This study set out to investigate the relationship between L2 vocabulary knowledge (VK) and second-language (L2) reading/listening comprehension. More than 100 individual studies were included in this meta-analysis, which generated 276 effect sizes from a sample of almost 21,000 learners. The current meta-analysis had several major findings. First, the overall correlation between VK and L2 reading comprehension was .57 (p < .01) and that between VK and L2 listening was .56 (p < .01). If the attenuation effect due to reliability of measures was taken into consideration, the ‘true’ correlation between VK and L2 reading/listening comprehension may likely fall within the range of .56–.67, accounting for 31%–45% variance in L2 comprehension. Second, all three mastery levels of form–meaning knowledge (meaning recognition, meaning recall, form recall) had moderate to high correlations with L2 reading and L2 listening. However, meaning recall knowledge had the strongest correlation with L2 reading comprehension and form recall had the strongest correlation with L2 listening comprehension, suggesting that different mastery levels of VK may contribute differently to L2 comprehension in different modalities. Third, both word association knowledge and morphological awareness (two aspects of vocabulary depth knowledge) had significant correlations with L2 reading and L2 listening. Fourth, the modality of VK measure was found to have a significant moderating effect on the correlation between VK and L2 text comprehension: orthographical VK measures had stronger correlations with L2 reading comprehension as compared to auditory VK measures. Auditory VK measures, however, were better predictors of L2 listening comprehension. Fifth, studies with a shorter script distance between L1 and L2 yielded higher correlations between VK and L2 reading. Sixth, the number of items in vocabulary depth measures had a positive predictive power on the correlation between VK and L2 comprehension. Finally, correlations between VK and L2 reading/listening comprehension was found to be associated with two types of publication factors: year-of-publication and publication type. Implications of the findings were discussed.
AldersonJ.C. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. London: Continuum.
3.
AndersonR.C.FreebodyP. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In GuthrieJ.T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
4.
*AndringaS.OlsthoornN.van BeuningenC.SchoonenR.HulstijnJ. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62, 49–78.
5.
BernhardtE.B. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. London / New York: Routledge.
6.
BirdsongD. (2005). Interpreting age effects in second language acquisition. In KrollJ.F.de GrootA.M.B. (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 109–127). New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V.HigginsJ.P.T.RothsteinH.R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis: Version 2. Engelwood, NJ: Biostat.
8.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V.HigginsJ.P.T.RothsteinH.R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.
9.
BoultonA.CobbT. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 67, 348–393.
10.
*ChengJ.JoshuaM. (2018). The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing, 35, 3–25.
11.
CornellJ.MulrowC. (1999). Meta-analysis. In HermanA.GideonM. (Eds.), Research mythology in the social, behavioral, and life sciences (pp. 285–323). London: Sage.
12.
DahanD.MagnusonJ.S. (2006). Spoken word recognition. In TraxlerM.GernsbacherM.A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 249–283). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13.
DallerH.MiltonJ.Treffers-DallerJ. (2007). Editor’s introduction. In DallerH.MiltonJ.Treffers-DallerJ. (Eds.), Modelling and accessing vocabulary (pp. 1–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
*DeaconS.H.WadewoolleyL.KirbyJ. (2007). Crossover: The role of morphological awareness in French immersion children’s reading. Developmental Psychology, 43, 732–746.
15.
DickersinK. (2005). Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origin and scope, and preventing harm. In RothsteinH.R.SuttonA.J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 11–33). Chichester: Wiley.
16.
DócziB.KormosJ. (2016). Longitudinal developments in vocabulary knowledge and lexical organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
*DroopM.VerhoevenL. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 78–103.
18.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.
19.
EllisR. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. 2nd edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
FreedB.F. (1995). Language learning and study abroad. In FreedB.F. (Ed.), Second language acquisition in study abroad context. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
21.
GrabeW. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
*GuoS. (2001). A multidimensional analysis of reading English as a second language by native speakers of Chinese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.
23.
GyllstadH.VilkaitėL.SchmittN. (2015). Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats: Issues with guessing and sampling rates. IJAL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 66, 278–306.
24.
*HackingJ.F.TschirnerE. (2017). The contribution of vocabulary knowledge to reading proficiency: The case of college Russian. Foreign Language Annals, 50, 500–518.
25.
HenningG. (1991). A study of the effects of contextualization and familiarization on responses to TOEFL vocabulary test items. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.
26.
HenriksenB. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 303–317.
27.
HoaglinD.C.IglewiczB. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 1147–1149.
28.
HuM.NationI.S.P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in A Foreign Language, 23, 403–430.
29.
In’namiY.KoizumiR. (2012). Database selection guidelines for Meta-analysis in Applied Linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 169–184.
30.
JeonE.H.YamashitaJ. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64, 160–212.
31.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A Meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
32.
*KhaldiehS.A. (2001). The relationship between knowledge of Icraab, lexical knowledge, and reading comprehension of nonnative readers of Arabic. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 416–431.
33.
KodaK.ReddyP. (2008). Cross-linguistic transfer in second language reading. Language Teaching, 41, 497–508.
34.
*LauferB.Aviad-LevitzkyT. (2017). What type of vocabulary knowledge predicts reading comprehension: Word meaning recall or word meaning recognition?The Modern Language Journal, 101, 729–741.
35.
LauferB.GoldsteinZ. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399–436.
36.
LauferB.Ravenhorst-KalovskiG.C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in A Foreign Language, 22, 15–30.
37.
LauferB.ElderC.HillK.CongdonP. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge?Language Testing, 21, 202–226.
38.
LemhöferK.DijkstraT. (2004). Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 32, 533–550.
39.
*LervågA.AukrustV.G. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension growth between first and second language learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 612–620.
40.
LiS.ShintananiN.EllisR. (2012). Doing meta-analysis in SLA: Practices, choices, and standards. Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 384, 1–17.
*MatthewsJ. (2018). Vocabulary for listening: Emerging evidence for high and mid-frequency vocabulary knowledge. System, 72, 23–36.
43.
*MatthewsJ.ChengJ. (2015). Recognition of high frequency words from speech as a predictor of L2 listening comprehension. System, 52, 1–13.
44.
*McLeanS.KramerB.BeglarD. (2015). The creation and validation of a listening vocabulary levels test. Language Teaching Research, 19, 741–760.
45.
MearaP.WolterB. (2004). V_Links: Beyond vocabulary depth. In AlbrechtsenD.HaastrupK.HenriksenB. (Eds.), Angles on the English-speaking World: Volume 4 (pp. 85–96). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
46.
Melby-LervågM.LervågA. (2011). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 114–135.
47.
MiltonJ. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition: Volume 45. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
48.
MiltonJ.FitzpatrickT. (2014). Introduction: Deconstructing vocabulary knowledge. In MiltonJ.FitzpatrickT. (Eds.), Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
49.
MiltonJ.HopkinsN. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size: Do vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 127–147.
50.
MiltonJ.RiordanO. (2006). Level and script effects in the phonological and orthographic vocabulary size of Arabic and Farsi speakers. In DavidsonP.CoombeC.LloydD.PalfreymanD. (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary in another language (pp. 122–133). United Arab Emirates: TESOL Arabia.
51.
MuchinskyP.M. (1996). The correction for attenuation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 63–75.
52.
NationI.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
53.
NationI.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–81.
54.
NationI.S.P.BeglarD. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31, 9–13.
OdlinT. (2003). Crosslinguistic influence. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436–486). Oxford: Blackwell.
57.
OldinT. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
OrtegaL. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
59.
OswaldF.L.PlonskyL. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.
60.
PerfettiC.A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.
61.
PerfettiC.A.HartL. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In VerhoevenL.ElbroC.ReitsmaP. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
62.
PlonskyL. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.
63.
PlonskyL.DerrickD.J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553.
64.
*ProctorC.P.CarloM.AugustD.SnowC. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.
65.
*QianD.D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282–308.
66.
*QianD.D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513–536.
67.
*QianD.D. (2008). From single words to passages: Contextual effects on predictive power of vocabulary measures for assessing reading performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 5, 1–19.
68.
*QianD.D.SchedlM. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21, 28–52.
69.
ReadJ. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355–371.
70.
ReadJ. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
71.
ReadJ.ChapelleC.A. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary assessment. Language Testing, 18, 1–32.
72.
RichardsJ.C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77–89.
73.
RingbomH. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
74.
RingbomH. (1992). On L1 transfer in L2 comprehension and L2 production. Language Learning, 42, 85–112.
75.
RingbomH.JarvisS. (2009). The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In DoughtyC.LongM. (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 106–118). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
76.
RostM. (2013). Teaching and researching listening (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
77.
SanzC. (2014). Contributions of study abroad research to our understanding of SLA processes and outcomes: The SALA Project, an appraisal In Pérez-VidalC. (Ed.), Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts. Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
78.
SchmittN. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
79.
SchmittN. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64, 913–951.
80.
SchmittN.JiangX.GrabeW. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 26–43.
81.
SchwartzA.I.KrollJ.F. (2006). Bilingual lexical activation in sentence context. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 197–212.
82.
*StæhrL.S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 577–607.
83.
StanovichK.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.
84.
StewartJ. (2014). Do multiple-choice options inflate estimates of vocabulary size on the VST?Language Assessment Quarterly, 11, 271–282.
85.
TorgersonC.J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles’ Heel of systematic reviews?British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 89–102.
86.
*van GelderenA.SchoonenR.StoelR.D.de GlopperK.HulstijnJ. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477–491.
87.
van HellJ.de GrootA. (2008). Sentence context modulates visual word recognition and translation in bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 128, 431–451.
88.
van ZeelandH.SchmittN. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension?Applied Linguistics, 34, 457–479.
89.
*VandergriftL.BakerS. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65, 390–416.
90.
*VandergriftL.BakerS.C. (2018). Learner variables important for success in L2 listening comprehension in French immersion classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 74, 79–100.
91.
VermeerA. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217–234.
92.
WaringR. (1999). Tasks for assessing second language receptive and productive vocabulary. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea, UK.
93.
WebbS. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on Word Knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
94.
WescheM.ParibakhtT.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
