The Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Language Proficiency

Qian, David D.; Lin, Linda H. F.

doi:10.4324/9780429291586-5

Cited by 39 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Vocabulary is the most important aspect in language and plays a fundamental role in most if not all language abilities or skills ( Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010 ; Schmitt et al, 2011 ; van Zeeland and Schmitt, 2013 ; Cheng and Matthews, 2018 ; Lange and Matthews, 2020 ; Qian and Lin, 2020 ; Ha, 2021b ). In fact, the lexical resource of learners has been proven to be of even greater importance to their comprehension compared to the knowledge of grammatical structures and subject matters ( Lewis, 2002 ; Barcroft, 2007 ; Guo and Roehrig, 2011 ; Zhang, 2012 ; Zhang and Koda, 2013 ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical Profile of Newspapers Revisited: A Corpus-Based Analysis

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study analyzed the vocabulary profile of the News on the Web (NOW) corpus, which contained 12 billion words from online newspapers and magazines in 20 countries to determine the vocabulary knowledge needed to reasonably understand online newspaper and magazine articles. The results showed that, in general, knowledge of the most frequent 4,000 word families in the British National Corpus/Corpus of Contemporary American English (BNC/COCA) wordlist plus proper nouns, marginal words, transparent compounds and acronyms was necessary to gain 95% coverage for the NOW corpus. However, when it came to the 98% coverage, online newspaper and magazine articles from different countries had relatively distinct lexical demands. In-depth analyses were carried out and the findings offered comprehensive insights into the issue. Implications for teaching and learning were also provided.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical Profile of Newspapers Revisited: A Corpus-Based Analysis

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Size has garnered much more attention as a research target than depth (Schmitt, 2014;Qian and Lin, 2020;Yanagisawa and Webb, 2020). In contrast, depth covers a wide range of lexical dimensions and is difficult to define.…”

Section: Literature Review Defining Size and Depthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural Equation Modeling of Vocabulary Size and Depth Using Conventional and Bayesian Methods

Koizumi

In’nami

2020

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In classifications of vocabulary knowledge, vocabulary size and depth have often been separately conceptualized (Schmitt, 2014). Although size and depth are known to be substantially correlated, it is not clear whether they are a single construct or two separate components of vocabulary knowledge (Yanagisawa and Webb, 2020). This issue has not been addressed extensively in the literature and can be better examined using structural equation modeling (SEM), with measurement error modeled separately from the construct of interest. The current study reports on conventional and Bayesian SEM approaches (e.g., Muthén and Asparouhov, 2012) to examine the factor structure of the size and depth of second language vocabulary knowledge of Japanese adult learners of English. A total of 255 participants took five vocabulary tests. One test was designed to measure vocabulary size in terms of the number of words known, while the remaining four were designed to measure vocabulary depth in terms of word association, polysemy, and collocation. All tests used a multiple-choice format. The size test was divided into three subtests according to word frequency. Results from conventional and Bayesian SEM show that a correlated two-factor model of size and depth with three and four indicators, respectively, fit better than a single-factor model of size and depth. In the two-factor model, vocabulary size and depth were strongly correlated (r = 0.945 for conventional SEM and 0.943 for Bayesian SEM with cross-loadings), but they were distinct. The implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…1V ocabulary knowledge has a significant contribution to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners' development of language skills as well as their overall language proficiency (Qian & Lin, 2020). Therefore, it is important for English language teachers to help learners achieve a solid knowledge of English words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vietnamese Non-English Major Efl University Students’ Receptive Knowledge of the Most Frequent English Words

Dang¹

2020

JFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The receptive knowledge of 442 non-English major university students in a General English program in Vietnam was measured with Webb, Sasao, and Ballance’s (2017) New Vocabulary Levels Test. It was found that despite 10 years of formal English language instruction, nearly half of the participants had not mastered the most frequent 1,000 words and more than 90% had not mastered the most frequent 2,000 words. The study calls for more attention to high-frequency words in English language instruction in Vietnamese EFL context.

show abstract

The Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Language Proficiency

Cited by 39 publications

References 1 publication

Lexical Profile of Newspapers Revisited: A Corpus-Based Analysis

Lexical Profile of Newspapers Revisited: A Corpus-Based Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling of Vocabulary Size and Depth Using Conventional and Bayesian Methods

Vietnamese Non-English Major Efl University Students’ Receptive Knowledge of the Most Frequent English Words

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About