See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319002965

Learning a Word: From Receptive to Productive Vocabulary Use

Conference Paper · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

7 5,928

1 author:

Hua Flora Zhong

Western Sydney University
13 PUBLICATIONS 79 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Entwicklungsaufgaben in der Berufseinstiegsphase von Lehrpersonen, EABest View project

Interface between receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hua Flora Zhong on 09 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Learning a Word:
From Receptive to Productive
Vocabulary Use

Hua Zhong
University of Sydney

Room 2a07, Education Annex A36

The University of Sydney
NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA
Email [email protected]

Topic of submission: Language education

Abstract No. 0102

116
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Learning a word: From receptive to productive vocabulary use

Hua Zhong
University of Sydney

ABSTRACT
Vocabulary size has been the primary focus of recent vocabulary research (see, e.g., Nation 2001;
Webb 2008; Zimmerman 2004). However, size alone does not make the vocabulary available for
use, which shows that vocabulary knowledge is more than meaning and form of a word. Depth of
vocabulary knowledge is also an essential part of the learners’ language use (Read 2007; Ishii &
Schmitt 2009). While size and depth are important indicators of a learner's vocabulary knowledge,
they may not fully reflect the complex nature of vocabulary knowledge. Henriksen (1999)
defined vocabulary knowledge as a multi-dimensional construct, comprising: (1) the partial-to-
precise dimension; (2) the depth dimension; and (3) the receptive-productive dimension. The first
two dimensions are associated with vocabulary knowledge comprehension while the third
dimension reveals the ability of using the comprehended vocabulary knowledge. In order to
understand the development of vocabulary knowledge from receptive to productive use, the
partial-to-precise and depth dimensions should be included. The present paper will present the
definition of vocabulary knowledge as a multi-dimensional construct and review the research into
receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge development under this multi-dimensional
framework. In addition, the paper will discuss, from the research findings, how the three
dimensions should be integrated to understanding of vocabulary knowledge acquisition and the
implications for vocabulary teaching and learning.

INTRODUCTION
Vocabulary knowledge is an essential part of literacy skills (Pulido & Hambrick 2008). The
research into vocabulary development has received increasing attention in the second language
acquisition (SLA) research in the last twenty years (Haastrup & Henriksen 2001; Meara 2002).
Understanding the vocabulary knowledge and its development process contributes to the
understanding of how second language (L2) learners process and produce the language. The
research into vocabulary development in size (Laufer 1998; Laufer & Goldstein 2004; Webb
2008), depth (Tseng & Schmitt 2008; Pigada & Schmitt 2006; Waring 2002) and receptive to
productive use (Laufer & Nation 1995; Henriksen & Haastrup 2000) has shown that the
development on vocabulary knowledge is an incremental process (Henriksen 1999; Schmitt 1998,
2000). Knowing a word involves understanding of numerous aspects of the Vocabulary
knowledge which is a multidimensional and complex construct (Henriksen 1999; Nation 2001;
Read 2000).

VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE AS A MULTI DIMENSIONAL CONSTRUCT

Vocabulary knowledge, also referred to as lexical knowledge (Laufer & Goldstein 2004) and
word knowledge (Laufer 1990), has been defined either as comprising of a number of very
different sub-knowledge components (Laufer 1990; Nation 1990, 2001; Richards 1976; Ringbom
1987) or as a continuum of progressive degrees of knowledge (Faerch et al. 1984; Palmberg
1987).

117
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

When vocabulary knowledge is considered as a range of inter-related aspects of knowledge,

researchers (Nation 1990, 2001; Richards 1976; Ringbom 1987) propose that knowing a word
involves knowing the knowledge of the spoken and written form, morphological knowledge,
knowledge of word meaning, collocational and grammatical knowledge, connotative and
associational knowledge, and the knowledge of social or other constraints in use. In this
definition, a better understanding could be drawn on how well a word is mastered because the
tests target several components of knowledge. However, the number of words that can be tested
is limited and the test therefore contains a small representative range of the vocabulary the test
takers have (Laufer et al. 2004; Laufer & Goldstein 2004).

The continuum of progression approach considers that vocabulary knowledge is not an ‘all-or-
nothing’ phenomenon (Laufer 1998), but starts from unknown to knowing, and develops to fully
mastered level. Each of the word a learner knows can be located at a certain point in the
continuum of word knowledge. In line with the continuum perspective, Henriksen (1999, p. 304)
proposes three dimensions to look at vocabulary knowledge: (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 paradigmatic 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 production abilities. Henriksen’s proposal
demonstrates the progressional process of learning a word. 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 first dimension is partial-precise dimension. It shows that the knowledge moves from
recognition to vague understanding of the meaning and later to the mastery of a precise
comprehension. This dimension is related to the quantity of vocabulary knowledge (Qian &
Schedl 2004; Zareva 2005). The quantity is studied as the learners’ vocabulary size and their
knowledge of the words in different frequency threshold. Vocabulary size of language learners
offers information regarding learners’ ability in reading (Laufer 1992; Qian & Schedl 2004),
speaking (Daller et al. 2003; Hilton 2008), writing (Laufer & Nation 1995; Yu 2010), listening
(Stæhr 2009) and general academic performance (Harrington & Carey 2009; Zareva et al. 2005).

Study shows that a productive knowledge of at least 3000 high-frequency English words will
enable EFL learners to deal with university level reading tasks (Nation 1990). Sutarsyah et al.
(1994) come to a similar conclusion suggesting that EFL learners need 4000 to 5000 words to
read an economics textbook. Laufer (1992) suggests that a vocabulary size of 5000 words enables
students to achieve a 95% coverage of a text that allows them to read independently. Hirsh and
Nation (1992) suggest that learners need to be familiar with 97-98% of words in a text (i.e., 97-
98% text coverage) for pleasurable reading to occur. If independent comprehension is based on
knowing 98% of the running words in a text, then L2 learners need an 8000 to 9000 word-family
vocabulary for comprehension of written text, such as newspapers and novels, and a vocabulary
of 6000 to 7000 for spoken texts such as lectures and movies (Nation 2006). Webb and Rodgers
(2009) suggested 5000 to 9000 word families provided 98% coverage of television programs in
different genres.

118
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

The second dimension of depth is regarded as the quality of knowing a word (Read 1993). The
depth dimension considers vocabulary knowledge development as network building (Haastrup &
Henriksen 2000; Read 2004). It is assumed that words are stored in sets in the mind (Read 2004).
The network building approach examines the number of words that could be linked and the strength
of links (Meara & Fitzpatrick 2000; Meara & Wolter 2004). The more links between one word and
another and the stronger are the links, the deeper the word is known (Meara & Wolter 2004).
Under this network building approach, Meara (2009) proposes a slight different definition. He
views the depth of knowledge as the interaction between individual words and claims that depth
is regarded as the organization of words in the mental network. Learners with high vocabulary
proficiency have denser and more organized networks than lower proficient language learners.
Read (2004) concludes three basic relationships between words—paradigmatic (superordinates,
synonyms), syntagmatic (collocates) and analytic1 (words representing a key element of the
meaning of the target word). The advantage of viewing depth of knowledge as a network building
is that it provides an overview of a learner’s state of vocabulary knowledge at certain point of
time (Read 2004). The results from measurements of network building in lexical knowledge reveal a
general state of learners’ vocabulary knowledge rather than showing a detailed profile of how much
each word is known (Meara 2009).

Receptive and productive dimension is the third dimension in vocabulary knowledge. Literature
has various definitions of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. For example, Waring
(1997) regards the ability to provide a specific first language (L1) translation of the second
language (L2) word as the receptive knowledge, whereas the ability to provide a specific L2
equivalent for an L1 word as the productive knowledge. This concept is further developed by
Laufer et al. (2004) who describe receptive knowledge as retrieval of the word form and
productive knowledge as retrieval of the word meaning. In Webb’s (2008) study, receptive
vocabulary knowledge is the ability to recognize the form of a word and to define or find a
synonym for it, while productive vocabulary knowledge is the ability to recall the form and
meaning of a foreign language word. The common character of these definitions on receptive
vocabulary knowledge is the ability to recognize the form and retrieve the meaning in listening
and reading (Nation 1990). The translation task into L1 is used to verify this ability because the
receptive knowledge is considered as a mental activity that cannot be measured directly. As for
productive vocabulary knowledge, the main feature is the ability of production and use of the
target language. It is what Nation (1990) defined as the ability to retrieve and produce the
appropriate spoken or written form of a word in the target language to express a meaning by
speaking or writing.

Different from the partial-precise and depth dimensions that are related to comprehension of
word knowledge, the receptive and productive dimension reflects the ability to access the word
knowledge and to use a word (Henriksen 1999; Zareva 2005; Zareva et al. 2005). Nation (2001)
said that the use of a word is the reflection of the learner’s comprehension of the word. Thus, the
research into receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge is always studied in conjunction
with the partial-precise (quantity) and depth (quality) dimensions.

RESEARCH ON RECEPTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY SIZE

                                                                                                                         
1
The Analytic relations were included in the test development (Read 1993) but was later deleted in the test
validation study of Read (1998).

119
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Nation (1990) reported that according to modest estimates, high school graduates of English
native speakers have mastered 18000-20000 word families. Much research on the vocabulary size
of L2 learners (high school students, university and graduate students) around the world has
shown that their vocabulary size is fewer than 4000 word families. For instance, Laufer (1998)
found that on average Israeli high school graduates have a receptive vocabulary size of 3500
words families and a controlled productive vocabulary size of 2550. Nurweni & Read (1999)
found that the Indonesian university students know an average of 1226 word families. Japanese
university students had command of 2000- 3000 word families (Shillaw 1995; Barrow et al.
1999). From the perspective of productive vocabulary size, Lee and Muncie (2006) investigated
the vocabulary use in compositions by high-school ESL learners with multi-L1 backgrounds.
This study showed that although learners constantly use words from the 1000 to 2000 word level,
their productive use of higher level target vocabulary improved and maintained after 14 days.
Horst and Collins (2006) collected narrative texts produced by francophone learners of English
(11-12 years old) at four 100-hour intervals of intensive language instruction. They found that
after instruction, a large proportion of words from 1000-and 2000-level was evident in the
learners’ writing, but their reliance on both L1 vocabulary and cognates reduced. It can be seen
that there was a big gap in vocabulary knowledge between English native speakers and ESL/EFL
learners. The ESL/ EFL learners though have larger receptive vocabulary size, still relied heavily
on the high frequency words in their productive (writing) use. Though it is not necessary for the
non-native speakers to reach vocabulary competence of native speakers (assuming it were
possible), the reported vocabulary size of these ESL/EFL learners will marginally enable them to
cope with the university reading tasks (Nation 1990) but will not enable them to have
independent comprehension on reading novels or watching TV programs (Nation 2006).

In terms of the relationships between the receptive and productive vocabulary size, there is a
consistent research finding in the size of receptive and productive vocabulary that L2 learners’
receptive vocabulary size is larger than their productive vocabulary size; and the larger receptive
size L2 learners have, the larger the productive vocabulary size they are more likely to have in
both ESL (Laufer & Paribakht 1998) and EFL context (Laufer 1998; Laufer & Goldstein 2004;
Webb 2008; Zhong & Hirsh 2009). The finding supports Melka's (1997) claim that productive
knowledge is more advanced and it is often acquired later than receptive knowledge.
Consequently, vocabulary learning is predominantly receptive. From the perspective of the
growth pattern, it is generally agreed that receptive vocabulary size grows faster than the
productive vocabulary size, so the gap between these two types of vocabulary sizes decreases as
study proceeds (Laufer 1998; Laufer & Paribakht 1998). However, Zhong and Hirsh (2009)
revealed a different developmental pattern that the productive vocabulary size grew faster than
receptive size after a four-month classroom instruction among a group of Chinese students whose
English proficiency was at an intermediate level. The differing results suggest that vocabulary
learning may be largely driven by needs when the learner’s proficiency achieved a certain level
(Laufer 1992) and may also be influenced by the learning tasks (Webb 2005, 2007, 2009). These
two factors will be discussed later in the paper.

RESEARCH ON RECEPTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY DEPTH

Examining receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge in the depth dimension usually looks
at how L2 learners restructure the connections between words that they know, then comparing
these connections with those of the native speakers (Haastrup & Henriksen 2000; Nadarajan 2008;
Lessard-clouston 2006).

120
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Haastrup and Henriksen (2000) tracked one group of 17 young Danish learners of English in an
EFL context over three years to see the network building development of their vocabulary
knowledge. Three sorting tasks were used to capture their vocabulary knowledge on the
paradigmatic relations. Results showed no statistical significance on their vocabulary
development on paradigmatic relations over three years of English study. It indicates that the
network building development is a very slow process. They conducted a case study among two
learners who did show improvement on their results from sorting tasks and found that these
learners tended to acquire the in-depth knowledge of words that are at a high-frequency band and
with similar formality with Danish. Since the study was conducted with adjectives only, it is hard
to generalize the developmental pattern to other word classes.

Nadarajan's (2008) study looked at the in-depth vocabulary knowledge of different word classes
among three groups of adult English learners at an advanced language proficiency level. The first
two groups are students from the first and fourth year, respectively, of university study in an EFL
context and the third group are college students in an English speaking country. Their results
were compared to that of native speakers. The study found that having paradigmatic knowledge
of words did not necessarily lead to the mastery of syntagmatic knowledge among non-native
speakers, which is consistent with what Nation (1990) claimed that L2 learners tended to know
more meanings than collocations. However, as English proficiency grows the gap between these
types of relations in vocabulary knowledge narrows. It implies that with increasing years of study,
the vocabulary knowledge becomes deeper. The study also showed that the meaning is a
prerequisite for English learners to master the syntagmatic knowledge. It suggests that that in-
depth vocabulary knowledge is required for word use.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING VOCABULARY

The aim of the paper was to present a multi-dimensional construct of vocabulary knowledge and
review the previous research regarding the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge under
the three-dimensional construct (Henriksen 1999). It may be of researchers’ and teachers’ interest
how to make a word available for receptive and more importantly, for productive use. However,
the research into the size shows that the current development of vocabulary size falls short for the
ESL/EFL learners to cope with the needs of English language usage in reading and listening for
pleasure as well as in academic settings.

Taken into consideration the complex nature of vocabulary knowledge as a multi-dimension

construct, the quality of a word should not be overlooked in the vocabulary teaching. L2 learners
do need both quantity and quality of vocabulary knowledge to understand and express meaning in
the interaction.

Research into the effectiveness of teaching and learning tasks may give some hints to teachers on
how to improve the learners’ receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. It is found that
receptive learning contributes more to receptive knowledge, whereas productive learning more
likely leads to increase in productive knowledge (Griffin & Harley 1996; Waring 1997). In
Webb's (2005) study, he designed a reading task (reading 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 a same length
of time suggested that receptive learning tasks may contribute not only to develop receptive
knowledge but also lead to significantly greater increase in productive knowledge. His second

121
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

experiment investigated the effectiveness of these tasks when different time lengths were
allocated. Results showed that productive learning outperformed the receptive learning in
promoting productive knowledge. In Webb's (2009) later study, the effectiveness of receptive and
productive word pair tasks were compared among a group of 62 Japanese university students.
The receptive task required learners to look at the target English words and recalled its meaning
in L1 while the productive task presented the target words in L1 and required learners to recall
the English words. The results showed that receptive learning led to larger gains in receptive
meaning while the productive learning led to larger gains in both receptive and productive of
form, and in-depth productive knowledge. In practice, both receptive and productive tasks should
be used for teaching vocabulary. However, teachers could use the receptive vocabulary learning
tasks in the classroom when time is limited. In addition, productive vocabulary tasks can be the
better choice than receptive tasks for home assignments because it yields better in more aspects
of the vocabulary knowledge.

Besides teaching and learning tasks, personal factors like needs and motivation also influence the
acquisition of vocabulary knowledge. Laufer (1991) investigated the development of 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 advanced learners who can cope
with university study and assignment tasks with their existing proficiency level were less
motivated to further their productive vocabulary knowledge than those who struggled with their
university tasks. The need to learn or to catch up with peers becomes one of the main motivations
to improve the vocabulary knowledge. Research suggests that motivation influences a learner’s
self-regulating capacity which directly influences the involvement in vocabulary learning (Tseng
& Schmitt 2008). In other words, learners with higher motivation tend to have stronger controls
over the personal factors in vocabulary learning, such as commitment, metacognition and
emotion. The stronger capacity of controls over these personal factors would lead to better
strategic vocabulary learning. Therefore, from a teachers’ perspective, it would be a good idea to
offer rewards to learners who made improvements in the vocabulary study and provides
incentives so as to motivate the learners in the 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 have not yet notice any improvement in their vocabulary use.

REFERENCES
Barrow, J., Nakashimi, Y. & Ishino, H., 1999. Assessing Japanese College students’ vocabulary
knowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey. System, 27, pp.223-247.

Daller, H., Van Hout, R. & Treffers-Daller, J., 2003. Lexical Richness in the Spontaneous Speech
of Bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), pp.197-222.

Faerch, C., Haastrup, K. & Phillipson, R., 1984. Learner language and language learning,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Griffin, G.F. & Harley, T.A., 1996. List learning of second language vocabulary. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 17, pp.433-460.

Haastrup, K. & Henriksen, B., 2001. The interrelationship between vocabulary acquisition theory
and general SLA research. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, pp.69-78.

122
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Haastrup, K. & Henriksen, B., 2000. Vocabulary acquisition: acquiring depth of knowledge
through network building. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), pp.221-240.

Harrington, M. & Carey, M., 2009. The on-line Yes/No test as a placement tool. System, 37(4),
pp.614-626.

Henriksen, B., 1999. Three Dimensions of Vocabulary Development. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 21(2), pp.303-317.

Henriksen, B. & Haastrup, K., 2000. Describing foreign language learners’ productive
vocabulary use and development. In I. Plag & K. P. Schneider, eds. Language use, language
acquisition and language history: empirical studies in honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann. Trier:
WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, pp. 150-172.

Hilton, H., 2008. The link between vocabulary knowledge and spoken L2 fluency. Language
Learning Journal, 36(2), pp.153-166.

Hirsh, D. & Nation, P., 1992. What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for
pleasure? Reading in a foreign language, 8(2), pp.689–689.

Horst, M. & Collins, L., 2006. From Faible to Strong: How Does Their Vocabulary Grow? The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), pp.83–106.

Ishii, T. & Schmitt, N., 2009. Developing an Integrated Diagnostic Test of Vocabulary Size and
Depth. RELC Journal, 40(1), pp.5-22.

Laufer, B., 1990. Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching implications. Foreign
Language Annals, 23, pp.147-156.

Laufer, B., 1991. The development of L2 lexis in the expression of the advanced learner. The
Modern Language Journal, 75(4), pp.440-448.

Laufer, B., 1992. Reading in a foreign language: how does L2 lexical knowledge interact with the
reader ’ s general academic ability? Journal of Research in Reading, 15(2), pp.95-103.

Laufer, B., 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same
or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), pp.255-271.

Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z., 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer
adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), pp.399-436.

Laufer, B. & Nation, P., 1995. Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2 Written
Production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), pp.307-322.

Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T.S., 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies:
Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), pp.365-391.

Laufer, B., Elder, C. & Hill, K. & Congdon, P., 2004. Size and strength: do we need both to
measure vocabulary knowledge? Language testing, 21(2), pp.202-206.

123
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Lee, S.H. & Muncie, J., 2006. From Receptive to Productive: Improving ESL Learners’ Use of
Vocabulary in a Postreading Composition Task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), pp.295-320.

Lessard-clouston, M., 2006. Breadth and Depth: Specialized Vocabulary Learning in Theology
among Native and Non-Native English Speakers. The Canadian Modern Language Review,
63(2), pp.175-198.

Meara, P., 2002. The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18(4), pp.393-407.

Meara, P., 2009. Connected words: Word associations and second language vocabulary
acquisition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Meara, P. & Fitzpatrick, T., 2000. Lex30: an improved method of assessing productive
vocabulary in an L2. System, 28(1), pp.19-30.

Meara, P. & Wolter, B., 2004. V_Links: Beyond Vocabulary Depth. In D. Albrechtsen, K.
Haastrup, & B. Henriksen, eds. Angles on the English-speaking World 4. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 85–96.

Melka, F., 1997. Receptive versus productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M.
McCarthy, eds. Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy. New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 84-102.

Nadarajan, S., 2008. Assessing In-Depth Vocabulary Ability of Adult ESL Learners.
International Journal of language society and culture, (26), pp.93-106.

Nation, P., 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary, New York: Heinle & Heinle.

Nation, P., 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Nation, P., 2006. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 63(1), pp.59–82.

Nurweni, A. & Read, J., 1999. The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian university
students. English for Special Purposes, 18(2), pp.161-175.

Palmberg, R., 1987. Patterns of Vocabulary Development in Foreign-Language Learners. Studies

in Second Language Acquisition, 9(2), pp.201-220.

Pigada, M. & Schmitt, N., 2006. Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1), pp.1-28.

Pulido, D. & Hambrick, D.Z., 2008. The virtuous circle: Modeling individual differences in L2
reading and vocabulary development. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), pp.164-190.

Qian, D.D. & Schedl, M., 2004. Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for
assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21(1), pp.28-52.

124
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Read, J., 1993. The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language
Testing, 10(3), pp.355-371.

Read, J., 2000. Assessing vocabulary, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Read, J., 1998. Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In Validation in
language assessment: selected papers from the 17th Language Testing Research Colloquium,
Long Beach. Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 41-60.

Read, J., 2004. Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be
defined? In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer, eds. Vocabulary in a second language: Selection,
acquisition and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 209-227.

Read, J., 2007. Second language vocabulary assessment: current practices and new directions.
International Journal of English Studies, 7(2), pp.105–125.

Richards, J.C., 1976. The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, pp.77-89.

Ringbom, H., 1987. The role of the first language in foreign language learning, Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

Schmitt, N., 1998. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A
Longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48, pp.281-317.

Schmitt, N., 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. & Meara, P., 1997. Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework:
Word Associations and Verbal Suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1),
pp.17-36.

Shillaw, J., 1995. Using a word list as a focus for vocabulary learning. The Language Teacher
(JALT), 19(2), pp.58-59.

Stæhr, L.S., 2009. Vocabulary Knowledge and Advanced Listening Comprehension in English
As a Foreign Language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(4), pp.577-607.

Sutarsyah, C., Nation, P. & Kennedy, G., 1994. How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? A
corpus-based study. RELC Journal, 25(1), pp.34-50.

Tseng, W. & Schmitt, N., 2008. Toward a Model of Motivated Vocabulary Learning: A
Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Language Learning, 58(2), pp.357-400.

Waring, R., 1997. A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second
language learners. Immaculata (Notre Dame Seishin Univerisy, Okayama), 1, pp.53-68.

Waring, R., 2002. Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary assessment.
Kiyo , The occasional papers of Notre Dame Seishin, viewed 29 May 2011,
http://www1.harenet.ne.jp/~waring/papers/scales.htm

125
 The Asian Conference on Language Learning 2011 Official Proceedings Osaka, Japan

Webb, S., 2005. Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The Effects of Reading and
Writing on Word Knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), pp.33-52.

Webb, S., 2008. Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second
language acquisition, 30(1), pp.79-95.

Webb, S., 2009. The Effects of Receptive and Productive Learning of Word Pairs on Vocabulary
Knowledge. RELC Journal, 40(3), pp.360-376.

Webb, S., 2007. The effects of synonymy on second-language vocabulary learning. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 19(2), pp.120-136.

Webb, S. & Rodgers, M.P.H., 2009. Vocabulary Demands of Television Programs. Language
Learning, 59(2), pp.335-366.

Yu, G., 2010. Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics,
31(2), pp.236-259.

Zareva, A., 2005. Models of lexical knowledge assessment of second language learners of
English at higher levels of language proficiency. System, 33(4), pp.547-562.

Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P. & Nikolova, Y., 2005. Relationship between lexical competence
and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
27(4), pp.567–595.

Zhong, H. & Hirsh, D., 2009. Vocabulary growth in an English as a foreign language context.
University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 4, pp.85-113.

Zimmerman, K.J., 2004. The role of vocabulary size in assessing second language proficiency,
MA Thesis, Brigham Young University.

126
View publication stats