Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 24, No. 0, pp.708-734
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2024
Received 03 Apr 2024 Revised 26 May 2024 Accepted 05 Jul 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.24..202407.708

Measuring English Receptive and Productive Vocabulary of Pakistani University Students across Frequency Levels

Inam Ullah ; Sun-Woong Kim ; Afarfare Ibtissam
(1st Author) Ph.D (English Lingusitics) Department of English Language and industry, Kwangwoon University mhnomi77@gmail.com
(Corresponding Author) Professor, Department of English Language and industry, Kwangwoon University swkim@kw.ac.kr
(Co-author) Ph.d candidate, Department of English Language and industry, Kwangwoon University ibti.afr@gmail.com


© 2024 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

I administered the VLT receptive (Nation 1990) and VLT productive (Laufer and Nation 1999) to establish the disparity, threshold levels, and relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary of Pakistani university students across 3K, 5K, UWL, and 10K frequency levels. Participants included 200 university students majoring in Computer Science and English Literature. The results exhibited that the participants possessed good basic (receptive) knowledge of high-frequency words but struggled to actively use (production) vocabulary knowledge. Higher scores on receptive tests suggest that the ability to recognize and understand vocabulary is stronger than the ability to produce vocabulary actively. The trend remained the same across all - 3K, 5K (UWL), and 10k frequency levels. For receptive test results at the 3k frequency level, 124 participants reached the 3000-word threshold level, demonstrating a solid foundation in receptive vocabulary. At the 5k frequency level, 107 participants achieved the 5000-word threshold, 92 participants achieved the threshold of UWL, indicating a strong command of the academic vocabulary range, and the advanced 10k frequency level presented a greater challenge; only 66 participants reached the 10000-word threshold. For productive vocabulary test scores, 31 participants reached the 3000-word threshold level. At the 5k frequency level, 21 participants achieved the 5K-word threshold. Thirty-nine participants reached the UWL threshold, and lastly, at the more challenging 10K word-frequency level, only two participants reached the 10K word threshold, underlining the complexity and extensive nature of the vocabulary at this level. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test confirmed significant differences between receptive and productive vocabulary scores at all tested frequency levels. Correlation analysis revealed a strong positive correlation between total receptive and productive scores (ρ = .675, p < .01). The study contributes new insights into vocabulary acquisition and production abilities among Pakistani students but faces limited funding and time limitations. Future research should focus on cognitive processes behind vocabulary acquisition, longitudinal studies, tailored language interventions, and cross-cultural comparisons.

Keywords:

receptive and productive vocabulary, word frequency level, threshold, L2 learners, VLT & PVLT level tests, high frequency, low frequency, UWL

Acknowledgments

This paper is a revised version of parts of the first author’s doctoral dissertation. The research has been conducted by the Research Grant of Kwangwoon University in 2023 on the corresponding author.

References

  • Adolphs, S. and N. Schmitt. 2004. Vocabulary coverage according to spoken discourse context. Vocabulary in a second language, 39-49. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.10.05ado]
  • Batista, R. and M. Horst. 2016. A new receptive vocabulary size test for French. Canadian modern language review 72(2), 211-233. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2820]
  • Beglar, D. 2009. A Rasch-based validation of the vocabulary size test. Language Testing 27(1), 101-118. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340194]
  • Beglar, D. and P. Nation. 2013. Assessing vocabulary. In A. J. Kunnan, ed., The Companion to Language Assessment, 172-184. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla053]
  • Biemiller, A. and N. Slonim. 2001. Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology 93(3), 498-520. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.498]
  • Crossley, S. A., T. Salsbury, D. S. McNamara and S. Jarvis. 2011. Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing 28(4), 561-580. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532210378031]
  • Daulton, F. E. 2008. Japan’s built-in lexicon of English-based loanwords. Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690319]
  • Ehsanzadeh, S. J. 2020. Assessing threshold level of L2 vocabulary depth in reading comprehension and incidental Vocabulary Learning. Language Education & Assessment 3(1), 1-12. [https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v3n1.171]
  • Ellis, N. C. 2009. Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long and C. J. Doughty, eds., The Handbook of Language Teaching, 139-158. John Wiley & Sons. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch9]
  • 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. [https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100205]
  • Gu, P. Y. 2003. Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL-EJ 7(2), 1-25.
  • Hajiyeva, K. 2015. Exploring the relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary sizes and their increased use by Azerbaijani English majors. English Language Teaching 8(8), 31-45. [https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n8p31]
  • Harji, M. B., K. Balakrishnan, S. K. Bhar and K. Letchumanan. 2015. Vocabulary levels and size of Malaysian undergraduates. English Language Teaching 8(9), 119-130. [https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n9p119]
  • Henriksen, B. 1999. Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2), 303-317. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002089]
  • Horst, M. and L. Collins. 2006. From foible to strong: How does their vocabulary grow. Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1). [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.83]
  • Huesh-Chao, M. Hu and P. Nation, 2000. Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 13(1), 403-430.
  • Kremmel, B. and N. Schmitt. 2017. Vocabulary levels test. In H. Nassaji, ed., The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-7. John Wiley & Sons. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0499]
  • Laufer, B. 1989. What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren and M. Nordman, eds, Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines, 316-323. Multilingual Matters.
  • Laufer, B. 1990. Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching implications. Foreign Language Annals 23(2), 147-155. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1990.tb00355.x]
  • Laufer, B. 1992. How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. J. L. Arnaud and H. Béjoint, eds., Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, 126-132. Palgrave Macmillan UK. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12396-4_12]
  • Laufer, B. and P. Bogaards. 2004. Vocabulary in a second language. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Laufer, B. and Z. Goldstein. 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: size, strength, and computer addictiveness. Language Learning 54(3), 399-436. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x]
  • Laufer, B. and P. Nation. 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. and P. Nation. 1999. A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing 16(1), 33-51. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229901600103]
  • Laufer, B. and T. S. Paribakht. 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]
  • Laufer, B. and D. D. Sim. 1985. Measuring and explaining the reading threshold needed for English for academic purposes texts. Foreign language annals 18(5), 405-411. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1985.tb00973.x]
  • Lee, S. H. and J. Muncie. 2006. From receptive to productive: improving ESL learner’s use of vocabulary in a post reading composition task. TESOL Quarterly 40(2), 295-320. [https://doi.org/10.2307/40264524]
  • Meara, P. 1990. A note on passive vocabulary. Inter-language Studies Bulletin (Utrecht) 6(2), 150-154. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839000600204]
  • Meara, P. 1996. The vocabulary knowledge framework. Vocabulary Acquisition Research Group Virtual Library 5(2), 1-11.
  • Melka, F. 1997. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy 33(2), 84-102.
  • Milton, J. 2009. Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (Vol. 45). Multilingual Matters. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692092]
  • Milton, J. and N. Hopkins. 2006. Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size: Do vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners. Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1), 127-147. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.127]
  • Mondria, J. and B. Wiersma. 2004. Receptive, productive, and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary learning: What difference does it make? Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition and Testing 79-100. [https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.10.08mon]
  • Mulder, K. and J. H. Hulstijn. 2011. Linguistic skills of adult native speakers, as a function of age and level of education. Applied Linguistics 32(5), 475-494. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr016]
  • Nation, I. S. P. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. Newbury House. Issues in Applied Linguistics 2(1), 275.
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759]
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2013. Learning Vocabulary in another Language (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139858656]
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2006. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1), 59-82. [https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59]
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2022. Learning Vocabulary in another Language (3rd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009093873]
  • Nation, P. and A. Coxhead. 2014. Vocabulary size research at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Language Teaching 47(3), 398-403. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000111]
  • Nation, P. and R. Waring. 1997. Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy 14(1), 6-19.
  • Nation, I. S. P. and S. A. Webb. 2011. Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Heinle, Cengage Learning Boston, MA.
  • Nizonkiza, D. and K. Van den Berg. 2014. The dimensional approach to vocabulary testing: What can we learn from past and present practices? Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 43, 45-61. [https://doi.org/10.5774/43-0-169]
  • Nurweni, A. and J. Read. 1999. The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian university students. English for Specific Purposes 18(2), 161-175. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00005-2]
  • Peters, E. and S. Webb. 2020. Factors affecting the learning of single-word items. The Routledge Handbook of Vocabulary Studies, 125-142. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429291586-9]
  • Pignot-Shahov, V. 2012. Measuring L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Language Studies Working Papers 4(1), 37-45.
  • Read, J. 1988. Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners. RELC Journal 19(2), 1-25. [https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828801900202]
  • Read, J. 2009. Second language vocabulary assessment: current practices and new directions. International Journal of English Studies 7(2 SE-), 105-126.
  • Schmitt, N. 2008. Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research 12(3), 329-363. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921]
  • Schmitt, N. 2010. Key Issues in teaching and learning vocabulary. Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning, 28-40. [https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692900-004]
  • Schmitt, N. 2014. Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: what the research shows. Language Learning 64(4), 913-951. [https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077]
  • Schmitt, N. and P. Meara. 1997. Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework: Word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19(1), 17-36. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001022]
  • Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt and C. Clapham. 2001. Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18(1), 55-88. [https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800103]
  • Sternberg, R. J. 2014. Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. McKeown and M. E. Curtis, eds., The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition, 89-105. Psychology Press.
  • Shillaw, J. 1995. Using a word list as a focus for vocabulary learning. The Language Teacher 19(2). 9-58.
  • Thornbury, S. 2006. How to Teach Vocabulary. Pearson Education.
  • Ullah, I. 2023. Exploring the linguistic and textual factors that affect the quality of L2 writing: The Coh-Metrix study. Modern English Education 24, 110-126. [https://doi.org/10.18095/meeso.2023.24.1.110]
  • Van Zeeland, H. and N. Schmitt. 2013. Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: the same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics 34(4), 457-479. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams074]
  • Waring, R. 1997. A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Immaculata (1), 53-68.
  • Webb, S. 2008. The effects of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2), 232-245.
  • Wise, J. C., R. A. Sevcik, R. D. Morris, M. W. Lovett and M. Wolf. 2007. Language-articles and reports-the relationship among receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills, word identification skills, and reading comprehension. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 50(4), 1093-1109. [https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/076)]
  • Yamamoto, Y. 2011. Bridging the gap between receptive and productive vocabulary size through extensive reading. The Reading Matrix 11(3).
  • Ozonder, O. 2016. Student EFL teachers’ receptive vocabulary size. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 232, 444-450. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.061]
  • Zhong, H. 2009. Vocabulary growth in an English as a foreign language context. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL 4, 85-113.
  • Zhou, S. 2010. Comparing receptive and productive academic vocabulary knowledge of Chinese EFL learners. Asian Social Science 6(10), 14-19. [https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n10p14]
  • Zimmerman, C. B. 1997. Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly 31(1), 121-140. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3587978]