A presentation for the Symposium of Second Language Writing 2012 given on September 6th, 2012 at Purdue University

1. Measuring Vocabulary Size in
Second Language Writing
Melanie C. Gonzalez, University of Central Florida

2. Background to this presentation
Research has shown that L2 writers’ use of vocabulary is an
important component affecting a reader’s perception of the quality of
their writing (Laufer & Nation, 1995; Ruegg, Fritz, & Holland, 2011; Silva, 1993)
Lexical errors in writing are the most bothersome to raters, native
speakers, university professors (Dordick, 1996; Engber, 1995; Ruegg et al., 2011;
Santos, 1988)
Receptive vocabulary threshold for receptive tasks such as reading
has been found (Goulden, Nation, & Read, 1990; Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski,
2010; Nation, 2006)
No threshold for productive vocabulary tasks in reading’s productive
counterpart of writing has yet to be identified (Nation & Webb, 2011;
Staehr, 2008).

3. Why lexicon size is important
Studies looking into quality of lexis in writing have often found
lexical richness to be a central component within L1 texts that often
needs development in L2 and foreign language compositions (Laufer &
Nation, 1995; Silva, 1993; Tiball & Treffers-Daller, 2008)
The term lexical richness refers to the variation, sophistication, and
control of words in production, all which require a large vocabulary
(Read, 2000)
L2 writers may have issues in varying their words within their
writing because academic terms are less likely to be encountered in
ordinary conversations (Coxhead & Byrd, 2007)

4. Objectives of this presentation
To gain a clearer picture of the impact of vocabulary size on L2
writing quality
To examine the state of the research on productive vocabulary size
issues
Avenues for further research

5. 1: Instruments testing productive
vocabulary size
Test Psychometrics
The Productive Vocabulary Levels Test Solicits vocabulary knowledge within a
(Laufer & Nation,1999) sentence with only first few letters of target
item given; Cronbach’s alpha of .92-.96%
The Lexical Frequency Profile (Laufer, 1994); Calculates a vocabulary size score using a
RANGE (Nation & Heatley, 2002) computer counter to sort compositions by
frequency band; reliability has been debated
(see Collins & Edwards, 2010; Meara, 2005)
Coh Metrix Text analyzer that profiles vocabulary size
(Crossley & McNamara, 2009) with a range of analyses such as lexical
diversity or word frequency; r = .86 interrater
reliability

6. 2: Vocabulary affects quality
Study Purpose Participants Results
Santos To find out professors’ 178 university instructors Professors rated
(1988) perceptions of nonnative asked to read and rate two vocabulary as the gravest
English speaker problem, stressing the
compositions importance of word
choice and use
Ferris To explore lexical and Corpus of 160 ESL student Number of words,
(1994) syntactic features placement exam essays synonymy/antonymy,
common in L2 writing and word length equaled
higher scores; higher
proficiency writers used
varied word choice
Dordick To examine what types of 289 native-speaking Versions containing
(1996) written errors interfere college students asked to lexical errors such as poor
with reading read 10 different versions word choice or form
comprehension of essays with varying interfered the most with
errors reader comprehension

7. 3: A productive vocabulary
threshold
Study Purpose Participants Results
Laufer To compare ESL learners’ 1 group of 26 tenth Indicated that receptive
(1998) growth in receptive and graders and 1 group of 22 vocabulary knowledge
productive vocabulary eleventh graders in EFL grows fast, but does
sizes over time high school always transfer to written
production suggesting
Staehr To examine vocabulary 88 EFL learners in a revealed that knowing the
(2008) size in reading, listening, secondary school in most frequent 2000 word
and writing Denmark families aided participants
the most on the writing
test
Webb To see if receptive 83 Japanese EFL students Receptive vocabulary size
(2008) vocabulary size could at a Japanese university is larger than productive
predict the size of a vocabulary size; learners
learner’s productive with a larger receptive
vocabulary vocabulary are likely to be
able to use those words in
production than learners
with a smaller receptive

8. Limitations in vocabulary size
studies
Productive vocabulary size is a tricky construct to measure for writers
do not produce all the words they know in a given task
Instruments count words according to word families; some research
suggest counting lemmas are a better counting unit for measuring
productive vocabulary size (Nation & Webb, 2011)

9. Potential implications & further
research
Measuring L2 writers’ vocabulary size could could serve as a
diagnostic test for appropriate placement in courses and writing
interventions
Justification for including vocabulary-enriching exercises in the
classroom to solicit receptive knowledge and apply learners’ lexical
knowledge
A productive vocabulary threshold for instructors and learners to
reach in order to meet academic writing standards

10. References
Coxhead, A. &Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 129-147.
Crossley, S.A. & McNamara, D.S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 119-135.
Dordick, M. (1996). Testing for a hierarchy of the communicative interference of errors. System, 24(3), 299-308.
Edwards, R. & Collins, L. (2011). Lexical frequency profiles and Zipf's law. Language Learning, 61(1), 1-30. doi: 10.111 1/
j.1467-9922.2010.00616.x
Engber, C. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 4(2), 139-155.
Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency.
TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414-420.
Folse, K. (2008). Myth 1: Teaching vocabulary is not the writing teacher’s job. In J. Reid (Ed.) Writing myths: Applying
Second Language Research to classroom teaching (pp.1-17). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11, 341-363.
Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time? RELC Journal, 25(2), 21-33.
Laufer, B. (1998). Development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same of different? Applied
Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271.
Laufer, B. & Nation, I.S.P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied
Linguistics, 16(3), 307-322.
Laufer, B. & Nation, I.S.P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33-51.
Laufer, B. & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary
size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15-30.

11. References
Meara, P. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 32-47. doi:10.1093/
applin/amh037
Nation, I.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 63(1), 59-82.
Nation, I.S.P. & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston: Heinle-Cengage.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ruegg, R., Fritz, E., & Holland, J. (2011). Rater sensitivities to qualities of lexis in writing. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 63-80.
Santos, T. (1988). Professor’s reactions to the academic writing of non-native-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1),
69-90.
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications.
TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 657-677.
Staehr, L.S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139-
152.
Tidball, F. & Treffers-Daller, J. (2008). Analyzing lexical richness in French learner language: what frequency lists and
teacher judgments can tell us about basic and advanced words. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(3), 299-313. doi:
10.1017/S0959269508003463
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 79-95.
doi: 10.1017/S0272263108080042

12. Questions?
Melanie C. Gonzalez,
m.gonzalez@knights.ucf.edu
A copy of this presentation is available for viewing on Slideshare at the
following website::