Vocabulary Studies in L1 and L2 Development: The Interface between Theory and Practice

A special issue of Languages (ISSN 2226-471X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (29 April 2024) | Viewed by 4589

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima 739-8527, Japan
Interests: assessment of vocabulary; second language (L2) productive vocabulary development; productive vocabulary knowledge and fluency; second language acquisition; word association studies; lexical processing; L2 assessment

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Faculty of Foreign Studies, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto 603-8047, Japan
Interests: corpus linguistics; vocabulary; formulaic language; second language acquisition

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
The Department of English Language & Literature, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, Israel
Interests: vocabulary acquisition in additional languages; vocabulary testing second language acquisition; foreign language learning; reading comprehension; language attrition; lexicography; cross linguistic infl

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Vocabulary research has experienced substantial growth since the late 1990s, resulting in a proliferation of studies that span a range of diverse subdisciplines and investigate the intricate nature of vocabulary (e.g., Fitzpatrick & Clenton, 2017; Uchihara et al., 2023). This remarkable expansion underscores the complexity inherent in the study of vocabulary.

During this period, we have seen a wide range of studies that have investigated the relationship between vocabulary and various language competencies. These include studies on the relationship between vocabulary and productive language skills, such as speaking and fluency (e.g., Suzuki & Kormos, 2020; Tavakoli et al., 2020; Thompson et al., 2023) as well as writing (e.g., Laufer & Nation, 1995; González-Fernández & Schmitt, 2000; Mizumoto & Eguchi, 2023). We have also seen studies that have looked at vocabulary in the context of receptive skills such as reading (Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010) and listening (Stæhr, 2009), along with volumes that encompass all the four skills (e.g., Clenton & Booth, 2020).

Vocabulary studies also encompass a wide range of research topics, including investigations into cross-linguistic influences (Elgort et al., 2023), explorations into the extent to which multi-word units should take a more central role in the field (Tavakoli & Uchihara, 2020), and examinations of the relationship between the different modalities of vocabulary knowledge (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004), as well as studies on collocations (Eguchi & Kyle, 2023), word definitions (Gyllstad et al., 2023), flash cards (Nakata, 2019), artificial intelligence (Mizumoto & Eguchi, 2023), and eye-tracking (Wang & Pellicer-Sánchez, 2023). Underpinning this diverse array of studies are a rich and varied collection of seminal contributions that have emerged since the early 2000s. Recent volumes have shed light on these studies by highlighting the intricacies surrounding vocabulary acquisition (Webb & Nation, 2017) and by presenting a comprehensive overview of indispensable tools for advancing vocabulary research (Meara & Miralpeix, 2017).

This Special Issue seeks to build upon these previous works by presenting a collection of recent vocabulary studies in L1 and L2 development that explore the dynamic interplay that exists between theory and practice. We welcome papers focusing on L1 and L2 vocabulary development, including quantitative, experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal, mixed-method studies. We also encourage submissions that provide a fine-grained or nuanced analysis that fosters a deeper understanding of vocabulary acquisition and its implications for language development.

We are interested in investigating the contribution of variables which may relate to vocabulary studies in L1 and/or L2 development. Proposals can include (but are not exclusive to) diverse tools for assessing vocabulary development, judgement tasks, vocabulary assessments, considering the four skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking), cross-linguistic influences, MWE/MWU, word definitions, recall, collocations, flash cards, AI, eye-tracking. In essence, we would welcome submissions of research-oriented papers that relate to any aspect of vocabulary studies.

We request that, prior to submitting a manuscript, interested authors initially submit a proposed title and an abstract of 400–600 words summarizing their intended contribution before 27 November 2023. Please send it to the guest editors ([email protected] / [email protected] / [email protected]) or to Languages editorial office ([email protected]). Abstracts will be reviewed by the guest editors for the purposes of ensuring proper fit within the scope of the special issue. Notification of abstract acceptance will be given by 18 December 2023. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer-review.

References

Clenton, J., & Booth, P. (2020). Vocabulary and the four skills: Pedagogy, practice, and implications for teaching vocabulary. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429285400

Eguchi, M., & Kyle, K. (2023). L2 collocation profiles and their relationship with vocabulary proficiency: A learner corpus approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 100975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.100975

Elgort, I., Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Brysbaert, M. (2023). Cross-language influences in bilingual processing and second language acquisition. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.16

Fitzpatrick, T., & Clenton, J. (2017). Making sense of learner performance on tests of productive vocabulary knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 51(4), 844–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.356

González-Fernández, B., & Schmitt, N. (2020) Word knowledge: Exploring the relationships and order of acquisition of vocabulary knowledge components. Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 481–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy057

Gyllstad, H., Sundqvist, P., Sandlund, E., & Källkvist, M. (2023). Effects of word definitions on meaning recall: A multisite intervention in language-diverse second language English classrooms. Language Learning, 73, 403–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12527

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production, Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307

Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004), Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x

Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G.C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learner’s vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30.

Meara, P.M. (2002). The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18(4), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658302sr211xx

Meara, P.M., & Miralpeix, I. (2017). Tools for researching vocabulary. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783096473

Mizumoto, A., & Eguchi, M. (2023). Exploring the potential of using an AI language model for automated essay scoring. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100050

Nakata, T. (2019). Learning words with flash cards and word cards. In S. Webb (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 304–319). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429291586-20

Suzuki, S., & Kormos, J. (2020). Linguistic dimensions of comprehensibility and perceived fluency: An investigation of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language argumentative speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000421

Tavakoli, P., Nakatsuhara, F., & Hunter, A.-M. (2020). Aspects of fluency across assessed levels of speaking proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 169–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12620

Tavakoli, P., & Uchihara, T. (2020).To what extent are multiword sequences associated with oral fluency? Language Learning, 70, 506–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12384

Thomson, H., Coxhead, A., Boers, F., & Warren, P. (2023). Increasing use of multi-word expressions in conversation through a fluency workshop. System, 113, 102994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.102994

Uchihara, T., Eguchi, M., Clenton, J., Kyle, K., & Saito, K. (2021). To what extent is collocation knowledge associated with oral proficiency? a corpus-based approach to word association. Language and Speech, 65(2), 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309211013865

Wang, A., & Pellicer-Sánchez, A. (2023). Combining eye-tracking and verbal reports in vocabulary research: Benefits and challenges. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100063

Webb, S., & Nation, P. (2017). How vocabulary is learned. Oxford University Press.

Dr. Jon Clenton
Dr. Gavin Brooks
Prof. Dr. Batia Laufer
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Languages is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

 

Keywords

  • vocabulary
  • development
  • lexical studies
  • interface
  • theory
  • practice

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

18 pages, 1403 KiB  
Article
Mastery of Listening and Reading Vocabulary Levels in Relation to CEFR: Insights into Student Admissions and English as a Medium of Instruction
by Zhiqing Li, Janis Zhiyou Li, Xiaofang Zhang and Barry Lee Reynolds
Languages 2024, 9(7), 239; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070239 - 2 Jul 2024
Viewed by 502
Abstract
Prior to enrolling in an English as a medium of instruction (EMI) institution, students must show an English proficiency level through meeting a benchmark on a standard English proficiency test, which is typically aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages [...] Read more.
Prior to enrolling in an English as a medium of instruction (EMI) institution, students must show an English proficiency level through meeting a benchmark on a standard English proficiency test, which is typically aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Along with overall English proficiency, aural/written vocabulary level mastery could also predict students’ success at EMI institutions, as students need adequate English vocabulary knowledge to comprehend lectures and course readings. However, aural/written vocabulary level mastery has yet to be clearly benchmarked to CEFR levels. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the correlations between students’ aural/written vocabulary level mastery and their CEFR levels. Forty undergraduate students in a Macau EMI university were recruited to take one English proficiency test and two vocabulary level tests (i.e., Listening Vocabulary Levels Test (LVLT) and the Updated Vocabulary Levels Test (UVLT)). Correlation analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of listening and reading vocabulary levels. A positive correlation was found between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of receptive aural vocabulary levels (ρ = 0.409, p = 0.009). Furthermore, a statistically significant positive correlation was found between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of receptive written vocabulary levels (ρ = 0.559, p < 0.001). Although positive correlations were observed, no clear pattern was identified regarding the relationship between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of aural/written vocabulary levels. Regression analyses were further conducted to determine the extent to which the combination of receptive aural and written vocabulary knowledge predicts the CEFR levels. The results indicated that the regression model that included only UVLT scores better predicted the CEFR levels. Given the positive correlations observed between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of vocabulary levels, this study’s findings suggest the inclusion of aural/written vocabulary levels as additional indicators for ensuring student academic success in EMI institutions. Implications for EMI universities on student admissions, classroom teaching, and provision of additional English courses were provided. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

30 pages, 1302 KiB  
Article
The Impact of Lexical Bundle Length on L2 Oral Proficiency
by Dan Hougham, Jon Clenton, Takumi Uchihara and George Higginbotham
Languages 2024, 9(7), 232; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070232 - 26 Jun 2024
Viewed by 897
Abstract
Lexical bundles (LBs) are crucial in L2 oral proficiency, yet their complexity in terms of length is under-researched. This study therefore examines the relationship between longer and shorter LBs and oral proficiency among 150 L2 learners of varying proficiency levels at a UK [...] Read more.
Lexical bundles (LBs) are crucial in L2 oral proficiency, yet their complexity in terms of length is under-researched. This study therefore examines the relationship between longer and shorter LBs and oral proficiency among 150 L2 learners of varying proficiency levels at a UK university. Through the analysis of oral presentation data (scores ranging from intermediate to advanced) and employing a combined text-internal and text-external approach (two- to five-word bundles), this study advances an innovative text-internal LB refinement procedure, thus isolating the unique contribution of LB length. Robust regression, dominance analysis, and random forest statistical techniques reveal the predictive power of bigram mutual information (MI) and longer three-to-five-word sequences on higher proficiency scores. Our results show that learners using higher MI score bigrams tend to perform better in their presentations, with a strong positive impact on scores (b = 14.38, 95% CI [8.01, 20.76], t = 4.42; dominance weight = 58.63%). Additionally, the use of longer three-to-five-word phrases also contributes to better performance, though to a lesser extent (dominance weight = 18.80%). These findings highlight the pedagogical potential of a nuanced approach to the strategic deployment of LBs, particularly bigram MI, to foster oral proficiency. Suggestions for future LB proficiency research are discussed in relation to L2 speech production models. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 2517 KiB  
Article
Thirty Years on: A Bibliometric Analysis of L2 Vocabulary Research Published in 2020
by Paul Meara
Languages 2024, 9(6), 190; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9060190 - 22 May 2024
Viewed by 669
Abstract
This paper presents an author co-citation analysis of the research on L2 vocabulary acquisition that was published in the 2020 calendar year. The most significant influence at this time is Paul Nation—cited in 85% of the publication set—but a number of other important [...] Read more.
This paper presents an author co-citation analysis of the research on L2 vocabulary acquisition that was published in the 2020 calendar year. The most significant influence at this time is Paul Nation—cited in 85% of the publication set—but a number of other important influences can also be identified, notably, Laufer, Hulstijn, Schmitt and Webb. This paper draws some comparisons with data from 1990, and speculates on how “research fronts” might be identified in an author co-citation data set. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 621 KiB  
Article
Re-Thinking the Principles of (Vocabulary) Learning and Their Applications
by Paul Nation
Languages 2024, 9(5), 160; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9050160 - 26 Apr 2024
Viewed by 1507
Abstract
Making vocabulary stick in your memory involves dedicating attention to what needs to be learned. There are three main factors involved (focus, quantity, and quality) which can be expressed as six principles (focus, accuracy, repetition, time-on-task, elaboration, and analysis). When we include motivation [...] Read more.
Making vocabulary stick in your memory involves dedicating attention to what needs to be learned. There are three main factors involved (focus, quantity, and quality) which can be expressed as six principles (focus, accuracy, repetition, time-on-task, elaboration, and analysis). When we include motivation in this description, then there are two more principles (motivation and self-efficacy). These principles apply to both incidental and deliberate learning, and apply to a wide range of learning focuses beyond vocabulary. These principles are well supported by research evidence. We can use the principles for re-examining teaching and learning, Technique Feature Analysis, understanding research, developing autonomy in learning, guiding curriculum design, and determining future research needs. The factors and principles provide a simple and clear view of what is needed for learning to occur from the viewpoint of attention. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop