The Relationship Between Receptive and Productive Vocabulary of Slavic EFL Learners
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Topics in Linguistics (2016), 17(2), pp. 26-40 10.1515/topling-2016-0011 The relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary of Slavic EFL learners Zdislava Šišková University of Economics, Czech Republic Abstract This study investigates the relationship between learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge as measured by the Vocabulary Size Test (Nation and Beglar, 2007) and free productive vocabulary knowledge as demonstrated by the learners when writing a short story based on pictures. The focus is on three different areas of productive vocabulary use: lexical diversity (i.e. the proportion of different words in a text), lexical sophistication (i.e. the proportion of advanced words in a text) and lexical density (i.e. the proportion of content words in a text). The results of a bivariate correlation analysis indicate that there is a moderate relationship between learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical diversity of the texts they produce; there is a weak relationship between their receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical sophistication in the texts; and there is no relationship between their receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical density. Keywords receptive vocabulary knowledge, productive vocabulary knowledge, controlled productive vocabulary knowledge, free productive vocabulary knowledge, lexical richness; lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, lexical density 1. Introduction vocabulary research manual where he Vocabulary is a key component of provides evidence, based on previous language and even though this area of empirical studies, that knowledge of language proficiency had been largely vocabulary is essential in L2 learning since neglected in favour of grammar until the measures of vocabulary size correlate 1980s (Meara, 1980), research focusing on highly with language proficiency and vocabulary acquisition has been language skills. Knowledge of words is developing rapidly and dynamically since important when learning and using both then (Daller, Milton and Treffers-Daller, the native language and foreign languages 2007). In the 1990s, Lewis (1993) argued since words carry the semantic meaning, that “language consists of and it is virtually impossible to grammaticalized lexis, not lexicalized comprehend or produce messages grammar” (p. 89) since he was convinced (beyond communicating just very basic of the central role of lexis in language. In meaning) without their knowledge the 2000s, Vermeer (2001) claimed that (Vermeer, 2001). “knowledge of words is now considered the most important factor in language 1.1 Vocabulary knowledge proficiency and school success” (p. 217). Vocabulary knowledge is a complex In the 2010s, Schmitt (2010) published his construct and as Schmitt (2014, p.913) 26 Topics in Linguistics (2016), 17(2), pp. 26-40 suggests “the exact nature of lexical Dunn, 2007, or by choosing the right knowledge has always perplexed definition or a synonym). Productive researchers and teachers”. There is no knowledge is often measured by universal definition of what it means to translating from L1 into L2, by cloze tests “know a word” but researchers generally or by analysing vocabulary in learner agree that it is not possible to simply say speech or writing. As Laufer (1998) and that a learner either knows or does not Laufer and Paribakht, (1998) suggest, it is know a certain word (e.g. Laufer and often useful to distinguish between two Paribakht, 1998; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, kinds of productive knowledge: 2000; 2010; 2014). Rather than that, “controlled” productive and “free” vocabulary knowledge is generally seen as productive. Controlled productive consisting of several (related) components knowledge is usually tested in cloze or (Nation, 2001) or as a continuum which translation tests which are generally includes several progressive levels of designed to test whether L2 learners can knowledge, from a very superficial produce specific vocabulary items selected knowledge when a person recognizes a by the test designers based on certain group of letters or sounds as a word criteria (e.g. curriculum requirements or existing in a certain language through the frequency). Learners are thus “forced” to connection between the form and one or use a certain word that fits the required more of its meanings to complex meaning and context without much understanding of what the word can mean freedom of choice. When testing free in various contexts and the ability to use it productive vocabulary knowledge learners appropriately (Schmitt, 2010). Henriksen are usually asked to produce a sample of (1999), for example, proposes three written or spoken discourse and it is up to “separate but related” (p. 304) dimensions them which words they will choose to use of lexical competence, which may reflect to express themselves. Although three continua along which it is possible restrictions, given for example by the to describe lexical development: a partial – topic and register, are also present to a precise knowledge dimension, a depth of certain extent, this kind of task allows knowledge dimension and a receptive – much more freedom. productive dimension. The distinction between receptive (also 1.2 Measuring vocabulary knowledge sometimes called passive) and productive When measuring vocabulary knowledge (also sometimes called active) knowledge (both receptive and productive), it is of a word is very common, even though essential to specify what is meant by a the two terms are not always understood “word” (Read, 2007) since different in the same way (Laufer, Elder, Hill, and definitions of what a “word” is lead to Congdon, 2004; Laufer and Goldstein, considerable differences in research 2004). In most cases and in this study, results (Treffers-Daller, 2011). In order to receptive knowledge is interpreted as express how long a text or a sentence is, being able to recall the meaning of a word words are usually counted as “tokens”. when one is presented with its form and This means that every word is counted productive knowledge is seen as an ability each time it occurs. If we are, however, to produce the right form to express the interested in how many different words required meaning (Laufer et al., 2004; there are in a text or a sentence, then we Laufer and Goldstein, 2004; Nation, 2001; define words as “types”. In this case, every Schmitt, 2010). Receptive knowledge is word is counted only the first time it therefore often measured by translating appears. The type-token ratio is one of from L2 into L1 or by other tests in which the basic measures of lexical diversity test-takers are presented with a word in (also used in this study). Since evidence L2 and have to indicate whether they know suggests that learners see words that are the meaning (e.g. by choosing a picture closely related as belonging together, corresponding with the meaning, which is words are sometimes defined as “word the basis of the Peabody Picture families” for the purposes of vocabulary Vocabulary Test created by Dunn and learning. For instance, if an L2 student is 27 Topics in Linguistics (2016), 17(2), pp. 26-40 able to recognize or produce the word Beglar, 2007) used in the current study as dog, it is reasonable to assume that he or well as some of the measures of free she will also be able to recognize or productive vocabulary size (namely the produce the regular plural dogs. These lexical sophistication measures) used in two word forms belong to the same word this study are based on the British family. The size of the family can differ National Corpus (BNC) and the word depending on how narrowly or widely it is frequency lists created from it by Paul defined (Nation and Meara, 2010). Nation. Word families are usually the basis of creating word frequency lists (Read, 2007). 1.3 Previous studies When selecting words for theory-based Previous studies focusing on the tests of vocabulary size (Bachman and relationship between receptive and Palmer, 1996), researchers often build on productive vocabulary knowledge of EFL the assumption that learners are likely to learners mostly looked at the difference acquire the vocabulary used most between their receptive and controlled frequently in English first and the productive vocabulary size. Fan (2000), vocabulary used less frequently later. Even Laufer (1998), Laufer and Paribakht though this might not necessarily be the (1998), Tschirner (2004) and Waring case in contexts where students learn (1997a; 1998) measured receptive English as a foreign language with limited vocabulary size using the Vocabulary access to naturally used every-day English Levels Test (Nation, 2001), which is based language (Alcaraz-Mármol, 2015), on matching words with their meanings (3 research carried out so far has confirmed words, 6 meanings), and controlled that the assumption of frequency productive vocabulary size using the influencing the order in which vocabulary productive version of the same test (Laufer is learnt seems to be generally valid and and Nation, 1999), which is essentially a word frequency has so far been seen as cloze test giving the initial letters of the the most effective basis for measuring missing words. These studies have largely vocabulary size of learners of English concluded that the learners’ receptive (Daller et al., 2007; Milton, 2009; Nation, vocabulary is generally larger than their 2001; Schmitt, 2000; 2010). As a result, controlled productive vocabulary and that vocabulary size tests are normally based receptive knowledge generally precedes on one of the available word lists, which productive knowledge because producing were created based on large corpora of a word appears to be more difficult than spoken and written texts, such as the comprehending it (Waring, 1997a), and British National Corpus (Leech, Rayson and learners generally need to have a lot of Wilson, 2001) or the Corpus of knowledge about a word in order to be Contemporary American English (Davies, able to use it productively (Fan, 2000). 2010). Receptive vocabulary tests often try There, however, does not seem to be any to estimate the total receptive vocabulary consistent ratio between words known size of learners by including samples (e.g.