Research into vocabulary knowledge often differentiates between breadth (how many words a person knows) and depth (how well the words are known). Both theoretical categories are essential for understanding language learners’ lexical development, but how the different aspects of vocabulary knowledge interconnect has not received the same attention as each individual dimension, especially in terms of productive knowledge. This study analyses lexis from mid-frequency lemmas in the K3–K9 frequency bands from the learner corpus PELIC (The University of Pittsburgh English Language Institute Corpus). Critically for learners, mastery of lexis in this frequency range is essential for achieving the English proficiency required for university study. From these mid-frequency items, a dataset of 7,554 tokens were collected from word families with multiple derivations and manually annotated. The findings showed high rates of collocational and derivational accuracy for the forms learners opted to use. However, compared to expert speaker texts in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), learners overused the verb forms and underused the noun forms of these lexical items. These patterns provide evidence of the interplay between breadth and depth in learners’ productive vocabulary usage, suggesting that increased lexical depth will naturally lead to greater lexical breadth and vice versa. Pedagogical implications reaffirm the importance of developing learners’ explicit morphological awareness and collocational accuracy. Suggestions for mid-frequency lexical items to prioritize in language learning are also provided, with a view to helping learners achieve academic readiness.
AndersonR.C.FreebodyP. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In GuthireJ.T. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Neward, DE: International Reading Association.
2.
BaayenR. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Bardovi-HarligK. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Oxford: Blackwell.
4.
BarrD.J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH.J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
5.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
6.
BauerL.NationP. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6, 253–279.
7.
BestgenY.GrangerS. (2014). Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 28–41.
8.
BeyersmannE.CasalisS.ZieglerJ.GraingerJ. (2015). Language proficiency and morpho-orthographic segmentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1054–1061.
9.
BhardwajV.IdeN. (2010). Anveshan: A framework for analysis of multiple annotators’ labeling behavior. In XueN.PoesioM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, ACL 2010 (pp. 47–55). Association for Computational Linguistics.
10.
BiberD.GrayB. (2010). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. In AartsB.CloseJ.LeechG. (Eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 99–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BonkW.J. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 14, 14–31.
12.
BooijG. (2017). Construction morphology. In AronoffM. (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
BoschS.KrauseH.LeminenA. (2016). The time-course of morphosyntactic and semantic priming in late bilinguals: A study of German adjectives. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20, 435–456.
14.
BrownD. (2013). Types of words identified as unknown by L2 learners when reading. System, 41, 1043–1055.
15.
CalliesM. (2015). Learner corpus methodology. In GrangerS.GilquinG.MeunierF. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 35–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
ChenC.TruscottJ. (2010). The effects of repetition and L1 lexicalization on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 31, 693–713.
17.
ChurchK.W.HanksP. (1990). Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics, 16, 22–29.
18.
CobbT. (2016). Numbers or numerology? A response to Nation (2014) and McQuillan (2016). Reading in a Foreign Language, 28, 299–304.
19.
CobbT. (2020) Familizer + Lemmatizer v.2.2 [computer program]. Available at: https://lextutor.ca/familizer (accessed May 2021).
20.
CosgroveA.WijayatilakeC. (2021). Open world advanced: Student’s book without answers, with online practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
CrossleyS.SkalickyS. (2019). Examining lexical development in second language learners: An approximate replication of Salsbury, Crossley & McNamara (2011). Language Teaching, 52, 385–405.
22.
CrossleyS.A.SalsburyT.McNamaraD.S. (2015). Assessing lexical proficiency using analytic ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36, 570–590.
23.
DabbaghA.EnayatM.J. (2019). The role of vocabulary breadth and depth in predicting second language descriptive writing performance. The Language Learning Journal, 47, 575–590.
24.
DaviesM. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca (accessed May 2021).
25.
DavisB.JuffsA.McCormickD.E., et al. (2015a). Academic vocabulary building in English, low intermediate: Volume 1. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
26.
DavisB.JuffsA.McCormickD.E., et al. (2015b). Academic vocabulary building in English, intermediate: Volume 2. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
27.
DengT.ShiJ.BiH.DunlapS.ChenB. (2017). The relationship between the morphological knowledge and L2 online processing of derivational words. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21, 402–418.
28.
DiependaeleK.DuñabeitiaJ.A.MorrisJ.KeuleersE. (2011). Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 2344–2358.
29.
DócziB.KormosJ. (2016). Longitudinal developments in vocabulary knowledge and lexical organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30.
DurrantP. (2018). Formulaic language in English for academic purposes. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 211–227). Abingdon: Routledge.
31.
EllisN.C. (2001). Memory for language. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
EllisN.C.Simpson-VlachR.MaynardC. (2008). Formulaic Language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.
33.
EvertS. (2009). Corpora and collocations. In LüdelingA.KytöM. (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp. 1212–1248). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
34.
FitzpatrickT. (2007), Word association patterns: unpacking the assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, 319–331.
35.
FitzpatrickT. (2012). Tracking the changes: Vocabulary acquisition in the study abroad context. The Language Learning Journal, 40, 81–98.
36.
GoldschneiderJ.M.DeKeyserR.M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.
37.
GrangerS. (Ed.). (1998). Learner English on computer. London & New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
38.
GrangerS. (2018). Formulaic sequences in learner corpora: Collocation and lexical bundles. In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 228–246). Abingdon: Routledge.
39.
GrangerS.BestgenY. (2014). The use of collocations by intermediate vs. advanced non-native writers: A bigram-based study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52, 229–252.
40.
GriesS.Th.BerezA.L. (2017). Linguistic annotation in/for corpus linguistics. In IdeN.PustejovskyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of linguistic annotation (pp. 379–409). Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
41.
GyllstadH.WolterB. (2015). Collocational processing in light of the phraseological continuum model: Does semantic transparency matter?Language Learning, 66, 296–323.
42.
HanssenE.VerslootA.HoekstraE., et al. (2015). Morphological variation in the speech of Frisian–Dutch bilinguals: (Dis)similarity of linking suffixes and plural endings. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5, 356–378.
43.
HaominZ.BilüZ. (2017). Multi-faceted morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in English as a second language learners: A multivariate analysis. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 40, 42–55.
44.
HatchE.BrownC. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
HenriksenB.Stenis StæhrL. (2009). Processes in the development of L2 collocational knowledge — a challenge for language learners, researchers and teachers. In BarfieldA.GyllstadH. (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language: Multiple interpretations (pp. 224–231). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
HovyE.LavidJ. (2010). Towards a ‘science’ of corpus annotation: A new methodological challenge for corpus linguistics. International Journal of Translation, 22, 13–36.
48.
HovyE.H.MarcusM.PalmerM.RamshawL.WeischedelR. (2006). OntoNotes: The 90% solution. In MooreR.C.BilmesJ.Chu-CarrollJ.SandersonM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics (pp. 57–60). Association for Computational Linguistics.
49.
HunstonS. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
IshiiT.SchmittN.2009. Developing an integrated diagnostic test of vocabulary size and depth. RELC, 40, 5–22.
51.
IshikawaK. (2019). Incidental and explicit learning of L2 derivational morphology and the nature of acquired knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 1377–1404.
52.
JuffsA. (2019). Lexical development in the writing of English language program students. In DeKeyserR.M.BotanaG.P. (Eds.), Reconciling methodological demands with pedagogical applicability (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
53.
JuffsA. (2020). Aspects of language development in an intensive English program. Abingdon: Routledge.
54.
JuffsA.HanN.-R.NaismithB. (2020). The University of Pittsburgh English Language Institute Corpus (PELIC) [Data set]. Available at: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3991977 (accessed May 2021).
55.
KangB. (2018). Collocation and word association: Comparing collocation measuring methods. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23, 85–113.
56.
KoprowskiM. (2005). Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59, 322–332.
57.
LauferB.WaldmanT. (2011). Verb–noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647–672.
58.
LauferB.ElderC.HillK.CongdonP. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge?Language Testing, 21, 202–226.
59.
LeeS. (2019). L1 transfer, proficiency, and the recognition of L2 verb–noun collocations: A perspective from three languages, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching. Epub ahead of print 4 January 2019. DOI: 10.1515/iral-2018-0220.
60.
Lenko-SzymanskaA. (2019). Defining and assessing lexical proficiency. New York: Routledge.
61.
LeveltW. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62.
LeveltW. (2001). Spoken word production: A theory of lexical access. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 98, 13464–13471.
63.
LewisM. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
64.
LiuE.ShawP.M. (2006). Investigating learner vocabulary: A possible approach to looking at EFL/ESL learners’ qualitative knowledge of the word. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39, 171–194.
65.
LorenzG.R. (1999). Adjective intensification – learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam / Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
66.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62.
67.
MacisM.SchmittN. (2017). Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations. Language Teaching Research, 21, 321–340.
68.
MantylaK.HuhtaA. (2014). Knowledge of word parts. In MiltonJ.FitzpatrickT. (Eds.), Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge (pp. 45–59). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
69.
McIntoshC.FrancisB.PooleR (Eds.). (2009). Oxford collocations dictionary: For students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
MeddingsL.ThornburyS. (2009). Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language teaching. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.
71.
MiltonJ. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
72.
MiltonJ.WadeJ.HopkinsN. (2010). Aural word recognition and oral competence in English as a foreign language. In Chacón-BeltránR.Abello-ContesseC.Torreblanca-LópezM. (Eds.), Insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 83–98). Toronto, ON: Multilingual Matters.
73.
MochizukiM.AizawaK. (2000). An affix acquisition order for EFL learners: An exploratory study. System, 28, 291–304.
74.
MoghadamS.ZaidahZ.GhaderpourM. (2012). A review on the important role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 555–563.
75.
NationI.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76.
NationI.S.P. (2016). Making and using word lists for language learning and testing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
77.
NationP.WaringR. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In SchmittN.McCarthyM. (Eds.) Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78.
NesselhaufN. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
79.
NizonkizaD.VdpoelK. (2019). Mind the gap: Towards determining which collocations to teach. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics Plus, 56, 13–30.
80.
PaquotM. (2017). The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research, 35, 121–145.
81.
ParentK. (2019). Do language learners walk the walk? Noun–verb converted forms in learner English. 언어학 연구 (Linguistics Research), 50, 215–244.
82.
ParibakhtT.S.WescheM. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 9–29.
83.
Pellicer-SánchezA. (2019). Examining second language vocabulary growth: Replications of Schmitt (1998) and Webb & Chang (2012). Language Teaching, 52, 512–523.
84.
QianD.D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282–308.
85.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org (accessed May 2021).
86.
RamptonM.B.H. (1990). Displacing the ‘native speaker’: Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance. ELT Journal, 44, 97–101.
87.
ReadJ. (1998). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In KunnanA. (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 41–60). New York: Routledge.
88.
ReadJ. (2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined? In BogaardsP.LauferB. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 209–227). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
89.
RehakK.M.JuffsA. (2011). Native and non-native processing of morphologically complex English words: Testing the influence of derivational prefixes. In GranenaG., et al. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2010 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 125–142). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
90.
RichardsJ. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77–89.
91.
RocheT.HarringtonM. (2013). Recognition vocabulary knowledge as a predictor of academic performance. Language Testing in Asia, 3, 1–13.
92.
SaitoK. (2020), Multi- or single-word units? The role of collocation use in comprehensible and contextually appropriate second language speech. Language Learning, 70, 548–588.
93.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94.
SchmittN. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
95.
SchmittN. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
96.
SchmittN. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64, 913–951.
97.
SchmittN. (2019). Understanding vocabulary acquisition, instruction, and assessment: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 52, 261–274.
98.
SchmittN.MearaP. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework: Word associations and verbal suffixes. SSLA, 20, 17–36.
99.
SchmittN.ZimmermanC.B.2002. Derivative word forms: What do learners know?TESOL Quarterly, 36, 145–171.
100.
SchützeC.T.SprouseJ. (2013). Judgment data. In PodesvaR.J.SharmaD. (Eds.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 27–50). New York: Cambridge University Press.
101.
SinclairJ. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
102.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA. (2015). Collocation in beginner learner writing: A longitudinal study. System, 53, 148–160.
103.
SpeelmanD.HeylenK.GeeraertsD. (Eds.). (2018). Mixed-effects regression models in linguistics. Cham: Springer.
104.
StubbsM. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Functions of Language, 2, 23–55.
105.
TanD.PandianA.JaganathanP. (2016). Lexical testing and the reliability of the modified vocabulary knowledge scale. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7, 91–96.
106.
VieraA.J.GarrettJ.M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37, 360–363.
107.
WaringR. (1997). A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Immaculata [occasional papers of Notre Dame Seishin University, Okayama], 1, 53–68.
108.
WellsR. (1960). Nominal and verbal style. In SebeokE. (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 213–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
109.
WillisD. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins COBUILD.
110.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
111.
WrayA. (2018). Concluding question: Why don’t second language learners more proactively target formulaic sequences? In Siyanova-ChanturiaA.Pellicer-SanchezA. (Eds.), Understanding formulaic language: A second language acquisition perspective (pp. 248–269). Abingdon: Routledge.
112.
WuZ.JuffsA. (2021). Effects of L1 morphological type on L2 morphological awareness. Second Language Research. Epub ahead of print 7 March 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0267658321996417.
113.
ZarevaA.WolterB. (2012). The ‘promise’ of three methods of word association analysis to L2 lexical research. Second Language Research, 28, 41–67.
114.
ZhangL.J. (2002). Metamorphological awareness and EFL students’ memory, retention, and retrieval of English adjectival lexicons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 934–944.
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.
