test taker is estimated to have
(Meara/Fitzpatrick 2000).
Alternatively, sentence writing as required in Level V in VKS
can be used to capture free productive knowledge. However, revision
of this test is needed to improve the validity. It is proposed to write
two to three sentences, one of which should contain the prompt word
in any word class. Abandoning the restriction of using the exact form
of the given prompt words may simulate a natural use of language in
communication.
Writing more than one sentence may provide a rich context to
enable learners to demonstrate their ability to use the words in a con-
text. It may also be useful to minimise the scope for students produc-
ing neutral sentences that do not reflect their command of the word. A
neutral sentence with ‘beautiful’ would be ‘She is beautiful’. The sen-
tence could be produced without knowing the meaning of ‘beautiful’
as long as the participant knows that adjectives include words ending
in ‘-ful’. Sentence writing could demonstrate the learners’ productive
vocabulary knowledge in different aspects if an analytical scoring
approach is applied. Table 1 summarizes the aspects captured by dif-
ferent vocabulary assessment tools.

Table 1. Vocabulary knowledge tests and their corresponding construct.
Meaning
Orthographic
form
Phoneticform
Morphological
aspect
Semantic
association
Collocation
Frequency
Register
Reading
comprehension
Vocabulary Knowledge
Scale (Wesche/Paribakht
1996)
R&P R&P P P
Two versions of revised
unidimensional VKS
(adapted from D’Anna et
al. 1991; Dale 1965;
Waring 2002; Wesche/
Paribakht 1996)
R R
Vocabulary Levels Test
(Nation 1983; Schmitt et
al. 2001)
R R R
X_Lex (Meara/Milton
2005)
R
Y_Lex (Meara/Miralpeix
2006)
R
Aural_Lex (Mil-
ton/Hopkins 2005)
R
Form recognition (Webb
2005, 2009)
R
Contextualized morpho-
logical aspect test
(Schmitt/ Zimmerman
2002)
P P P Y
Decontextualized morpho-
logical aspect test (Ishii/
Schmitt 2009)
P P
Word Association Test (8-
option by Read 1995,
1998; 6-option by
Schoonen/ Verhallen
2008)
R R R R
CONTRIX (Revier 2009) R R R Y
COLLEX (Gyllstad 2009) R R R

46 Hua Zhong
Table 1.(cont.)
R=receptive vocabulary knowledge; P= productive vocabulary knowledge; Y=yes
6. Implications for classroom vocabulary
teaching and assessment
This chapter has further developed a multi-dimensional construct of
vocabulary knowledge based on Henriksen’s (1999) model. It has
emphasized the complex mechanism of vocabulary knowledge in both
receptive and productive use. When it comes to teaching and learning,
teachers should go beyond meaning and form, to also explore how
well their learners use a word in writing and speaking.
Research into the effectiveness of teaching and learning tasks
may give some hints to teachers on how to improve the learners’ re-
ceptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. It is found that recep-
tive learning contributes more to receptive knowledge, whereas pro-
Meaning
Orthographic
form
Phoneticform
Morphological
aspect
Semantic
association
Collocation
Frequency
Register
Reading
comprehension
COLLMATCH (Gyllstad
2009)
R R R
VLT controlled productive
version (Laufer/Nation
1999)
P P P R Y
Lexical Frequency Profile
(Laufer/Nation 1995)
P P P P P
Lex30 (Meara/Fitzpatrick
2000)
P P P
Sentence writing (adapted
from Wesche/Paribakht
1996)
P P P P P

ductive learning more likely leads to increase in productive knowl-
edge (Griffin/Harley 1996; Waring 1997).
Webb (2005) designed a reading task (three glossed sentences)
and a writing task (sentence production) for two experiments among a
group of 66 Japanese university students. The first experiment of
comparing the receptive and productive tasks used within the same
length of time suggested that receptive learning tasks may contribute
not only to developing receptive knowledge but also lead to signifi-
cantly greater increase in productive knowledge. His second experi-
ment investigated the effectiveness of these tasks when different time
lengths were allocated. Results showed that productive learning out-
performed receptive learning in promoting productive vocabulary
knowledge.
In Webb’s (2009) later study, the effectiveness of receptive and
productive word pair tasks was compared among a group of 62 Japa-
nese university students. The receptive task required learners to look
at the target English words and recall their meaning in the L1, while
the productive task presented the target words in the L1 and required
learners to recall the English words. The results showed that receptive
learning led to larger gains in receptive meaning while productive
learning led to larger gains in both receptive and productive knowl-
edge.
In practice, both receptive and productive tasks should be used
for teaching vocabulary. However, teachers could use receptive vo-
cabulary learning tasks in the classroom when time is limited, while
productive vocabulary tasks can be a better choice than receptive tasks
for home assignments because they involve more aspects of vocabu-
lary knowledge. In addition to teaching and learning tasks, personal
factors like needs and motivation also influence the acquisition of
vocabulary knowledge. Laufer (1991) investigated the development of
written expression among a group of L2 university students and found
that under the same comprehensible input condition, those students
who entered the university below the average language competence
progressed better than those above average. It suggested that the ad-
vanced learners who can cope with university study and assignment
tasks with their existing proficiency level were less motivated to fur-
ther their productive vocabulary knowledge than those who struggled

48 Hua Zhong
with their university tasks. The need to learn or to catch up with peers
becomes one of the main motivations to improve vocabulary knowl-
edge.
Research suggests that motivation influences a learner’s self-
regulating capacity which directly influences the involvement in vo-
cabulary learning (Tseng/Schmitt 2008). In other words, learners with
higher motivation tend to have stronger control over such personal
factors in vocabulary learning as commitment, metacognition and
emotion. The stronger capacity of controls over these personal factors
would lead to better strategic vocabulary learning. Therefore, from a
teacher’s perspective, it would be a good idea to offer incentives to
learners to make improvements in vocabulary study so as to motivate
learners in their future vocabulary learning. It is also important to let
students understand that vocabulary development is a slow process
and students should not be disappointed should they not notice any
immediate improvement in their vocabulary use.
In vocabulary assessment, a multi-task approach may be re-
quired for diagnostic purposes to detect which aspects of word knowl-
edge require further development. Depending on the needs for as-
sessment and the time constraints of the classroom instruction, differ-
ent tasks can be chosen. For example, the revised scale checklist for
measuring meaning could be a useful instrument for students to do
self-assessment after the initial introduction of new words.
As word knowledge develops further, the Word Association
Task could be used to detect whether students have mastered the fine
shades of a word’s meaning that enable them to distinguish among
synonyms, as well as whether they have acquired understanding of the
collocational restrictions of the target words. In a time-restricted situa-
tion, as in class time, the controlled productive vocabulary test may be
suitable for assessing learners’ productive vocabulary knowledge.
Free productive tasks can be used when time permits as they are effec-
tive in demonstrating learners’ weaknesses of using words produc-
tively in context.

References
Anastasi, Anne / Urbina, Susana 1997. Psychological Testing (7th
ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bauer, Laurie / Nation, Paul 1993. Word families. International Jour-
nal of Lexicogaphy 6/4, 253-279.
Brown, Gillian 1994. Modes of understanding. In Brown, Gillian /
Malmkjær, Kirsten / Pollitt, Alastair / Williams, John (eds) Lan-
guage and Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 10-20.
Bruton, Anthony 2007. Partial lexical knowledge in tests of incidental
vocabulary learning from L2 reading. Canadian Modern Lan-
guage Review 64/1, 163-180.
Campion, Mary E. / Elley, Warwick B. 1971. An Academic Vocabu-
lary List. Wellington: NZCER.
Clark, Eve V. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Coxhead, Averil 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly
34, 213-238.
D’Anna, Catherine A. / Zechmeister, Eugene B. / Hall, James W.
1991. Towards meaningful definition of vocabulary size. Jour-
nal of Reading Behavior 23/1, 109-122.
Dale, Edgar 1965. Vocabulary measurement: Techniques and major
findings. Elementary English 42, 895-901, 948.
Daller, Helmut / van Hout, Roeland / Treffers-Daller, Jeanine 2003.
Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Ap-
plied Linguistics 24/2, 197-222.
De la Fuente, Mariá J. 2002. Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2
vocabulary: The roles of input and output in the receptive and
productive acquisition of words. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 24, 81-112.
Fan, May 2000. How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investi-
gation into the active and passive vocabulary knowledge of L2
learners. RELC Journal 31/2, 105-119.
Fan, May 2008. An exploratory study of collocational use by ESL
students: A task based approach. Science Direct 37, 110-123.

50 Hua Zhong
Gallego, Melania Terrazas / Llach, Maria del Pilar Agustin 2009. Ex-
ploring the increase of receptive vocabulary knowledge in the
foreign language: A longitudinal study. International Journal of
English Studies 9/1, 113-133.
Griffin, Gerry F. / Harley, Trevor A. 1996. List learning of second
language vocabulary. Applied Psycholinguistics 17, 433-460.
Gyllstad, Henrik 2009. Designing and evaluating tests of receptive col-
location knowledge: COLLEX and COLLMATCH. In Barfield,
Andy / Gyllstad, Henrik (eds) Researching Collocations in An-
other Language: Multiple Interpretations. UK: Palgrave Macmil-
lan, 153-170.
Haastrup, Kirsten / Henriksen, Birgit 2000. Vocabulary acquisition:
Acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. Inter-
national Journal of Applied Linguistics 10/2, 221-240.
Harrington, Michael / Carey, Michael 2009. The on-line Yes/No test
as a placement tool. System 37/4, 614-626.
Henriksen, Birgit / Haastrup, Kirsten 1998. Describing learners’ lexical
competence across tasks and over time: A focus on research de-
sign. In Haastrup, Kirsten / Viberg, Ake (eds) Perspectives on
Lexical Acquisition in Second Languages. Sweden: Lund Univer-
sity Press, 61-95.
Hilton, Heather 2008. The link between vocabulary knowledge and
spoken L2 fluency. Language Learning Journal 36/2, 153-166.
Hoey, Michael 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and
Language. London: Routledge.
Ishii, Tomoko 2005. Diagnostic Test of Vocabulary Knowledge for
Japanese Learners of English (unpublished PhD thesis). Uni-
versity of Nottingham.
Ishii, Tomoko / Schmitt, Norbert 2009. Developing an integrated diag-
nostic test of vocabulary size and depth. RELC Journal 40/1, 5-22.
østifci, ølknur 2010. Playing with words: A study on word association
responses. The Journal of International Social Research 3, 360-
368.
Keith, Timothy Z. 2005. Multiple Regression and Beyond. Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.

Laufer, Batia 1991. The development of L2 lexis in the expression of
the advanced learner. Modern Language Journal 75/4, 440-448.
Laufer, Batia 1992. Reading in a foreign language: How does L2 lexi-
cal knowledge interact with the reader’s general academic abil-
ity? Journal of Research in Reading 15/2, 95-103.
Laufer, Batia 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary
in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics
19/2, 255-271.
Laufer, Batia / Elder, Cathie / Hill, Kathryn / Congdon, Peter 2004.
Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary
knowledge? Language Testing 21/2, 202-226.
Laufer, Batia / Goldstein, Zahava 2004. Testing vocabulary knowl-
edge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language
Learning 54/3, 399-436.
Laufer, Batia / Nation, Paul 1995. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical
richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics 16/3,
307-322.
Laufer, Batia / Nation, Paul 1999. A vocabulary-size test of controlled
productive ability. Language Testing 16/1, 33-51.
Laufer, Batia / Paribakht, Tahereh Sima 1998. The relationship be-
tween passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language
learning context. Language Learning 48/3, 365-391.
Lervåg, Arne. / Aukrust, Vibeke G. 2010. Vocabulary knowledge is a
critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension
growth between first and second language learners. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51, 612-620.
Meara, Paul 2009. Connected Words: Word Associations and Second
Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meara, Paul / Buxton, Barbara 1987. An alternative to multiple choice
vocabulary tests. Language Testing 4, 142-151.
Meara, Paul / Fitzpatrick, Tess 2000. Lex30: An improved method of
assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System 28/1, 19-30.
Meara, Paul / Milton, James 2005 X_Lex: The Swansea Levels Test
(cd-rom). Newbury, UK: Express Publishing.

52 Hua Zhong
Meara, Paul / Miralpeix, Imma 2006. Y_Lex: The Swansea Advanced
Vocabulary Levels Test (version 2.05). Swansea: Lognostics.
Meara, Paul / Wolter, Brent 2004. V_Links: Beyond vocabulary
depth. In Albrechtsen, Dorte / Haastrup, Kirsten / Henriksen,
Birgit (eds) Angles on the English-speaking World 4. Copenha-
gen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 85-96.
Melka, Francine 1997. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabu-
lary. In Schmitt, Norbert / McCarthy, Michael (eds) Vocabu-
lary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 84-102.
Messick, Samuel 1995. Validity of psychological assessment. Ameri-
can Psychologist 50/9, 741-749.
Milton, James / Hopkins, Nicola 2005. Aural Lex. Swansea University.
Mondria, Jan-Arjen / Wiersma, Boukje 2004. Receptive, productive,
and receptive+ productive L2 vocabulary learning: What differ-
ence does it make. In Bogaards, Paul / Laufer, Batia (eds) Vo-
cabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and
Testing. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 79-100.
Nation, Paul 1983. Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines 5/1, 12-25.
Nation, Paul 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York:
Heinle & Heinle.
Nation, Paul 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmberg, Rolf 1987. Patterns of vocabulary development in foreign-
language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9,
201-220.
Qian, David 1999. Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vo-
cabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Mod-
ern Language Review 56, 282-308.
Qian, David / Schedl, Mary 2004. Evaluation of an in-depth vocabu-
lary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance.
Language Testing 21/1, 28-52.
Read, John 1988. Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second
language learners. RELC Journal 19, 12-25.
Read, John 1993. The development of a new measure of L2 vocabu-
lary knowledge. Language Testing 10/3, 355-371.

Read, John 1995. Refining the word associates format as a measure of
depth of vocabulary knowledge. New Zealand Studies in Ap-
plied Linguistics 1, 1-17.
Read, John 1998. Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary
knowledge. In Kunnan, Antony (ed.) Validation in Language
Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 41-60.
Read, John 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Read, John 2004. Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of
vocabulary knowledge be defined? In Bogaards, Paul / Laufer,
Batia (eds) Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acqui-
sition, and Testing. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 209-227.
Read, John 2007. Second language vocabulary assessment: Current
practices and new directions. International Journal of English
Studies 7/2, 105-125.
Revier, Robert L. 2009. Evaluating a new test of whole English collo-
cations. In Barfield, Andy / Gyllstad, Henrik (eds) Researching
Collocations in Another Language: Multiple Interpretations.
UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 125-138.
Richards, Jack C. 1976. The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL
Quarterly 10, 77-89.
Ringbom, Håkan 1987. The Role of the First Language in Foreign
Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schmitt, Norbert 1995. A fresh approach to vocabulary: Using a word
knowledge framework. RELC Journal 26, 86-94.
Schmitt, Norbert 1998. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second
language vocabulary: A Longitudinal study. Language Learn-
ing 48, 281-317.
Schmitt, Norbert / Meara, Paul 1997. Researching vocabulary through
a word knowledge framework: Word associations and verbal
suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20/1, 17-36.
Schmitt, Norbert / Ng, Janice Wun Ching / Garras, John 2011. The
word association format: Validation evidence. Language Test-
ing 28, 105-126.
Schmitt, Norbert / Schmitt, Diane / Clapham, Caroline 2001. Develop-
ing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vo-
cabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18/1, 55-88.

54 Hua Zhong
Schmitt, Norbert / Zimmerman, Cheryl Boyd 2002. Derivative word
forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly 36/2, 145-171.
Schoonen, Rob / Verhallen, Marianne 2008. The assessment of deep
word knowledge in young first and second language learners.
Language Testing 25/2, 211-236.
Schwanenflugel, Paula J. / Stahl, Steven A. / McFalls, Elisabeth L.
1997. Partial word knowledge and vocabulary growth during
reading comprehension. Reading Research Report, 76.
Shore, Wendelyn J. / Durso, Francis T. 1990. Partial knowledge in
vocabulary acquisition: General constraints and specific details.
Journal of Educational Psychology 82/2, 315-318.
Smith, Richard M. 1987. Assessing partial knowledge in vocabulary.
Journal of Educational Measurement 24/3, 217-231.
Stæhr, Lars S. 2009. Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening
comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 31/4, 577-607.
Tseng, Wen-Ta / Schmitt, Norbert 2008. Toward a model of moti-
vated vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling ap-
proach. Language Learning 58/2, 357-400.
Waring, Rob 1997. A comparison of the receptive and productive
vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Immacu-
lata, Notre Dame Seishin University, Okayama 1, 53-68.
Waring, Rob 2000. The ‘State Rating Task’ – an alternative method of
assessing receptive and productive vocabulary. Kiyo, Notre
Dame Seishin University: Studies in Foreign Languages and
Literature 24/1, 125-154.
Waring, Rob 2002. Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second lan-
guage vocabulary assessment. Kiyo, Occasional Papers of
Notre Dame Seishin University. Retrieved on June 12, 2010
from <www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/scales.htm>.
Webb, Stuart 2005. Receptive and productive vocabulary learning:
The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 27/1, 33-52.
Webb, Stuart 2008. Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2
learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30/1, 79-95.
Webb, Stuart 2009. The effects of receptive and productive learning of
word pairs on vocabulary knowledge. RELC Journal 40/3, 360-376.

Wei, Yong 1999. Teaching collocations for productive vocabulary de-
velopment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teach-
ers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, New York.
Wesche, Marjorie / Paribakht, Tahereh Sima 1996. Assessing second
language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Cana-
dian Modern Language Review 53/1, 13-40.
Xue, Guoyi / Nation, Paul 1984. A university word list. Language
Learning and Communication 3, 215-229.
Yu, Guoxing 2010. Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task
performances. Applied Linguistics 31/2, 236-259.
Zareva, Alla 2005. Models of lexical knowledge assessment of second
language learners of English at higher levels of language profi-
ciency. System 33/4, 547-562.
Zareva, Alla 2007. Structure of the second language mental lexicon:
How does it compare to native speakers’ lexical organization?
Second Language Research 23/2, 123-153.
Zareva, Alla / Schwanenflugel, Paula / Nikolova, Yordanka 2005.
Relationship between lexical competence and language profi-
ciency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acqui-
sition 27/4, 567-595.
Zhong, Hua / Hirsh, David 2009. Vocabulary growth in an English as
a foreign language context. University of Sydney Papers in
TESOL 4, 85-113.

CHEN-CHUN LIN
The Nature of Word Learnability
in L2 Contexts
1. Introduction
Word knowledge plays an essential role in language acquisition, and
second language (L2) learners need to acquire a substantial vocabulary
in order to achieve competency in all L2 skills (Hinkel 2006). In this
context, there has been increasing interest in the nature of word
knowledge and its learning process in the past decades.
L2 vocabulary studies have focused on lexical acquisition in
different learning conditions, examining how learners acquire lexical
knowledge receptively (see Hill/Laufer 2003; Jenkins/Stein/Wysocki
1984; Min 2008; Nagy/Anderson/Herman 1987; Rott 2007; Webb
2005; Zahar/Cobb/Spada 2001), how they acquire lexical knowledge
productively (Lee 2003; Lee/Muncie 2006; Snellings/van Gelderen/de
Glopper 2004), the relationship between L2 learners’ vocabulary size
and their lexical competence (Koda 1989; Laufer 1997; Meara 1996;
Qian 1999; Ward 2009), and how well a learner knows a given word
and how well the lexical items are organized into the learner’s mental
lexicon system (see Stæhr 2009).
Limited attention has been given to the nature of word knowl-
edge, particularly the various dimensions of word properties that af-
fect word learnability, in order to indicate ‘the ease or difficulty with
which a particular word can be acquired’ (Bogaards/Laufer 2004: X).
This chapter seeks to raise awareness of the features of a word’s ‘writ-
ten form’ – orthography, morphology, and word length – that impact
on L2 word learnability.

58 Chen-Chun Lin
2. Word learnability
From a linguistic point of view, learning a new word involves learning
its form (spoken and written), structure (the free root morpheme and
the derivations of the word and its inflections), syntactic patterns of
the word in a sentence, meaning, lexical relations of the word with
other words, and common collocations (Laufer 1997). In other words,
knowing a word consists of knowing: (1) word form – pronunciation,
spelling and part of speech; (2) word meaning – the knowledge of the
connection between form and meaning, conceptual content and word
associations; and (3) word function – the ability to use the word in the
appropriate contexts (Nation 2001).
Knowing a word form requires the concept of knowing a word
family. A word family comprises a base word with its inflections and
derivations that can be recognized by a learner without having extra
effort to learn each form separately. For example, listen, listens, lis-
tened, and listening are grouped into one word family (Bauer/Nation
1993). Knowing one member of a word family, it is suggested, may
facilitate the recognition of other members of the family. However,
studies indicate that L2 learners face difficulty with processing the
written form of words (Bensoussan/Laufer 1984; Grainger/Dijkstra
1992; Laufer 1988).
In naturalistic learning practices, lexical learning requires fre-
quent exposure to the words to be learned (Ellis/Beaton 1993), going
beyond a single encounter of a word which is likely to be insufficient
for acquiring full word knowledge (Hulstijn 2002). In addition, words
are not likely to be learned linearly from one frequency level to the
next; and high-frequency words that are learned could still be forgot-
ten over time if not used or met (Schmitt/Meara 1997). Moreover, one
word may be more difficult to learn than another even if the two
words have the same frequency of occurrence in the language (Laufer
1990, 1997; Swan 1997). In such cases, learners may obtain partial
knowledge of some words, with a focus mainly on parts of word form
(Barcroft/Rott 2010).

The Nature of Word Learnability in L2 Contexts 59
What are the factors that shape the ease or difficulty of learning
a word and determine if a word is likely to be learned partially or
fully? The multifaceted word features can be assumed to impact on
the possibility of words being problematic to learn, including a word’s
pronounceability, orthography, length, morphology, synformy (simi-
larity of lexical forms), grammar (part of speech), and semantic fea-
tures (Laufer 1997: 142-152). Understanding the nature of word
knowledge (i.e. the effect of word properties on learnability) is thus of
interest in the field of second language vocabulary research and sec-
ond language teaching. Previous studies of L2 lexical learning have
identified factors that may affect the ease or difficulty of learning a
new word.
Ellis and Beaton (1993) investigated the psycholinguistic factors
that affect the ease of learning foreign language (German) vocabulary.
Word length, phonotactic regularity, and part of speech were reported as
properties that affected L2 word learnability. Their results suggested
that part of speech and concept imageability are two critical factors that
may determine a word’s learnability, and further suggested that nouns
are the easiest to learn because they can be highly imageable.
The study also indicated that foreign words can be learned ef-
fortlessly if their phonological and orthographic patterns are similar to
the learners’ first language. In short, if the word is shorter, highly im-
ageable, acoustically familiar, easily pronounceable, and phonotacti-
cally regular, we may assume this L2 word can be learned easily
based on Ellis and Beaton’s findings.
Other L2 vocabulary studies have shown that grammatical as-
pects such as word class and derivational morphology are problematic
features in learning (see Alderson/Clapham/Steel 1997; Schmitt/Zim-
merman 2002). Schmitt and Meara (1997) examined how knowledge
of word associations and grammatical suffix change over one aca-
demic year with 95 Japanese secondary and postsecondary students.
They found that the students had difficulties in producing acceptable
suffixes for the verbs, particularly the derivative suffixes.
In terms of semantic features, de Groot and Keijzer (2000)
looked at foreign language vocabulary learning and forgetting with
experienced Dutch learners. They found that concrete words and cog-
nates were easier to learn but not easier to be forgotten than abstract

60 Chen-Chun Lin
words and noncognates. Word frequency, however, was reported hav-
ing almost no effect on performance. The results support Carter’s
(1987) finding that concrete words are learned earlier and more easily
than abstract words.
3. Orthography
Orthographical form of a word is one of the elements of word knowl-
edge. L2 learners have to master it in two ways: (1) recognizing a
written form; and (2) producing a written form that other readers can
also recognize. This refers to the ability to write and to spell accu-
rately (Ryan 1997). Spelling provides a visible representation of pho-
nological and orthographic understanding (Strattman/Hodson 2005).
In alphabet language systems, the primary unit of representation is a
phoneme; the segmental nature of the information represented by in-
dividual symbols requires learners to attend to the systematic analysis
of component letters and letter clusters within a word (Koda 1999).
Mastery of alphabetic literacy requires competence in decoding words
into phonemes and morphemes (see Shankweilert/Lundquist 1992).
3.1. Word decoding
Decoding is the ‘phonological conversion of visually presented words’
(Hamada/Koda 2010: 514), and seen as the strongest predictor of ac-
quiring orthographic knowledge, as the decoding process can form a
basis for a new word form to be learned (Share 1995). Some decoding
attempts may not be successfully processed due to a learner’s poor
decoding skills, or due to unfamiliar spelling. For example, the written
form yacht could lead to mispronunciation due to unfamiliar form
(Ricketts et al. 2011). Analyses of specific features of orthography can
be used to predict the order of word learning. Elbro (2006) suggested
a sequence of lexical acquisition in Danish by analyzing the following

David hirsh current perspectives in second language vocabulary research 2012

David hirsh current perspectives in second language vocabulary research 2012

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to David hirsh current perspectives in second language vocabulary research 2012

Similar to David hirsh current perspectives in second language vocabulary research 2012 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

David hirsh current perspectives in second language vocabulary research 2012