Cover not available
Article published In:
Semantic Considerations of Lexical Processing
[The Mental Lexicon 9:1] 2014
► pp. 23–47

Estimating second language productive vocabulary size

A Capture-Recapture approach

| Concordia University
| Concordia University / Queensland University of Technology
| Concordia University
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.
Keywords: capture, second language, productive vocabulary, word association, ecological, recapture
Published online: 25 April 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.1.02wil
References (33)
Bauer, L., & Nation, P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography , 6(4), 253–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Fitzpatrick, T. (2003). Eliciting and measuring productive vocabulary using word association techniques and frequency bands. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wales Swansea.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, T., & Clenton, J. (2010). The challenge of validation: Assessing the performance of a test of productive vocabulary. Language Testing , 271, 537–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Goulden, R., Nation, P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics , 11(4), 341– 363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
JACET Basic Words Revision Committee (Eds.). (2003). JACET list of 8000 words (JACET 8000) . Tokyo: JACET.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics , 191, 255–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics , 161, 307–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing , 161, 33– 51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
Lonsdale, D., & Le Bras, Y. (2009). A frequency dictionary of French core vocabulary for learners . New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Meara, P., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex 30: An improved method for assessing productive vocabulary in an L2. System , 281, 19–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition . Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (Ed.). (1984). Vocabulary lists: Words, affixes and stems. English Language Institute Victoria University of Wellington Occasional Paper , 121.Google Scholar
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
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual . Basingstoke: 
Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. (2010). The cognitive bases of second language fluency . New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, W. J. (2006). Ecological census techniques: A handbook (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
Walters, J. (2012). Aspects of validity of a test of productive vocabulary: Lex30. Language Assessment Quarterly , 9(2), 172–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 391, 79– 95.Google Scholar
Wolter, B. (2002). Assessing proficiency through word associations: Is there still hope? System , 301, 315–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, K. J. (2004). The role of vocabulary size in assessing second language proficiency . Ph.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
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
Hed, Anna, Andrea Schremm, Merle Horne & Mikael Roll
2019. Neural correlates of second language acquisition of tone-grammar associations. The Mental Lexicon 14:1 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Nelson, Robert
2015. Issues with the capture-recapture measure of vocabulary size. The Mental Lexicon 10:1 ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo

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.