Vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary use in writing: A cross-sectional comparison of L2 English and L2 French

IF 3.6 1区文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS

Applied Linguistics Pub Date : 2025-03-06 DOI:10.1093/applin/amaf009

Eva Caltabellotta, Elke Van Steendam, Ann-Sophie Noreillie, Eva Puimège, Silke Creten, Elke Peters

{"title":"Vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary use in writing: A cross-sectional comparison of L2 English and L2 French","authors":"Eva Caltabellotta, Elke Van Steendam, Ann-Sophie Noreillie, Eva Puimège, Silke Creten, Elke Peters","doi":"10.1093/applin/amaf009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigated the lexical proficiency of L2 learners of English and French. The aim of the study was two-fold. First, we examined the cross-sectional differences in productive vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary use between L2 learners in two grades. Second, we investigated the extent to which vocabulary knowledge and grade could predict vocabulary use in writing, operationalized as lexical diversity (moving average type-token ratio), mean-based, and band-based lexical sophistication (average frequency and lexical frequency profile). Participants (N = 423) from grade 10 and grade 12 completed a form recall test (productive vocabulary knowledge) and two writing tasks (vocabulary use) in both English and French. The cross-sectional comparison showed that while vocabulary knowledge and lexical diversity increased across grades in both languages, mean-based lexical sophistication only improved in English. Band-based sophistication was not observed to increase in either language. Furthermore, the results indicated that productive vocabulary knowledge predicted all measures of vocabulary use in English, but only predicted lexical diversity for French. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for L2 pedagogy.","PeriodicalId":48234,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaf009","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigated the lexical proficiency of L2 learners of English and French. The aim of the study was two-fold. First, we examined the cross-sectional differences in productive vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary use between L2 learners in two grades. Second, we investigated the extent to which vocabulary knowledge and grade could predict vocabulary use in writing, operationalized as lexical diversity (moving average type-token ratio), mean-based, and band-based lexical sophistication (average frequency and lexical frequency profile). Participants (N = 423) from grade 10 and grade 12 completed a form recall test (productive vocabulary knowledge) and two writing tasks (vocabulary use) in both English and French. The cross-sectional comparison showed that while vocabulary knowledge and lexical diversity increased across grades in both languages, mean-based lexical sophistication only improved in English. Band-based sophistication was not observed to increase in either language. Furthermore, the results indicated that productive vocabulary knowledge predicted all measures of vocabulary use in English, but only predicted lexical diversity for French. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for L2 pedagogy.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Applied Linguistics LINGUISTICS-

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Applied Linguistics publishes research into language with relevance to real-world problems. The journal is keen to help make connections between fields, theories, research methods, and scholarly discourses, and welcomes contributions which critically reflect on current practices in applied linguistic research. It promotes scholarly and scientific discussion of issues that unite or divide scholars in applied linguistics. It is less interested in the ad hoc solution of particular problems and more interested in the handling of problems in a principled way by reference to theoretical studies.