Estimating second language productive vocabulary size
A Capture-Recapture approach
This study provides validity evidence for the Capture-Recapture (CR) method, borrowed from ecology, as a measure of second language (L2) productive vocabulary size (PVS). Two separate “captures” of productive vocabulary were taken using written word association tasks (WAT). At Time 1, 47 bilinguals provided at least 4 associates to each of 30 high-frequency stimulus words in English, their first language (L1), and in French, their L2. A few days later (Time 2), this procedure was repeated with a different set of stimulus words in each language. Since the WAT was used, both Lex30 and CR PVS scores were calculated in each language. Participants also completed an animacy judgment task assessing the speed and efficiency of lexical access.
Results indicated that, in both languages, CR and Lex30 scores were significantly positively correlated (evidence of convergent validity). CR scores were also significantly larger in the L1, and correlated significantly with the speed of lexical access in the L2 (evidence of construct validity). These results point to the validity of the technique for estimating relative L2 PVS. However, CR scores are not a direct indication of absolute vocabulary size. A discussion of the method’s underlying assumptions and their implications for interpretation are provided.
References (33)
Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word families.
International Journal of Lexicography
, 6(4), 253–279. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clenton, J. (2008). Investigating the construct of productive vocabulary: Comparing different measures. In M. Edwardes (Ed.),
Taking the measure of Applied Linguistics: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics
, 11–13 September 2008 (pp. 27). Swansea University. Retrieved from: [URL]
Cobb, T. (n.d.). Web VocabProfile [accessed 31 July 2013 from: [URL]], an adaptation of Heatley, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Coxhead, A. (2002). RANGE and FREQUENCY programs. Retrieved from: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation.
aspx.
Davies, M., & Gardner, D. (2010).
A frequency dictionary of contemporary American English: Word sketches, collocates and thematic lists
. New York: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fitzpatrick, T. (2003). Eliciting and measuring productive vocabulary using word association techniques and frequency bands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wales Swansea.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fitzpatrick, T., & Clenton, J. (2010). The challenge of validation: Assessing the performance of a test of productive vocabulary.
Language Testing
, 271, 537–554. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fitzpatrick, T., & Meara, P. (2004). Exploring the validity of a test of productive vocabulary.
Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics
, 11, 55–73. Retrieved from: [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be?
Applied Linguistics
, 11(4), 341– 363. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
JACET Basic Words Revision Committee (Eds.). (2003).
JACET list of 8000 words (JACET 8000)
. Tokyo: JACET.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?
Applied Linguistics
, 191, 255–271. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production.
Applied Linguistics
, 161, 307–322. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability.
Language Testing
, 161, 33– 51. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context.
Language Learning
, 48(3), 365– 391. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lindberg, M., & Rexstad, E. (2002). Capture-recapture sampling designs. In A. H. El-Shaarawi
& W. W. Piegorsch (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of environmetrics
, Volume 11 (pp. 251–262).
Chichister: John Wiley & Sons.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lonsdale, D., & Le Bras, Y. (2009).
A frequency dictionary of French core vocabulary for learners
. New York: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meara, P. (1997). Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy
(pp. 109–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meara, P., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex 30: An improved method for assessing productive vocabulary in an L2.
System
, 281, 19–30. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meara, P. M., & Olmos Alcoy, J. C. (2010). Words as species: An alternative approach to estimating productive vocabulary size.
Reading in a Foreign Language
, 221, 222–236. Retrieved from: [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Melka, F. (1997). Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy
(pp. 84–102). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Milton, J. (2009).
Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition
. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nation, I. S. P. (Ed.). (1984). Vocabulary lists: Words, affixes and stems.
English Language Institute Victoria University of Wellington Occasional Paper
, 121.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Petersen, C. G. J. (1896). The yearly immigration of young plaice into the Linsfjord from the German Sea.
Report of the Danish Biological Station
, 61, 5–84.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Read, J. (2000).
Assessing vocabulary
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schmitt, N. (2010).
Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual
. Basingstoke:
Palgrave. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Segalowitz, N. (2010).
The cognitive bases of second language fluency
. New York: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sutherland, W. J. (2006).
Ecological census techniques: A handbook
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (2010).
Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education
(8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walters, J. (2012). Aspects of validity of a test of productive vocabulary: Lex30.
Language Assessment Quarterly
, 9(2), 172–185. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
, 391, 79– 95.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wolter, B. (2002). Assessing proficiency through word associations: Is there still hope?
System
, 301, 315–329. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zechmeister, E. B., Chronis, A. M., Cull, W. L., D’Anna, C. A., & Healy, N. A. (1995). Growth of a functionally important lexicon.
Journal of Reading Behavior
, 27(2), 201–212. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zimmerman, K. J. (2004).
The role of vocabulary size in assessing second language proficiency
. Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Edmonds, Amanda, Jon Clenton & Hosam Elmetaher
2022.
Exploring the construct validity of tests used to assess L2 productive vocabulary knowledge.
System 108
► pp. 102855 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Hed, Anna, Andrea Schremm, Merle Horne & Mikael Roll
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.