invited paper

Exploring L2 learners’vocabulary knowledge ofprimary and peripheral meanings
AIZAWA, Kazumi

Ⅰ

Introduction

Recently an increasing emphasis has been put on developing learners’ lexical competence. As
Wilkins （1972, p.111） says, “without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary
nothing can be conveyed.” This being the case, researchers direct an increasing amount of attention
to vocabulary acquisition in a wide variety of second or foreign language learning settings aroundthe world（Coady & Huckin, 1997; Nation, 2001; Milton, 2009, etc.）. For example, a number of studies
have been made not only on the development of vocabulary tests to measure learners’ receptive
knowledge, but also on tracking learners’ longitudinal development of vocabulary knowledge.
It is often argued that there are two aspects of vocabulary knowledge: the breadth and depth ofword knowledge. Breadth tests of vocabulary provide rough comparative estimates of an individual’s
overall vocabulary knowledge, while depth tests are defined either in terms of kinds of knowledge of
specific words or in terms of the degree of knowledge of such words. However, this metaphor has
not been explored empirically enough. We still do not know whether the knowledge of words withmultiple meanings should be categorized as width or depth of vocabulary knowledge. This study
investigated learners’ knowledge of high frequency polysemous words.
Ⅱ
1

Background

Vocabulary Tests
Several tests have been developed to measure learners’ vocabulary knowledge. Among breadth

tests of vocabulary knowledge, the Vocabulary Levels Test（hereafter VLT）
（Nation, 2001; Schmitt,Schmitt & Clapham, 2001）, the EFL Vocabulary Tests（Meara, 1992）and Eurocentres Vocabulary
Size Tests（Meara & Jones, 1988）（hereafter Yes/No test）are commonly used not only for research
purposes but also for pedagogical assessment purposes. These tests have two advantages: the test
− 31 −RESEARCH BULLETIN

No.77

user can choose the levels of vocabulary frequency band appropriate for the students; and an
adequate level of reliability can be established.
However, there are two concerns that suggest that these tests should be treated with caution. The
first concern is whether the breadth test of vocabulary knowledge can correctly estimate thenumber of words a learner knows. A preliminary study（Kosuge, 2003）conducted at a Japanese
junior high school compared the vocabulary size computed using the scores of the Vocabulary Size
Test（Mochizuki, 2003）and the number of words learners correctly translated. The results showedthat the number of known words estimated from the scores of the Vocabulary Size Test were about
10% more than learners actually translated correctly.
The second point is that some studies treat breadth of vocabulary knowledge as equivalent toEnglish proficiency; however, few empirical studies have been conducted to confirm the validity ofthis assumption.
Along with these issues common to all three of the tests shown in Table 1, there are more specificlimitations to each of the breadth tests. In most of the cases, a word has multiple meanings, yet the
VLT test only deals with one meaning of a word and does not test other meanings. As for the Yes/
No test, it does not ask test takers the meaning of a word. Test takers are presented with a sequenceof words and non-words. If they claim to know non-words, this is taken as evidence that they areoverstating their vocabulary knowledge and their scores are adjusted accordingly.
The depth tests of vocabulary knowledge are not as popular as breadth tests. As shown in Table 2,
the two most popular tests are the Word Association Test（hereafter WAT）
（Read, 1993）and the
Vocabulary Knowledge Scale（hereafter VKS）
（Paribakht & Wesche, 1993）. However, each of thesetests has limitations. The WAT uses 40 target words and presupposes that test takers know at least
one of the meanings of the words. However, in the case of Japanese students, whose vocabulary size
is not very large, it is important to verify this supposition. More importantly, if we cannot assume
that test takers know all the target words, it is difficult to interpret the test data because it is notaltogether clear whether the test actually measures the breadth aspect or the depth aspect of theTable 1. Breadth tests of vocabulary knowledge
Test
Nation（1990）
Schmitt, Schmitt &Clapham（2001）

Vocabulary Levels
Test

Meara（1992）

EFL Vocabulary Test

Meara & Jones（1990）

Eurocentres Vocabulary
Size Tests

Advantage

Disadvantage1）Can choose the levelappropriate for learners

Tests just one meaning

2）Adequate reliability

Doesn’t test word
meanings− 32 −

Exploring L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge of primary and peripheral meanings（AIZAWA）

Table 2. Depth tests of vocabulary knowledge
Test

Read（1993）

Word Association
Test（WAT）

Vocabulary
Paribakht & Wesche
Knowledge Scale（1993）（VKS）

Advantage

Disadvantage1）Can measure advanced
learner’s knowledge1）Not suitable for lower
proficiency students

2）Adequate validity2）If learners do not know the targetwords, what does the test
measure?

Can measure breadth and depth1）Limited number of words can betested2）Is this a test or a profile?

vocabulary knowledge.
In the case of the VKS, its use in the classroom to measure learners’ vocabulary knowledge is also
problematic. As Wesche & Paribakht （1996） admit, “the purpose of the VKS is not to estimate
general vocabulary knowledge, but rather to track the early development of specific words in an
instructional or experimental situation（p.33）.” For example, at level 5, the VKS requires students towrite sentences using the target words. Read（2000）advises caution about accepting a sentence
made by a student as evidence of word knowledge, as advanced learners can compose acceptablesentences without having a good understanding of what the target word means.
However, the most crucial point to be raised here is that there are only a few studies, at most,about which particular aspect of vocabulary knowledge is actually tested by a certain test. To makethis point clearer, it is useful here to refer to Ringbom’s description（1987）of vocabulary knowledge（Figure 1）. He classified lexical knowledge into six sub-elements: accessibility, morphophonology,
syntax, semantics, collocation and association. He also postulates that an educated native speaker’s
knowledge of a word usually means that it is near the very top of the continuum of each dimension,
while an L2 learner has to work his/her way up from the bottom.
If we compare the construct that each test measures and Ringbom’s description of vocabularyknowledge, it is clear which construct some tests measure, while other tests are rather difficult tocategorize by construct （see Table 3）. For example, the VLT and the Yes/No test measure“Semantics: Knowing one meaning only” and “Morphophonology: Knowing one form only”
respectively. On the other hand, it is not clear which aspects of vocabulary knowledge the WAT
and the VKS measure. If the construct is not clear, it is understandably difficult to interpret the testdata.

− 33 −RESEARCH BULLETIN

No.77

Figure 1. Ringbom’s description of Vocabulary knowledge（1987, p.37）
Reviews of the literature showed that, based upon Ringbom’s model, no tests have been developed
to measure the aspects of “Semantics: Knows all possible meanings.” This aspect of vocabularyknowledge seems to be a deeper aspect of the constructs which the VLT and the Yes/No tests
measure. They are also very important aspects of vocabulary knowledge from a pedagogical pointof view.
2

Defining polysemous words
A polysemous word is a word that has two or more meanings. These multiple meanings can beclassified into two categories:（1）a core sense, and（2）a peripheral sense. As Verspoor and Lowie（2003）explain, while there is only one core sense, there are often multiple peripheral senses withdifferent degrees of abstractness in meaning. Core meaning is the most literal meaning or the logical
Table 3. Comparison of test constructs and Ringbom’s dimensions of word knowledge
Test

Dimensions

Vocabulary Levels Test

Semantics: “Knows one meaning only”

Yes/No Test

Morphophonology: “Knows one form only”
Collocation: “Knows some constraints”

Word Association Test

Association: “Knows some constraints”
Semantics: “???”

Vocabulary Knowledge Scale???

− 34 −

Exploring L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge of primary and peripheral meanings（AIZAWA）

central application that can be related to the central applications by relatively clear semantic relation.
To sum up, the relationship between a core sense and peripheral senses is one of meaning extension.
Based upon the review in the previous sections, there is a question to be raised. It is not clear
which contributes more to English proficiency, to know two meanings of one particular word, or toknow one meaning of two words respectively. It seems to be very important to clarify whether theknowledge of multiple senses of the polysemous word is the breadth aspect or the depth aspect ofknowledge. If the correlation between a learner’s scores on a polysemous test and an English
proficiency test is high enough, we can assume that a polysemous word knowledge test is more of a
vocabulary size test.

On the other hand, if the correlation between a learner’s scores on apolysemous test and an English test is not as high as scores of a vocabulary size test, polysemous
word knowledge should be distinguished from breadth knowledge of words.
Therefore, in this study, two new sets of vocabulary tests were designed to measure theseparticular aspects of vocabulary knowledge.
Ⅲ
1

Study

PurposeThe purposes of this study were（1）to investigate the relationship of test scores of the primarymeaning-based vocabulary size test and those of the English proficiency test, （2） to measurelearners’ knowledge of primary and peripheral meanings, and（3）to compute the correlation among
these scores to find which test score can best predict those of English proficiency tests.
2

Participants
A total of 59 Japanese university students participated in the study on a voluntary basis. They

were taking English classes for a partial fulfillment of their course requirements in engineering.
3

Instruments

Vocabulary test: As a measurement of vocabulary knowledge, the first four sub-tests（1K through4K）of the TDU VLT（Aizawa, 2006）were used（see Figure 2）.This set of tests（hereafter VLT）isa paper-pencil receptive vocabulary test that estimates the sizes of overall vocabulary knowledge up
until the 4000-frequency band. Thirty randomly chosen vocabulary items were used for thatparticular frequency band, totaling 120 test items. At each frequency band, three Japanesetranslations of the target words were presented together with multiple choices of six English words.
Test takers were asked to match the three Japanese words with their English equivalents out of six− 35 −RESEARCH BULLETIN① art② light③ meeting④ pound⑤ technology⑥ year
① face② house③ moment④ purpose⑤ raise⑥ remain⎛ 1 技術，工業技術⎜ 2 光，光線⎜⎝ 3 会うこと，集まること① care② corner③ leader④ record⑤ today⑥ wife⎛ 16 今日，現代⎜ 17 記録，登録⎜⎝ 18 先導者，指揮者① argue② join③ provide④ see⑤ successful⑥ tend⎛4 家⎜ 5 顔，顔面⎜⎝ 6 目的，意図

No.77⎛ 19 ～する傾向がある⎜ 20 見える，会う⎜⎝ 21 ～を与える，用意する

1

16

2

17

3

18

4

19

5

20

6

21

Figure 2. Sample questions of TDU VLT
choices. The maximum score of 120 is the equivalent of the estimated value of 4000 words.
Polysemous words test: Two sets of target words（50 words and 52 words）with multiple meanings（nouns, verbs, and adjectives）were carefully chosen from the most frequent 3000 words of the
JACET 8000 word list. The first group of words has at least three distinguishable meanings, while
the latter has two different meanings. In order to have a large enough number of words, not only
polysemous words but also homonyms were included in this list（bank, nail, temple, wind, lead, andtear）.
The first task（PT1）asked learners to choose the incorrect definition for each target word fromthe four L1 definitions given（50 items）. If all of the four meanings are correct, participants wereasked to choose “all correct.” Therefore, each item has five different choices（A, B, C, D + E）. Thistask tested whether the learners knew the three or four correct meanings of the target words. For
example, in Question No.1 “due” has meanings of A, B, and D,” and does not have the meaning of C,
therefore learners were expected to answer “C.”
The second task（PT2）asked learners to choose the primary and secondary meanings of thetarget words in L1（52 words）. This task was focused on testing if learners know the primary and

Word

A

B

C

D

E

1

due

〜によって，せいで しかるべき

続く

当然の

すべて正解

2

even

〜でさえ

互角の

平らな

すべて正解

偶数の

3

fair

公正な

色白の

博覧会

晴れた

すべて正解

4

fast

ぐっすりと

しっかりした

断食

はやい

すべて正解

5

fine

細かい

罰金

晴れた

りっぱな

すべて正解

6

flat

アパート

退屈な

平らな

ちょうど

すべて正解

Figure 3. Sample questions of polysemous test 1− 36 −

解答欄

Exploring L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge of primary and peripheral meanings（AIZAWA）

Word

A

B

C

D

1

bank

川底

銀行

商店

堤防

2

choice

上等の品

整理

選択

粗品

3

copy

原本

筆記用具

本一部

模写

4

current

過去の

現在の

沈黙

流れ

5

desert

砂漠

拾う

湖

見捨てる

Primary

secondary

Figure 4. Sample questions of polysemous test 2
secondary meanings of the target words. For example, in Question No.1 “bank” has meanings of “B”
and “D,” and does not have the meaning of “A” and “C,” therefore learners were expected to choose“B” and “D.” Furthermore, “bank” is more often used as the meaning of “B” than “D,” therefore
learners were supposed to answer “B” as primary and “D” as secondary.
The scores from those two kinds of tests were compared with the vocabulary size test scores and
TOEIC scores they had previously taken.
4

Procedure
The TDU VLT, the polysemous word test 1 and 2, were given to students one by one over three

English class sessions. Before these tests, they had had a TOEIC institutional test. Four among the
59 participants had not taken this TOEIC test, so the number of participants amounted to 55.
5

Results
Table 4 shows the basic statistics of scores from the VLT and the TOEIC. The mean total score of

the VLT turned out to be 95.4, while the mean scores on each frequency-band ranged from 17.2（4K）to 27.9（1K）. There were significant differences between each neighboring level（MSe=7.7826, *p<.05,
LSD=1.6808）. Only between 2K and 3K, the mean scores were controverted against frequency（1K >2K*, 1K > 3K*, 1K > 4K*, 2K < 3K*, 2K > 4K*, 3K > 4K*）. We will come back later to discuss thiscontradiction in the discussion section.
Table 5 shows the basic statistics for the four tests: VLT, PT1, PT2 and TOEIC. As for the PT1, 8
Table 4. Basic statistics for VLT

Table 5. Basic statistics for four tests

Var.

Mean

S.D.

Min.

Max.

Var.

Mean

S.D.

Min.

Max.

1K

27.9

2.62

20

30

VLT

95.4

13.3

64

117

2K

24.4

3.99

13

30

PT1

24.6

3.66

16

33

3K

25.9

3.43

16

30

PT2

31.6

4.61

13

40

4K

17.2

5.59

5

28

TOEIC

324

63.8

210

480

VLT

95.4

13.3

64

117

− 37 −RESEARCH BULLETIN

No.77

items（copy, force, letter, nail, stage, train, start, and taste）were deleted from the data analysis
because fewer than 10 students answered correctly. So the maximum possible score for the PT1
decreased from 50 to 44. The mean score of the PT1 was 24.6 while that of PT2 was 31.6. The total
scores at the two tests were different（PT1, 44; PT2, 50）, so it is impossible to compare. It might,
however, be safely concluded that the PT1 was more difficult than the PT2, considering the
maximum possible scores of those tests.
Table 6 shows the correlations among scores of each frequency band of the VLT and score on the
TOEIC. The correlation between each frequency band on the VLT and that of the TOEIC ranged
from .485（1K）to .676（2K）. It is interesting to know that the discrepancy between TOEIC scoresand scores of 1K and 2K was quite large, compared to other neighboring levels（1K, r=.485; 2K,
r=.676）.
Table 7 shows the correlations among four test scores: VLT, PT1, PT2 and TOEIC. The highest
correlation was found between scores of the VLT and the TOEIC（r=.735）. It is striking to find outthat the correlation between the scores on the PT2 and the TOEIC was quite low （r=.294）.
Furthermore, the correlation between scores of the PT2 and those of the TOEIC was not significant.
This result clearly shows that the PT2 measures a different aspect of vocabulary knowledge,
compared to the VLT and the PT1.

Table 6. Correlation table of VLT and TOEIC
1K

1K

2K

3K

4K

TOEIC

−

0.591 *

0.457 *

0.524 *

0.485 *−

0.733 *

0.629 *

0.676 *−

0.708 *

0.632 *−

0.652 *

2K
3K
4K
TOEIC

−
*p<.05

Table 7. Correlation table of four tests
VLT
PT1

VLT

PT1

PT2

TOEIC

−

0.539 *

0.294 *

0.735 *−

0.208 ns

0.438 *−

0.225 ns

PT2
TOEIC

−
*p<.05− 38 −

Exploring L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge of primary and peripheral meanings（AIZAWA）

Ⅳ

Discussion

One striking result of this study is that a high correlation was found between the VLT and theTOEIC. More specifically, high（r >.7）correlations were found between 2K & 3K, 3K & 4K, andmoderately high correlations（.7 > r >.4）were found between the TOEIC & 2K, 3K & 4K. Theremight be a ceiling effect on 1K scores. This result may lead us to conclude that the breadth ofvocabulary knowledge is the most important for English proficiency.
The results of the VLT showed that a knowledge of the primary meaning correlated with the
TOEIC scores higher than that of the peripheral meanings. These results showed that whether
learners knew the primary meaning was the most important predictor of English proficiency. Thisfinding may explain why the bilingual vocabulary size test developed in Japan are being used toestimate learners’ English proficiency. As far as this result is concerned, a knowledge of polysemouswords can be considered somewhere between the breadth and width of vocabulary knowledge.
An interesting result was that scores of 2K and 3K were reversed. This was probably because
participants had been given quizzes on 3K frequency words （JACET 8000） as a part of classassignments in their regular class. Intentional vocabulary learning may explain the lower correlation
between the score of the 3K section and that of TOEIC score.
One of the polysemous tests did not correlate either with primary knowledge of the words or
TOEIC scores. One possibility was that the test itself had flaws. There were no contexts given.
Another possibility was that learners might have used test taking strategies of associating core
meanings and peripheral meanings by comparing multiple-choice translations in Japanese.
The last but most important point to be discussed is the relationship between vocabularyknowledge and English proficiency. Among the three vocabulary tests used in this survey, the scoresof the VLT had a higher correlation score with those of the TOEIC than the other two polysemous
tests. As most of the learners in this survey were lower-intermediate students, it is safely assumed
that they were below the 5000-word level. Based upon this assumption, the higher correlation
between the VLT and English proficiency test scores may support Meara’s assertion（1996）:breadthknowledge is more important for the learners with less than 5000 words, yet for those who haveover 5000 words, depth knowledge is more important.
Ⅴ

Conclusion

It may be concluded that knowledge of the peripheral meanings of words may be somewhat− 39 −RESEARCH BULLETIN

No.77

different from breadth of vocabulary knowledge. It could be somewhere between breadth and depthof vocabulary knowledge. The limitation of this study remains with the polysemous words tests. For
the next stage of this study, it is necessary to develop a new test format to measure learners’
polysemous knowledge.
Reference
Aizawa, K.（2006）.Rethinking frequency markers for English-Japanese dictionaries. In Murata, M., Minamiide, K., Tono,
Y., & Ishikawa, S.（Eds.）English lexicography in Japan（pp.108-119）.Tokyo, Taishukan.
Carter, R. & McCarthy, R.（1988）.Vocabulary and language teaching. London: Longman.
Coady, J. & Huckin, T. （Eds.）.（1997）. Second language vocabulary acquisition. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kosuge, A.（小菅敦子）（1993）.「語彙サイズテストからみた語彙の習得」太田洋・金谷憲・ 小菅敦子・日臺滋之（編著）『英語力はどのようにのびてゆくか』81-115, 大修館書店
Meara, P.（1992）.EFL Vocabulary Test. Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Wales Swansea.
───（1996）.The dimensions of lexical competence. In Brown, G., Malmkjaer, K., & Williams, J.（eds.）Performance &Competence in Second Language Acquisition（35-53）.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P. & Jones, G.（1988）. Vocabulary size as a placement indicator. In Grunwell（ed.）, Applied Linguistics inSociety（pp. 80-87）.London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Milton, J.（2009）.Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mochizuki, M.（望月正道）（2003）.「英語の語彙をどう評価するか」望月正道・相澤一美・投 野由紀夫（編著）『英語語彙の指導マニュアル』大修館書店 . 181-209.
Nation, I.S.P.（2001）.Vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paribakht, T. & Wesche, M. （1993）. The relationship between reading comprehension and second language
development in a comprehension- based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal 11, 9-29.
Read, J.（1993）.The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing 10, 355-371.
───（2000）.Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ringbom, H.（1987）. The role of first language in the second language learning. Clevedon/ Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. & Clapham, （2001）. Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the
Vocabulary Levels Test, Language Testing 18, 55-88.
Verspoor, M. & Lowie, W.（2003）.Making Sense of Polysemous Words. Language Learning 53, 547–586
Wesche, M. & Parbakht, T.（1996）. Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. The
Canadian Modern Language Review 53, 13-40.
Wilkins, D.（1972）.Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold.

− 40 −