Exploring Lexical Sophistication in Second Language: An Analysis of Vocabulary Using a Word-Rating Method
Abstract
Previous research has established that determining lexical sophistication (i.e., the percentage of sophisticated words in a text) through the judgment of teachers on a corpus of words is a more accurate method than relying on word frequency-based lists. However, this approach can be time-consuming. To overcome this drawback, a new method is proposed in this study, which involves rating specific words out of context. A list of 68 words that appeared in approved high-school textbooks of teaching Hebrew to Arabic speakers was given to six experienced Hebrew teachers, who then categorized the words into four levels of lexical sophistication: (1) very basic words to (4) very advanced words. From this, a list of 28 words was created, with seven words from each level, and the lexical sophistication level was agreed upon by two-thirds of the teachers. Nineteen Arabic-speaking learners of Hebrew were asked to define the chosen words (passive vocabulary) and compose
a sentence including each (controlled-active vocabulary) in a test-retest study at two time-points: the 11th and 12th grade. The results indicated that although there was no significant increase in lexical sophistication over time, significant differences emerged between the four levels of lexical sophistication, with students’ accuracy decreasing as the level of lexical sophistication increased. Additionally, only in the 11th grade was passive vocabulary found to be significantly larger than controlledactive vocabulary. However, as acquisition time increased, the gap between these two vocabulary types narrowed, due to improved performance in the controlled-active task. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between passive and controlled-active vocabulary, which became stronger with more acquisition time.
Keywords
language assessment; second language acquisition; passive vocabulary; controlled-active vocabulary; advanced/sophisticated words
References
Abu-Rabiah, E. (2020). Lexical measures for testing progress in Hebrew as Arab students’ L2. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16(3), 1096–1114. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.803551
Abu-Rabiah, E. (2022). Acquisition of Hebrew lexicon among Negev Bedouin high school students: An empirical account [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. [in Hebrew]. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17502.51528
Abu-Rabiah, E. (2023). Evaluating L2 vocabulary development features using lexical density and lexical diversity measures. LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning, 26(1), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v26i1.5841
Abu-Rabiah, E., Gafter, R., & Henkin, R. (2023). Where syntactic interference persists: The case of Hebrew written by native Arabic speakers. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 23, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.21248/l1esll.2023.23.1.399
Astridya, F. W. (2018). Lexical richness of the expository writing in Indonesian by senior high school students. Lingual: Journal of Language and Culture, 5(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.24843/LJLC.2018.v05.i01.p04
Azodi, N., Karimi, F., & Vaezi, R. (2014). Measuring the lexical richness of productive vocabulary in Iranian EFL university students’ writing performance. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1837–1849. https://doi.org10.4304/tpls.4.9.1837-1849
Cobb, T., & Horst, M. (2004). Is there room for an academic word list in French? In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 15–38). John Benjamins.
Cook, V. (2016). Second language learning and language teaching. Routledge.
Crossley, S. A., Cobb, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System, 41(4), 965–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers‐Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.197
Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Word structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning. In M. McCarthy & N. Schmidt (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 122–139). Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Fan, M. (2000). How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investigation into the active and passive vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners. Relc Journal, 31(2), 105–119.
Henriksen, B., & Danelund, L. (2015). Studies of Danish L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge and the lexical richness of their written production in English. In P. Pietilä, K. Doró, & R. Pípalová (Eds.), Lexical issues in L2 writing (pp. 29–56). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Horst, M., & Collins, L. (2006). From faible to strong: How does their vocabulary grow?. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.83
Hsu, W. (2014). The effects of audiovisual support on EFL learners’ productive vocabulary. ReCALL, 26(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000220
Jarvis, S. (2017). Grounding lexical diversity in human judgments. Language Testing, 34(4), 537–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217710632
Kojima, M., & Yamashita, J. (2014). Reliability of lexical richness measures based on word lists in short second language productions. System, 42, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.10.019
Kwon, S.-H. (2009). Lexical richness in L2 writing: How much vocabulary do L2 learners need to use? English Teaching, 64(3), 155–174.
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003
Laufer, B. (1995). Beyond 2000: A measure of productive lexicon in a second language. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 265–272). John Benjamins.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.255
Laufer, B. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to the real world: A response to Meara. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami029
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., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229901600103
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00046
Lindqvist, C., Bardel, C., & Gudmundson, A. (2011). Lexical richness in the advanced learner’s oral production of French and Italian L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 49, 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.013
Linnarud, M. (1986). Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish leaners’ written English. Liber Forlag.
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511804
Meara, P. & Bell, H. (2001). P-Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16(3), 323–337.
Meara, P. (2001). PLEX v1.1. University of Wales Swansea. http://www.swan.ac.uk/cals/calsres.
Milton, J. (2007). Lexical profiles, learning styles and the construct validity of lexical size tests. In H. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 47–58). Cambridge University Press.
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692092
Nation P. (1990). Leaning and teaching vocabulary. Newbury House.
Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009093873
Nemati, A. (2010). Active and passive vocabulary knowledge: The effect of years of instruction. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(1), 30–46.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press.
Shimron, J., & Sivan, T. (1994). Reading proficiency and orthography evidence from Hebrew and English. Language Learning, 44(1), 5–27.
Tidball, F. and Treffers-Daller, J. (2008). Analysing lexical richness in French learner language: What frequency lists and teacher judgement can tell us about basic and advanced words. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269508003463
Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17(1), 65–83. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1191/026553200676636328
Waldvogel, D. A. (2014). An analysis of Spanish L2 lexical richness. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 18(2), 1–8.
Xue, G., & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, 3(2), 215–229
Kaye Academic College of Education Israel
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8837-1089
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Holders of the submitted texts are the Authors. The Reader is granted the rights to use the material available in the TAPSLA websites and pdf documents under the provisions of the Creative Commons 4.0 International License: Attribution - Share Alike (CC BY-SA 4.0). The user is free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
1. License
The University of Silesia Press provides immediate open access to journal’s content under the Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Authors who publish with this journal retain all copyrights and agree to the terms of the above-mentioned CC BY-SA 4.0 license.
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by stated author/s, has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author/s.
If the article contains illustrative material (drawings, photos, graphs, maps), the author declares that the said works are of his authorship, they do not infringe the rights of the third party (including personal rights, i.a. the authorization to reproduce physical likeness) and the author holds exclusive proprietary copyrights. The author publishes the above works as part of the article under the licence "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International".
ATTENTION! When the legal situation of the illustrative material has not been determined and the necessary consent has not been granted by the proprietary copyrights holders, the submitted material will not be accepted for editorial process. At the same time the author takes full responsibility for providing false data (this also regards covering the costs incurred by the University of Silesia Press and financial claims of the third party).
3. User Rights
Under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, the users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit the contribution) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the article for any purpose, provided they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
4. Co-Authorship
If the article was prepared jointly with other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf, and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
I hereby declare that in the event of withdrawal of the text from the publishing process or submitting it to another publisher without agreement from the editorial office, I agree to cover all costs incurred by the University of Silesia in connection with my application.
