Effects of L1 definitions and cognate status of test items on the Vocabulary Size Test

Abstract

This study examines the development and evaluation of a bilingual Vocabulary Size Test (VST, Nation, 2006). A bilingual (English–Russian) test was developed and administered to 121 intermediate proficiency EFL learners (native speakers of Russian), alongside the original monolingual (English-only) version of the test. A comparison of the bilingual and monolingual test scores showed that participants achieved significantly higher scores on the bilingual version of the test. Accuracy of responses to individual test items was reliably higher when the meanings of test items were presented in the L1 (Russian) and when these items were cognates. The findings also revealed that the bilingual version is likely to be a more sensitive measure of written receptive vocabulary knowledge. Finally, analyses showed that the effect of using L1 for multiple-choice options is likely to be larger for low-proficiency learners and that the difference in response accuracy to cognates and non-cognates decreases as item frequency increases. The paper concludes with recommendations on developing and using bilingual vocabulary size tests.

The impact of frequency and register on cognate facilitation: Comparing Romanian and Vietnamese speakers on the Vocabulary Levels Test

“…We would add here that this particular pattern should not necessarily be expected across L1-L2 pairings; for instance, it would be reasonable to expect that the cognate facilitation effect should remain consistently large (or at least start to diminish at considerably lower frequencies) for speakers of Romance languages due to the fact that numerous low-frequency words in English are cognate with basic high-frequency Romance words (e.g., the low-frequency learned English word infirm is cognate with the basic Spanish term for "sick", enfermo). Elgort (2013) estimates that in her study the presence of cognates resulted in an overestimate of her participants' vocabulary size of approximately 1,000 word families. She argues, however, that cognates should still not be excluded from L2 vocabulary tests because their presence is crucial for obtaining an accurate estimate of vocabulary size.…”

“…Working with intermediate Russian learners of L2 English, Elgort (2013) found an effect of cognate facilitation on Vocabulary Size Test scores (Nation, 2006;Nation & Beglar, 2007). Elgort's participants' responses were more accurate for cognates than for non-cognates regardless of whether the test was administered in the original monolingual version or in a newly-designed bilingual version (with the multiple-choice options presented in Russian).…”

Vocabulary size research at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

“…This test was first reported on in Nation & Beglar (2007) and is now supported by a growing body of research (Beglar 2010;Nguyen & Nation 2011;Elgort 2013). Beglar's (2010) examination of the 140-item monolingual VST in Japan with a mixture of native and non-native speakers showed that it had many features that typify a good test.…”

Reliable Measure of Written Receptive Vocabulary Size: Using the L2 Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge as a Yardstick

“…Shortly afterward, bilingual versions of the VST were developed and began to gain momentum, in addition to the original monolingual version of the test. The bilingual versions of the VST, in which the multiple-choice options of the items are in the native language of the test takers, have been developed for different languages including Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Mandarin, Russian, and Persian (see Elgort, 2013;Karami, 2012;Nguyen & Nation, 2011;Stewart, 2009;Zhao & Ji, 2016). All these three measures of written receptive vocabulary size have been widely used in L2 vocabulary research.…”

“…The VLT and VST have been identified as valid and reliable measures of vocabulary size (Akbarian, 2008;Beglar, 2010;Nation & Beglar, 2007;Schmitt et al, 2001;Xing & Fulcher, 2007). In addition, bilingual versions of both VLT and VST have been developed and recommended as appropriate alternatives to the monolingual versions (Elgort, 2013;Karami, 2012;Nation, 2007;Nguyen & Nation, 2011;Stewart, 2009;Zhao & Ji, 2016). Read (2013) reviewed the studies on development and validation of L2 vocabulary measures and reported that Schmitt et al (2001) conducted a comprehensive validation research to revise the VLT, previously developed by Nation (1983), and validated the new version with "over 800 learners in five different countries" (p. 48).…”