Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability

Abstract

The current study investigated the extent to which L2 learners' productive vocabulary knowledge could predict multiple dimensions of spontaneous speech production. A total of 39 EFL participants with varying L2 proficiency levels first completed a productive vocabulary knowledge task (Lex30). Their spontaneous speech, elicited via a series of picture description task, was then assessed for comprehensibility (i.e., ease of understanding), accentedness (i.e., linguistic nativelikeness), and fluency (i.e., speech rate). The findings showed that the productive vocabulary scores significantly correlated with L2 fluency, but not with comprehensibility or accentedness. Such results might indicate that more proficient L2 learners, as indicated by their productive vocabulary scores, might be able to speak spontaneously without too many pauses and repetitions, and at a faster tempo. Finally, future research directions will be discussed with a focus on the relationships between vocabulary knowledge and speaking.Key words: productive vocabulary knowledge; L2 vocabulary; L2 speaking; comprehensibility; fluency Introduction Measuring Productive Vocabulary KnowledgeVocabulary knowledge has gained recent prominence in second language (L2) education, as research seeks to examine the relationship between vocabulary size measures and general language proficiency. This has much practical appeal since scores from vocabulary size measures might act as a proxy for general language proficiency (Meara, 1996). Vocabulary size measures tend to elicit vocabulary knowledge via receptive, or passive, vocabulary knowledge tests (e.g., Vocabulary Levels Test; Nation, 1983Nation, , 1990; the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test; Meara & Jones, 1990). Accordingly, researchers (e.g. Milton, Wade, & Hopkins, 2010;Milton, 2010Milton, , 2013 have generally adopted a wide range of receptive vocabulary tests (e.g., standard yes/no vocabulary size tests), in order to compare test scores to overall proficiency benchmarks (e.g., CEFR levels; Milton 2010), placement tests (e.g., Harrington & Carey, 2009), and standardized proficiency examinations (e.g., IELTS;Milton et al., 2010). Additionally, other research has examined the predictive power of L2 vocabulary knowledge for the four main language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and, to a lesser extent, speaking) (e.g. Baba, 2009;Farvardin & Koosha, 2011;Laufer & Levitzky-Aviad, 2015;Meara & Jones, 1990;Meara & Milton, 2003;Milton, 2009Milton, , 2010Milton, , 2013Milton et al., 2010;Qian, 1999, 2002, Schoonen et al., 2003and, Staehr, 2008and, Staehr, , 2009). This brief summary highlights that a majority of the existing studies likely elicit vocabulary knowledge receptively, and compare such knowledge with reading, writing, and listening performance.

Multi‐ or Single‐Word Units? The Role of Collocation Use in Comprehensible and Contextually Appropriate Second Language Speech

“…Some studies have begun to show that L2 users’ responses to word association tasks could predict how they use collocations during actual L2 speech performance. In conjunction with the strong associations between collocation and perceived L2 oral proficiency reported in the current study, it would be interesting to use the results of mutual information scores measured through a word association task or a related research tool (e.g., Lex30: Meara & Fitzpatrick, ) as a rough index of perceived L2 oral proficiency (Clenton, De Jong, Clingwall, & Fraser, ; Uchihara & Saito, ; Uchihara, Eguchi, Kyle, Clenton, & Saito, ). If L2 learners’ word association scores can predict collocational qualities of their L2 speech, and by extension perceived L2 oral proficiency, it could help teachers diagnose L2 learners’ speaking proficiency quickly, adequately, and automatically.…”

Oral fluency in a second language: A research agenda for the next ten years

“…For example, sentence completion tasks may elicit receptive as well as productive knowledge, may only touch the surface of a person's productive knowledge, or, as in De Jong et al (2013), combine size with depth. To avoid these concerns about sentence completion tests, Uchihara and Saito (2017) investigated the relationship between L2 oral ability and size of controlled productive vocabulary by means of a measure, Lex30, developed by Meara and Fitzpatrick (2000). The 39 L2 English participants were presented with an on-screen list of 30 English words and invited to type up to four other words they could associate with each prompt word.…”

Relating Lexical Access and Second Language Speaking Performance

“…Vocabulary knowledge has been identified as a good indicator of language proficiency (Milton 2013;Nation 2001). Research shows that second language (L2) learners with large or better developed vocabularies have better performance in reading (e.g., Albrechtsen et al 2008;Jeon and Yamashita 2014;Laufer 1992;Qian 1999;Staehr 2008), listening (e.g., Staehr 2008Staehr , 2009, writing (e.g., Engber 1995;Grant and Ginther 2000;Schoonen et al 2003;Staehr 2008), and speaking (e.g., De Jong et al 2013;Uchihara and Clenton 2018;Uchihara and Saito 2019).…”

“…Another area of vocabulary knowledge research measures productive vocabulary knowledge under the distinction of receptive vocabulary knowledge (passive knowledge, recognition) and productive knowledge (active knowledge, use). Only one study discussed how productive vocabulary knowledge affected L2 speaking performance (Uchihara and Saito 2019). In their study, the Lex30 test was used to investigate the productive mental lexicon.…”