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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D.
(2013) Types of words identified as unknown by L2 learners when reading. System, 41, 1043–1055. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Coxhead, A.
(2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers‐Daller, J.
(2003) Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duràn, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N.
(2004) Developmental Trends in Lexical Diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220–242. DOI logo.Google Scholar
deBoer, F.
(2014) Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System, 47, 139–145. DOI logo
DeKeyser, R. M.
(2005) What makes learning second‐language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language learning, 55(S1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duràn, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N.
(2004) Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220–242. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horst, M.
(2005) Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: A measurement study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61(3), 355–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B.
(2001) Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558. DOI logo
Hsu, W.
(2014) The most frequent opaque formulaic sequences in English-medium college textbooks. System, 47, 146–161. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Daller, M.
(Eds.) (2013) Vocabulary knowledge. Human ratings and automated measures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juffs, A.
(1998) The acquisition of semantics-syntax correspondences and verb frequencies in ESL materials. Language Teaching Research, 2, 93–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lam, R.
(2016) Taking stock of portfolio assessment scholarship: From research to practice. Assessing Writing. DOI logo
Laufer, B., & Nation, P.
(1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
(2007) vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P.
(2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Fundamental issues in modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge, 35–43. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503. DOI logo.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Todd, R. W.
(2017) An opaque engineering word list: which words should a teacher focus on? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 31–39. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, G.
(2010) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 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. DOI logo
Naismith, Ben, Alan Juffs, Na-Rae Han & Daniel Zheng
2022. Handle it in-house?. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27:3 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 february 2023. 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.