What counts as an acceptable answer in a vocabulary translation test? A preliminary study on the scoring schemes for learners of Chinese as a second/foreign language
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
What counts as an acceptable answer in a vocabulary translation test? A preliminary study on the scoring schemes for learners of Chinese as a second/foreign language
The scoring scheme used in vocabulary translation tests remains a debate topic among researchers. This study aims to examine the impact of various scoring schemes on the reliability and validity of the Chinese Vocabulary Proficiency Test (CVPT), as well as on the scores and rankings of test-takers. A total of 170 Indonesian Chinese as a second/foreign language (CS/FL) learners were recruited to complete the CVPT, which required the participants to translate 100 Chinese words into Indonesian or explain their meanings in Indonesian. The translation responses were classified into four levels based on the semantic distance between such answers and the intended word meanings. Subsequently, five distinct scoring schemes were devised, encompassing strict and lenient 2-point schemes, strict and lenient 3-point schemes, and a 4-point scheme. The analysis revealed that the five scoring schemes exhibited comparable levels of reliability and validity across various metrics, including person - and item-level reliability and separation values, and external validity, as well as in terms of test-takers’ scores and rankings. However, the three polychotomous scoring schemes tended to yield a greater degree of dimensionality compared to the two dichotomous scoring schemes. Implications for the development of scoring frameworks in vocabulary translation assessments and for the instruction of vocabulary are proposed based on the findings.
AitchisonJ. (2012). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
2.
AkaseM. (2022). Longitudinal measurement of growth in vocabulary size using Rasch-based test equating. Language Testing in Asia, 12, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00155-8
3.
AndersonR.C.NagyW.E. (1991). Word meanings. In BarrR.KamilM.MosenthalP.PearsonP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 690–724). Longman.
4.
AndrichD. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Sage.
5.
ArnaudP. J. L. (1984). The lexical richness of written productions and the validity of vocabulary tests. In CulhaneT.Klein-BraleyC.StevensonD. K. (Eds.), Practice and problems in language testing (pp. 14-28). University of Essex.
6.
AryadoustV.NgL.Y.SayamaH. (2021). A comprehensive review of Rasch measurement in language assessment: Recommendations and guidelines for research. Language Testing, 38(1), 6–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220927487
7.
BachmanL.F.CohenA.D. (Eds.). (1999). Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research. Cambridge University Press.
BooneW.J.NoltemeyerA. (2017). Rasch analysis: A primer for school psychology researchers and practitioners. Cogent Education, 4(1), Article 1416898. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1416898
10.
BotesE.DewaeleJ.-M.GreiffS. (2022). Taking stock: A meta-analysis of the effects of foreign language enjoyment. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 205–232. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.2.3
11.
BrownJ.D. (2002). Do cloze tests work? Or is it just an illusion?Second Language Studies, 21(1), 79–125. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/40654
ChaudronC. (2001). Progress in language classroom research: Evidence from The Modern Language Journal, 1916–2000. Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00097
14.
ChenT. (2018). The contribution of morphological awareness to lexical inferencing in L2 Chinese: Comparing more-skilled and less-skilled learners. Foreign Language Annals, 51(4), 816–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12365
15.
ChenT.KodaK.WienerS. (2020). Word-meaning inference in L2 Chinese: An interactive effect of learners’ linguistic knowledge and words’ semantic transparency. Reading and Writing, 33(10), 2639–2660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10058-w
16.
ChengJ.MatthewsJ. (2016). The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing, 35(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216676851
CronbachL.J. (1942). An analysis of techniques for diagnostic vocabulary testing. The Journal of Educational Research, 36(3), 206–217. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27528353
21.
CrossleyS.A. (2013). Assessing automatic processing of hypernymic relations in first language speakers and advanced second language learners: A semantic priming approach. The Mental Lexicon, 8(1), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.8.1.05cro
22.
CrutchS.J.WilliamsP.RidgwayG.R.BorgenichtL. (2012). The role of polarity in antonym and synonym conceptual knowledge: Evidence from stroke aphasia and multidimensional ratings of abstract words. Neuropsychologia, 50(11), 2636–2644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.07.015
23.
DallerH.MiltonJ.Treffers-DallerJ. (Eds.). (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
24.
DengB. (2017). Yuyi guanxi dui yuyi qidong xiaoying de yingxiang[The influence of semantic relationship on semantic priming effects]. [Master’s thesis, Hunan University]. https://www.cnki.net/
25.
DócziB. (2020). An overview of conceptual models and theories of lexical representation in the mental lexicon. In WebbS. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 46–65). Routledge.
DrumP.A.KonopakB.C. (1987). Learning word meanings from written context. In McKeownM.G.CurtisM.E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 73–87). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28.
DurkinK.ManningJ. (1989). Polysemy and the subjective lexicon: Semantic relatedness and the salience of intraword senses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(6), 577–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067161
29.
EyckmansJ. (2004). Measuring receptive vocabulary size: Reliability and validity of the Yes/No Vocabulary Test for French-speaking learners of Dutch. Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/19469
30.
FengL.FengH.BaiS.WuJ. (2020). Hanyu eryu shuiping kuaisu ceshi de shijuan yanfa fenxi-jiyu dengjuli wanxing tiankong de yanjiu [An analysis of proficiency test for CSL (Chinese as second language) based on fixed-ratio cloze questions]. Yuyan wenzi yingyong, (3), 69–79. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.16499/j.cnki.1003-5397.2020.03.011
31.
GellertA.S.ElbroC. (2013). Cloze tests may be quick, but are they dirty? Development and preliminary validation of a cloze test of reading comprehension. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282912451971
32.
GrunertM.L.RakerJ.R.MurphyK.L.HolmeT.A. (2013). Polytomous versus dichotomous scoring on multiple-choice examinations: Development of a rubric for rating partial credit. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1310–1315. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400247d
GyllstadH.McLeanS.StewartJ. (2020). Using confidence intervals to determine adequate item sample sizes for vocabulary tests: An essential but overlooked practice. Language Testing, 38(4), 558–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220979562
36.
GyllstadH.Vilkaitė-LozdienėL.SchmittN. (2015). Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats: Issues with guessing and sampling rates. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(2), 278–306. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.166.2.04gyl
37.
HaH.T. (2021a). Exploring the relationships between various dimensions of receptive vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading comprehension. Language Testing in Asia, 11, Article 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00131-8
38.
HaH.T. (2021b). A Rasch-based validation of the Vietnamese version of the Listening Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing in Asia, 11, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00132-7
39.
HaberJ.PoesioM. (2024). Polysemy—Evidence from linguistics, behavioral science, and contextualized language models. Computational Linguistics, 50(1), 351–417. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00500
40.
HamadaY.YanagawaK. (2024). Aural vocabulary, orthographic vocabulary, and listening comprehension. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 62(2), 953–997. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0100
Hamp-LyonsL. (2016b). Farewell to holistic scoring. Part Two: Why build a house with only one brick?Assessing Writing, 29, A1–A5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.06.006
43.
HanD.QianD.D. (2024). Evaluating the roles of breadth and depth of aural vocabulary knowledge in listening comprehension of EFL learners: An investigation applying auditory measures. System, 120, Article 103207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103207
44.
HarschC.MartinG. (2013). Comparing holistic and analytic scoring methods: Issues of validity and reliability. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.742422
45.
HashimotoB.J. (2021). Is frequency enough?: The frequency model in vocabulary size testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1860058
HsuC.-L.JinK.-Y.ChiuM.M. (2020). Cognitive diagnostic models for random guessing behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article e570365. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.570365
48.
HulstijnJ.H. (2012). The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000678
49.
JeonH.-A.LeeK.-M.KimY.-B.ChoZ.-H. (2009). Neural substrates of semantic relationships: Common and distinct left-frontal activities for generation of synonyms vs. antonyms. NeuroImage, 48(2), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.06.049
50.
JoyceP. (2018). L2 vocabulary learning and testing: The use of L1 translation versus L2 definition. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1028088
51.
KaramiH. (2012). The development and validation of a bilingual version of the Vocabulary Size Test. RELC Journal, 43(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212439359
52.
KeS.KodaK. (2019). Is vocabulary knowledge sufficient for word-meaning inference? An investigation of the role of morphological awareness in adult L2 learners of Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 40(3), 456–477. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx040
53.
KongA. (2024). The directional effects of hyponyms and hypernyms in semantic priming. Springer.
54.
KremmelB.SchmittN. (2016). Interpreting vocabulary test scores: What do various item formats tell us about learners’ ability to employ words?Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1237516
55.
LauferB.Aviad-LevitzkyT. (2017). What type of vocabulary knowledge predicts reading comprehension: Word meaning recall or word meaning recognition?The Modern Language Journal, 101(4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12431
LeeS.T.van HeuvenW.J.B.PriceJ.M.LeongC.X.R. (2022). Translation norms for Malay and English words: The effects of word class, semantic variability, lexical characteristics, and language proficiency on translation. Behavior Research Methods, 55, 3585–3601. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01977-3
59.
LeechG.N. (1974). Semantics. Penguin.
60.
LemhöferK.BroersmaM. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0
61.
LiP.SepanskiS.ZhaoX. (2006). Language History Questionnaire: A web-based interface for bilingual research. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192770
62.
LiX.SuX. (Eds.). (2021). Xiandai hanyu changyong cibiao (di er ban) [List of common vocabulary in modern Chinese] (2nd ed.). The Commercial Press.
63.
LinC.-K. (2018). Effects of removing responses with likely random guessing under Rasch measurement on a multiple-choice language proficiency test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(4), 406–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1534237
LiuY.MaJ. (2010). Yanzhi yinjie he hanzi cihui dengji huafen tanxun hanyu guoji jiaoyu xin siwei [The development of the graded Chinese syllables, characters and words: Exploring the new perspectives of global Chinese education]. Shijie hanyu jiaoxue, 24(1), 82–92. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.13724/j.cnki.ctiw.2010.01.003
67.
LucasM. (2000). Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulleting & Review, 7(4), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212999
68.
MaX.GongY.GaoX.XiangY. (2017). The teaching of Chinese as a second or foreign language: A systematic review of the literature 2005–2015. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1268146
69.
MatthewsP.H. (2007). The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
70.
McLeanS.KramerB.BeglarD. (2015). The creation and validation of a Listening Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814567889
71.
McLeanS.KramerB.StewartJ. (2015). An empirical examination of the effect of guessing on Vocabulary Size Test scores. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v04.1.mclean.et.al
72.
McLeanS.StewartJ.BattyA.O. (2020). Predicting L2 reading proficiency with modalities of vocabulary knowledge: A bootstrapping approach. Language Testing, 37(3), 389–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219898380
73.
McNamaraT.KnochU. (2012). The Rasch wars: The emergence of Rasch measurement in language testing. Language Testing, 29(4), 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211430367
74.
MochidaA.HarringtonM. (2006). The yes/no test as a measure of receptive vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 23(1), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt321oa
75.
NagyW.E.HermanP.A.AndersonR.C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/747758
NationI.S.P. (2007). Fundamental issues in modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. In DallerH.MiltonJ.Treffers-DallerJ. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 35–43). Cambridge University Press.
NationI.S.P.CoxheadA. (2021). Measuring native-speaker vocabulary size. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/Z.233
81.
NationI.S.P.WebbS. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Heinle Cengage Learning.
82.
NelsonT.O.DunloskyJ. (1994). Norms of paired-associate recall during multitrial learning of Swahili–English translation equivalents. Memory, 2(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658219408258951
83.
OhM.H.Mancilla-MartinezJ.HwangJ.K. (2023). Revisiting the traditional conceptualizations of vocabulary knowledge as predictors of dual language learners’ English reading achievement in a new destination state. Applied Psycholinguistics, 44(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716422000479
84.
ParkH.I.SolonM.Dehghan-ChaleshtoriM.GhanbarH. (2022). Proficiency reporting practices in research on second language acquisition: Have we made any progress?Language Learning, 72(1), 198–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12475
85.
PekrunR. (2017). Emotion and achievement during adolescence. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12237
86.
PekrunR.MarshH.W.SuessenbachF.FrenzelA.C.GoetzT. (2023). School grades and students’ emotions: Longitudinal models of within-person reciprocal effects. Learning and Instruction, 83, Article 101626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101626
87.
PinillosM.A. (2024). Differences between phonological and orthographic vocabulary knowledge among L1-Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Porta Linguarum, (41), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.vi41.27594
88.
PlonskyL. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000399
89.
PlonskyL.DerrickD.J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. The Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 538–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12335
90.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079
91.
PriorA.MacWhinneyB.KrollJ.F. (2007). Translation norms for English and Spanish: The role of lexical variables, word class, and L2 proficiency in negotiating translation ambiguity. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 1029–1038. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193001
RamachandranS.D.RahimH.A. (2004). Meaning recall and retention: The impact of the translation method on elementary level learners’ vocabulary learning. RELC Journal, 35(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820403500205
94.
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). John Benjamins.
95.
RomagnoliC.TaoH. (2022). Discourse markers in Mandarin L1 and Italian L2 monologue production and their pedagogical implications. In YuanF.HeB.HuW. (Eds.), Pedagogical grammar and grammar pedagogy in Chinese as a second language (pp. 167–186). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003161646-13
96.
SadeghiK. (2021). Assessing second language reading: Insights from cloze tests. Springer.
97.
SchmittN. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00042
SchmittN. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan.
100.
SchmittN. (2019). Understanding vocabulary acquisition, instruction, and assessment: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 52(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000053
SchmittN.SchmittD. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000018
103.
SeidenbergM.S.McClellandJ.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.96.4.523
SmithE.E.ShobenE.J.RipsL.J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81(3), 214–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036351
StewartJ.WhiteD.A. (2011). Estimating guessing effects on the Vocabulary Levels Test for differing degrees of word knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 370–380. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41307638
109.
StoeckelT.I.M.SukigaraT. (2018). A serial multiple-choice format designed to reduce overestimation of meaning-recall knowledge on the Vocabulary Size Test. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 1050–1062. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44987048
110.
StubbeR. (2015). Replacing translation tests with yes/no tests. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 38–48. https://www.castledown.com/journals/vli/article/view/vli.v04.2.stubbe
TanL.Y.McLeanS.KimY.A.VittaJ.P. (2024). Rasch modelling vs. item facility: Implications on the validity of assessments of Asian EFL/ESL vocabulary knowledge and lexical sophistication modelling. Language Testing in Asia, 14(1), Article 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00327-8
113.
TaylorL.GalacziE. (2011). Scoring validity. In TaylorL. (Ed.), Examining speaking: Research and practice in assessing second language speaking (pp. 171–192). Cambridge University Press.
114.
The State Language Affairs Commission. (2021). Guoji zhongwen jiaoyu zhongwen shuiping dengji biaozhun [Chinese proficiency grading standards for international Chinese language education]. Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
115.
ThornburyS. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Pearson Education.
116.
TokowiczN.KrollJ.F.De GrootA.M.B.van HellJ.G. (2002). Number-of-translation norms for Dutch–English translation pairs: A new tool for examining language production. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 34(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.3758/Bf03195472
TreimanR.KesslerB.CaravolasM. (2019). What methods of scoring young children’s spelling best predict later spelling performance?Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12241
119.
TremblayA. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research: “Clozing” the gap. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(3), 339–372. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000015
120.
WangJ.DengA. (2020). Laihua liuxue yukesheng hanyu cihui zhishi ceping sheji [The design of the Basic Chinese Vocabulary Knowledge Test for preuniversity students studying in China]. Zhongguo kaoshi, (12), 23–29. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.19360/j.cnki.11-3303/g4.2020.12.004
121.
WebbS. (Ed.). (2020). The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies. Routledge.
122.
WebbS.SasaoY.BallanceO. (2017). The updated Vocabulary Levels Test: Developing and validating two new forms of the VLT. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 33–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.168.1.02web
123.
WenY.van HeuvenW.J.B. (2017). Chinese translation norms for 1,429 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 1006–1019. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0761-x
124.
WindS.HuaC. (2021). Rasch measurement theory analysis in R: Illustrations and practical guidance for researchers and practitioners. Routledge.
125.
WongK.LiW.XuR.ZhangZ. (2022). Introduction to Chinese natural language processing. Springer Nature.
126.
XuW.ZhangH.SukjairungwattanaP.WangT. (2022). The roles of motivation, anxiety and learning strategies in online Chinese learning among Thai learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article e962492. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.962492
127.
ZhangC.ZhangH.ZhengX.YangJ. (2020). Hanying shuangyuzhe yingyu shuiping celiang fangfa de bijiao yanjiu [A comparative study of English proficiency testing in Chinese–English bilinguals]. Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu, 52(5), 701–712. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.19923/j.cnki.fltr.2020.05.006
ZhangH. (2021). Hanyu shuiping fenji ceshi fangfa dui yanjiu jieguo de yingxiang zaitan-yi hanyu shuiping he yuanyuyan yishi zhijian guanxi weili [A further study on the influence of Chinese language proficiency tests on the research results]. Guoji hanyu, 5, 37–46. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?
130.
ZhangH.JiangY.YangJ. (2020). Investigating the influence of different L2 proficiency measures on research results. Sage Open, 10(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020920604
131.
ZhangH.SunP.BianglaeY.WidiawatiW. (2024). The development of a Chinese Vocabulary Proficiency Test (CVPT) for learners of Chinese as a second/foreign language. Language Testing. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322231219998
132.
ZhangJ. (2017). Hanyu dier yuyan xuexizhe jieshouxing cihuiliang shizheng yanjiu [Investigation into receptive vocabulary size of second language learners of Chinese]. Yuyan wenzi yingyong, (3), 125–133. https://link.cnki.net/doi/10.16499/j.cnki.1003-5397.2017.03.014
133.
ZhangS.ZhangX. (2022). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 26(4), 696–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913998
ZhangX.LuX. (2014). A longitudinal study of receptive vocabulary breadth knowledge growth and vocabulary fluency development. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt014
136.
ZhangY. (2024). Xiandai hanyu cilei, cichang, ciyi de shuliang tezheng fenxi [Quantitative analysis of word classes, word lengths and word meanings in modern Chinese]. Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan daxue xuebao, 44(5), 64–80.
