Chapter published in:
Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability
Edited by Robert M. DeKeyser and Goretti Prieto Botana
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 52] 2019
► pp. 179–200

Chapter 9
Lexical development in the writing of intensive English program students

| University of Pittsburgh
This paper focuses on vocabulary development in intensive English program (IEP) students, comparing free writing data from an IEP to previous research in more controlled contexts. These free writing data derive from writing assignments collected from students with three language backgrounds: Arabic (n = 22), Chinese (n = 20) and Korean (n = 19), who studied at the intermediate and subsequently the advanced levels of an IEP in the USA. The main finding was that a purely text-based measure of diversity, vocD, did not capture gains in lexical development, whereas a measure of lexical sophistication, Advanced Guiraud (AG), did show measureable improvement. Discussion focuses on a more theoretically complex conceptualization of lexical development, how experimental methods compare with ‘messy’ classroom corpus data, and the problem of text length. Specific pedagogical recommendations include more focus more on lexical quality (Perfetti & Hart, 2002) and words at lower frequency bands (3000–9000).
Keywords: lexical diversity, vocD, lexical sophistication, Advanced Guiraud, intensive English programs
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • Pedagogical and methodological implications
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 07 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.52.09juf
References
Baayen, R. H.
(2001) Word frequency distributions (Vol. 18). Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F.
(1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booth, P.
(2013) Vocabulary knowledge in relation to memory and analysis: An approximate replication of Milton’s (2007) study on lexical profiles and learning style. Language Teaching, 46(3), 335–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.
(2013) Types of words identified as unknown by L2 learners when reading. System, 41, 1043–1055. Crossref
Brown, J. D.
(1988) Understanding research in second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bulté, B., & Housen, A.
(2014) Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65. Crossref
Coxhead, A.
(2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S.
(2011) Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28(4), 561–580. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers‐Daller, J.
(2003) Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daller, M., Turlik, J., & Weir, I.
(2013) Vocabulary acquisition and the learning curve. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duràn, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N.
(2004) Developmental Trends in Lexical Diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220–242. Crossref.Google Scholar
deBoer, F.
(2014) Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System, 47, 139–145. Crossref
DeKeyser, R. M.
(2005) What makes learning second‐language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language learning, 55(S1), 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duràn, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N.
(2004) Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220–242. Crossref
Ellis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R.
(2009) Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 61–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friedline, B. E.
(2011) Challenges in the second language acquisition of derivational morphology: From theory to practice (Unpublished PhD dissertation), University of Pittsburgh, PA. http://​d​-scholarship​.pitt​.edu​/id​/eprint​/8351
Gardner, D., & Davies, M.
(2014) A new academic word list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L.
(2007) The impact of testing practices on teaching: ideologies and alternatives. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 487–504). New York, NY: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horst, M.
(2005) Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 355–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B.
(2001) Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558. Crossref
Hsu, W.
(2014) The most frequent opaque formulaic sequences in English-medium college textbooks. System, 47, 146–161. Crossref
Jarvis, S.
(2013) Defining and measuring lexical diversity. In S. Jarvis & M. Daller (Eds.), Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures (pp. 13–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Daller, M.
(Eds.) (2013) Vocabulary knowledge. Human ratings and automated measures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A.
(1998) The acquisition of semantics-syntax correspondences and verb frequencies in ESL materials. Language Teaching Research, 2, 93–123. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lam, R.
(2016) Taking stock of portfolio assessment scholarship: From research to practice. Assessing Writing. Crossref
Laufer, B., & Nation, P.
(1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
(2007) vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Duràn, P.
(2004) Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Paulgrave: Palgrave MacMillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
(2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murakami, A., & Alexopoulou, T.
(2016) L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 365–401. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P.
(2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Fundamental issues in modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge, 35–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norouzian, R., & Plonsky, L.
(2018) Eta- and partial eta-squared in L2 research: A cautionary review and guide to more appropriate usage. Second Language Research, 34(2), 257–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W.
(2002) Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: do they overcome the Matthew effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L.
(2002) The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D.
(2014) A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary profiles and learning style. Language Teaching, 46(3), 335–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503. Crossref.Google Scholar
Sisková, Z.
(2012) Lexical richness in EFL students’ narratives. Language Studies Working Papers. University of Reading, 4, 26–36.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E.
(1986) Matthew effects in reading: some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Todd, R. W.
(2017) An opaque engineering word list: which words should a teacher focus on? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 31–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Hout, R., & Vermeer, A.
(2007) Comparing measures of lexical richness. In H. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 93–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
West, M.
(1953) A general service list of English words: With semantic frequencies and a supplementary word list for the writing of popular science and technology. London: Addison-Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Yoon, H-J., & Polio, C.
(2016) The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, First view. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, G.
(2010) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Naismith, Ben & Alan Juffs
2021. Finding the sweet spot: Learners’ productive knowledge of mid-frequency lexical items. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110204 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 april 2022. 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.