Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bvgqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T00:30:16.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEXICAL COMPETENCE AND LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY: Variable Sensitivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2005

Alla Zareva ,
Paula Schwanenflugel  and
Yordanka Nikolova
Alla Zareva
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Paula Schwanenflugel
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Yordanka Nikolova
Affiliation:
Bourgas Free University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to determine what features associated with the macrolevel of lexical competence vary as a function of an increase in second language (L2) proficiency. The macrolevel of participants' word knowledge was described with respect to six variables that are commonly associated with three proposed macrolevel dimensions, namely quantity, quality, and metacognitive awareness. Sixty-four participants (native speakers of English, L2 advanced learners, and intermediate learners of English) self-rated their familiarity with 73 lexical items and were asked to generate word associations to the words they identified in a verifiable way as known. The data analyses showed that some measures, such as vocabulary size, word frequency effects, number of associations, and within-group consistency of participants' associative domain, are more sensitive to L2 learners' increasing proficiency than others (e.g., nativelike commonality of associations). We thus conclude that some aspects, such as quality and quantity of L2 lexical competence, develop as the proficiency of the L2 learners increases, whereas others, such as learners' metacognitive awareness, are not proficiency dependent. We also suggest that the measures that were identified as sensitive to capturing the overall state of L2 learners' vocabularies would also be reliable indexes of learners' proficiency development.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 567 - 595
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (10, Serial No. 238).Google Scholar
Bauer, E. (1983). English word-formation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6, 253–279.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 207–246). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101–117.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1998). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L. F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32–70). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
D'Anna, C. A., Zechmeister, E. B., & Hall, J. W. (1991). Toward a meaningful definition of vocabulary size. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 109–122.Google Scholar
Diller, K. C. (1978). The language teaching controversy. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Dolch, E. W., & Leeds, D. (1953). Vocabulary tests and depth of meaning. Journal of Educational Research, 4, 181–189.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem-solving. In B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (1988). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 92–106.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1990). Second and foreign language learning: Same, different, or none of the above? In B. VanPatten & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Second language acquisition/foreign language learning (pp. 34–45). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goulden, R., Nation, I. S. P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11, 341–363.Google Scholar
Greidanus, T., & Nienhuis, L. (2001). Testing the quality of word knowledge in a second language by means of word associations: Types of distractors and types of associations. Modern Language Journal, 85, 567–577.Google Scholar
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303–317.Google Scholar
Hornby, A. S. (1978). Oxford student's dictionary of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, C. J., & Anglin, J. M. (1995). Qualitative development in the content and form of children's definitions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 612–626.Google Scholar
Kruse, H., Pankhurst, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1987). Multiple word association probe in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 141–154.Google Scholar
Landau, S. I. (2001). Dictionaries: The art and craft of lexicography. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126–132). London: Macmillan.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language acquisition: Words you don't know, words you think you know, and words you can't guess. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 20–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1999). A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 33–51.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning contexts. Language Learning, 48, 365–391.Google Scholar
Lorge, I., & Chall, J. (1963). Examining the size of vocabularies of children and adults: An analysis of methodological issues. Journal of Experimental Education, 32, 147–157.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (1978). Learners' associations in French. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 192–211.Google Scholar
Meara, P. (1984). The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 225–235). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
Meara, P. (1996). The dimensions of lexical competence. In G. Brown, K. Malmkjær, & J. Williams (Eds.), Competence and performance in language learning (pp. 35–53). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P., & Jones, G. (1988). Vocabulary size as a placement indicator. In P. Grunwell (Ed.), Applied linguistics in society (pp. 80–87). London: Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Melka, F. (1997). Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 84–102). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Using dictionaries to estimate vocabulary size: Essential, but rarely followed procedures. Language Testing, 10, 27–40.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, K. (1977). The syntagmatic shift revised: A review of research and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 93–116.Google Scholar
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., & Davis, C. K. (1984). Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words. (Research on Speech Production Rep. No. 10). Bloomington: Indiana University.
Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1993). The relationship between reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 9–29.Google Scholar
Popham, W. J. (1990). Modern educational measurement: A practitioner's perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Qian, D., & Schedl, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21, 28–52.Google Scholar
Read, J. (1993). The development of new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355–371.Google Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77–89.Google Scholar
Sandra, D. (1994). The morphology of the mental lexicon: Internal word structure viewed from a psycholinguistic perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 227–269.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (1998). Quantifying word association responses: What is native-like? System, 26, 389–401.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (1999). The relationship between TOEFL vocabulary items and meaning, association, collocation and word class knowledge. Language Testing, 16, 189–216.Google Scholar
Szalay, L. B. (1984). An in-depth analysis of cultural/ideological belief systems. Mankind Quarterly, 25, 71–100.Google Scholar
Szalay, L. B., & Brent, J. (1967). The analysis of cultural meaning through free verbal associations. Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 247–258.Google Scholar
Szalay, L. B., Lynse, D. A., & Bryson, J. A. (1972). Designing and testing cogent communication. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 3, 247–258.Google Scholar
Szalay, L. B., & Windle, C. (1968). Relative influence of linguistic versus cultural factors on free verbal associations. Psychological Reports, 22, 43–51.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Vermeer, A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217–254.Google Scholar
Vierra, A., & Pollock, J. (1992). Reading educational research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40.Google Scholar
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.
Wilks, C., & Meara, P. (2002). Understanding word webs: Graph theory and the notion of density in second language word association networks. Second Language Research, 18, 303–324.Google Scholar
Wolter, B. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 41–69.Google Scholar
Wolter, B. (2002). Assessing proficiency through word associations: Is there still hope? System, 30, 315–329.Google Scholar
Xue, G., & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, 3, 215–229.Google Scholar
Yoshida, K. (1990). Knowing vs. behaving vs. feeling: Studies on Japanese bilinguals. In L. A. Arena (Ed.), Language proficiency (pp. 19–40). New York: Plenum Press.
Zechmeister, E. B., Chronis, A. M., Cull, W. L., D'Anna, C. A., & Healy, N. A. (1995). Growth of a functionally important lexicon. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 201–212.Google Scholar
Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. New York: Touchstone Applied Science Association.