A QUESTION OF GENERATED WORD LISTS
Ross Sampson
Kanda University of International Studies

ABSTRACTAs Saville-Troike (1984 as cited in Jordan, 1997, p.149) states,“vocabulary knowledge is the single most important area of second
language competence regarding academic achievement”. The words used
to convey meaning are so important, in order to do well academically andthrive in your disciplinary discourse community, which means knowing
which words to use is vital. This article examines learning strategies used
to utilise the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000) within an English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) coursebook. It concludes that a general list of
useful academic words can benefit students, however it suggests that
more work needs to be done in order to cater to specific student needs andadditionally to generate more spoken corpuses. This paper will conclude
with the study’s relevance to the academic writing context in KUIS.

INTRODUCTION
In many university contexts it is difficult to adequately supply students with the necessary
vocabulary that they need. This is why investigating a general academic provision of
vocabulary and its feasibility is of value to English for Academic Purposes (EAP) ​. The aim of
this study is to put a spotlight on the Academic Word List (AWL) as an optimal generalacademic list of vocabulary for the university context. This study also hopes to provide thereader with a clear understanding of the work that has been done related to academic word
list corpora and enable teachers to assess what the vocabulary requirements of their own
learners may be. In the context of universities in Japan, and in particular KUIS, this study
may prove useful for teachers, especially teachers whose expertise may not lie in
vocabulary. At KUIS, many courses, particularly those with titles related to academia, haveclear vocabulary components. Many teachers are aware of the need for learners of English
to build on their breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, after reading thisarticle they may consider the question of discipline and context specific vocabulary needs
versus general vocabulary provision.
Insufficient vocabulary knowledge has been connected to a gap in academic achievement,
primarily by English language learners (Chall, 1996; Hart & Risely, 1995; Neuman, 2008;
Hierbert & Lubliner, 2008; Risley, 1995; Townsend, Filippini, Collins, & Biancarosa, 2012 ascited in Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 305). A lack of vocabulary can have a significant effecton status within a university and has been identified as an obstacle to success (Corson,
1997; Snow & Kim, 2007). Corson (1997) argues that a good grasp of academic vocabulary isevidence of being in control of academic meaning systems which lead to success.

18

LITERATURE REVIEW
Academic vocabulary is words which appear with a much greater frequency in academic
texts than other types of texts (Townsend & Kiernan, 2015). This can be difficult to fully
master (even for native speakers) for a number of reasons; it is infrequent, it conveys
abstract ideas and it is largely Graeco-latin (Nation, 2001). It contains morphologicallycomplex words, many parts of speech are nominalized and it is information dense (Biber,2006). However, all these aspects are interrelated and together produce academic
communicative functions.
Research into corpus linguistics has brought to light the fact that vocabulary differs acrossregisters. A register such as academic texts must be properly represented to account fordisciplines on opposite ends of the academic spectrum (hard sciences – applied subjects).
Representation is crucial for a list claiming to be ‘general academic’. Issues of the number,
length and types of texts to include are debated (Biber, 1993; Sinclair, 1991 as cited in
Coxhead, 2000, p. 215). Sinclair (1991) warns that a corpus which “does not reflect the sizeand shape of the documents from which it is drawn, is in danger of being seen as acollection of fragments where only small-scale patterns are accessible” (p. 19).
A number of attempts have been made to produce a list of the most useful generalacademic words. In 1984, Xue and Nation (Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014; Nation& Hwang, 1995) created the University Word List (UWL). This was a combination of four
previous lists (by Campion & Elley, 1971; Ghadessy, 1979; Praninskas, 1972), these lists werecompiled all before the internet, meaning they would have been very time consuming. This
list was used by many teachers and course designers; however, its selection principals(similar to previous lists) meant it failed at representing a comprehensive academic list.
Nowadays, the most widely known and used academic list is one compiled by Avril Coxhead(2000) which was rigorously validated. Coxhead created the AWL with the intention ofproviding a tool to guide teaching, learning and materials design. It was done byinvestigating the frequency and range of words outside the first 2000 most frequent words
of English. The total corpus made up three and a half million running words of written
academic text. The AWL focused on word families (a headword plus all inflected andderived forms Nation, 2001) as this solved the question of what constituted a word
(Coxhead, 2000). Coxhead (2015) points out “selecting items for teaching is a major area ofconcern because of the cost-benefit equation, learners and teachers need to get the best
return for effort” (p. 641). The criteria for word selection looked at specialised occurrences,which are words found outside the most frequent two thousand. Range was a focus, thismeant a member of a word family had to occur at least ten times in each of the four main
sections and in fifteen or more of the subject areas. Frequency was also a focus, this meant
a member of a word family had to occur at least a hundred times in the corpus (Coxhead,
2000, p. 221). Range was prioritised over frequency, as word count favouring frequency
would have been biased by longer texts. Coxhead found the difference in coverage acrossthe four disciplines to favour Commerce students (2000). She stated that her AWL words
occurred in a wide range of subject areas with one hundred and seventy-two of the
five-hundred and seventy word families occurring in all twenty-eight subject areas(Coxhead, 2000, p. 222), and ninety-four percent of the word families occurred in twenty or
more subject areas. She claimed that the first 2000 words in the General Service List (GSL)(West, 1953) combined with the AWL make up about eighty-six percent of the academic

19

corpus, suggesting that pursuing the AWL can increase learners’ understanding of texts
significantly. Coxhead used a second corpus to test the AWL’s coverage rate and found allword families accounted for, with an 8.5 percent coverage (Coxhead, 2000). She also foundthat by testing the AWL in a non-academic corpus it could be concluded that the majorityof word families (410 clearly academic) in the AWL could be understood as academic(Coxhead, 2000, ​p. 224). She finally compared her AWL with the previously used and highly
regarded UWL, and claimed that despite the AWL being smaller, it had a higher and thus
better coverage of academic texts as well as a wider subject area range (Coxhead, 2000, p.
226​).​
Despite the AWL being held to such a high regard, it naturally has critics. Durrant (2014)
states that researchers have suggested there may not be a generic academic vocabulary ofuse for all EAP learners. This is because words are not evenly dispersed and vary in use andacross disciplines. Hyland and Tse (2007) have criticised Coxhead’s list as they believe
corpus analysis should inform vocabulary teaching in EAP but should be more geared
towards specific needs rather than general. The specific vs. general vocabulary debate
continues to be a point of contention among researchers in this area. Hyland and Tse
describe Coxhead’s AWL as “opportunistic”, as it does not fairly represent each discipline.
They say – “the fact that all disciplines shape words for their own uses seriously undermines
attempts to describe a core academic vocabulary” (2007, p. 240). Already holes can be seenin the AWL that make it appear not as robust as once thought.
Hyland and Tse (2007) conducted a study which created a corpus containing; long and shorttexts, peer-reviewed articles, pedagogic texts and student writing from disciplines, making
up three sub-corpora of: engineering (mechanical and electronic), sciences (biology,
physics, and computer science) and social sciences (sociology, business and applied
linguistics). They found 534 AWL word families (93.7%) had irregular distributions acrossthese sub-corpora and 40% (227) of these had at least 60% of all instances in just one
sub-corpus. Only 36 word families were found to be evenly distributed, meaning only amuch smaller general academic word list could be provided. They continued to show fromtheir study that the unevenness also occurs within each sub-corpus, stating that only
one-word family occurred equally across the three science disciplines, seven evenly in social
sciences and forty-seven in the engineering disciplines. They suggested items have alimited range (semantic variation) across sub-corpora, which means a more complex
picture of language in use. They also cautioned, as most words are polysemous, we must be
cautious about generalising word families where “meaning could differ across each
inflected and derived word form” (Oakley, 2003, as cited in Hyland & Tse, 2007, p. 243).
Schmitt and Zimmerman (2002), in a study on derived word forms, found it was uncommon
for learners to know all word forms, which means knowing one word in a word family does
not necessarily mean knowing the others. Hyland and Tse (2007) showed that one of themost frequent AWL words in the corpus, ​analyse,​ is used differently across fields (e.g. as anoun in social science but as ​analytical in engineering). They say the AWL would be mostuseful to computer science students (16% coverage by the list) and least useful to biology
students (6.2% coverage).
Gardner and Davies (2014) also criticise the AWL, but do not think general academic lists
should be dismissed. They proposed a new list of core academic vocabulary based onlemmas as opposed to word families. Their goal was to create a core list excluding
general-high frequency and discipline specific words (2014). They used a corpus thirty-five20

times larger than the AWL. Although all texts used were published in the USA and it too
only contained written English. They claimed that basing it around lemmas meant teachers
and learners could focus on the most frequent lemmas in a word family (2014), helping
direct academic needs more. They called this list the Academic Vocabulary List (AVL). It is
unclear if any coursebooks have utilised Gardner and Davies’ new AVL or not. Theredefinitely appears to be improvements from the AWL, and in theory, the larger the corpus
the better, but as Hoey (as cited in Lewis, 2000, p. 227) cautions, “word list[s] can be
dangerous”, as “none show any awareness of collocation”.
Studies have shown (Campion & Elley, 1971; Hwang, 1989 as cited in Nation 2001, p. 189)
that it is possible to provide academic vocabulary for a range of academic disciplines.
Although as Nation and Chung (2004) comment, “technicalness” is a functional aspect of aword, which means its use determines how technical it is. Therefore, words could(technically) be both general and technical academic words depending on the context. For
example, students in a business studies course might not know the word ​firm for a company
or ​plant for a factory (Alexander, Argent, & Spencer, 2008). To add to all this, as technicalwords are used more often, they become less technical. Based on these critiques, it can beseen that there are issues with the AWL. However, I argue that despite these issues, the
AWL is a robust offering of academic vocabulary and is still able to provide the best generalacademic words covering a wide range of subjects. This is why I am in favour of Coxhead’s
list being used in university settings and for academic writing contexts generally.

METHODOLOGY
The context for this investigation of vocabulary is a university class of mixed disciplinary
backgrounds. In this context it is difficult to supply individual students with the vocabulary
and ways of creating discourse pertinent to each of their fields of study. The findings
related to this study may be applicable to the KUIS context.
Nation (2001) offers three vocabulary categories;
1. High frequency words – This includes the two thousand most widely used words(eighty percent coverage of most texts).
2. Academic or sub-technical (frequent in academic writing across disciplines andgenres).
3. Technical vocabulary (low frequency and difficult depending on discipline).
Of these, it is academic vocabulary which is the focus here. Coxhead (2000) suggested her
AWL be used to create teaching materials and reach EAP vocabulary needs and goals, andhoped authors would write books based on the AWL. This is exactly what Diane andNorbert Schmitt did in ​Focus on Vocabulary 2: Mastering the Academic Word List​, which is
the textbook used as the material of investigation. I chose the textbook as it purports toutilise the AWL through the vocabulary activities within it. Townsend and Kiernan (2015)
make the interesting point that “rarely are connections made between corpus linguistics
and classroom practice”. It could be said that corpus data can be of great application for
EAP teaching and this book seems to have academic vocabulary at heart. What was hoped
to be understood through this investigation was:211) To what extent does this book exemplify the AWL in the way in which it claims?
2) To what extent is the AWL the optimal academic vocabulary provision?
The book has seven units with four chapters in each. In the first three chapters of each unit
72 words are introduced and in the fourth, strategies are exemplified with consolidation andrecycling of vocabulary. Research has shown multiple opportunities in multiple contexts
can help acquisition (Blachowitz & Fisher 2000), so recycling vocabulary is an essential partof the learning process. As Resnick (1989, as cited in McCarthy & Schmitt 1997) states“when instructors model explicit methods of vocabulary acquisition which require deep
processing and re-encountering of words, students not only learn words but experience‘cognitive apprenticeship’” (p. 255). This means students learn that vocabulary acquisition isa task requiring their active participation.
The ​strategy practice at the end of each chapter contains a ​using your dictionary subsection,a ​strategy subsection and a ​word knowledge subsection. These sections are designed to
explicitly inform learners about how to become autonomous in their vocabulary learning.
Adult learners especially, should not be reliant on the teacher and should recognise theiractive participation and individual pursuit of learning is vital. A responsible learner is one“who accepts the idea that their own efforts are crucial to progress in learning and behavesaccordingly” (Scharle & Szabo, 2000, p. 3). Understanding learning strategies can be key topromoting autonomy in learners. Nation (2001, p. 217) says it can be difficult to define astrategy, but it should:
1. Involve choice (several strategies to choose from).
2. Be complex (several steps to learn).
3. Require knowledge and benefit from training.
4. Increase the efficiency of vocabulary learning and use.
These definitions by Nation are utilised in this study as a checklist in the examination of thechapter 12 section on ​strategy practice​. The words listed in Appendix A are all previously
introduced in the three chapters of unit three (in authentic texts and exercises) before mymaterials (chapter 12).

ANALYSIS
Using your dictionary subsection
This section is about ​grammar information.​ A study by Harvey and Yuill (1997) found thatlearners did not fully utilise dictionaries grammatical coding schemes, even though Nation(2001) says dictionaries can help learners with vocabulary. In this section, explanations are
first provided to help learners recognise how understanding grammar information canbenefit their vocabulary knowledge. The first example ​potential indicates to the learner that
this is not a countable noun, the second – common collocations and the third – thatpossessive pronouns precede this word. All three attempt to convey how aspects ofgrammar affect words. If learners are able to use dictionary entries to their full potential, it
will greatly aid their vocabulary knowledge development. After explicitly detailing how
grammar information can be applied, this section then gives three more entries (AWL
words previously introduced) and a task in which learners must correct grammatical22

mistakes (made by actual learners) by using the dictionary information provided. Using thedictionary effectively requires learner’s knowledge as it is complex and not obvious how to
optimally use a dictionary. The dictionary is a much used and valuable resource for
language learners; however, it should be used effectively and not relied upon.
Strategy subsection
This section is about ​guessing from context​. This technique is widely understood as one of
the most important learner strategies for tackling unknown words. “Studies have shown alarge proportion of words (at least eighty percent) can be guessed” (Liu & Nation, 1985, p.
35). Guessing from context relates to incidental learning but needs to be explicitly
explained, as learners may have an over reliance on their dictionary and see using it as thefirst port of call when encountering challenging vocabulary. It appears the steps proposed
for learners in this section are from Nation and Clarke (1980, as cited in Nation 2001, p.
257). These are language clues aimed at developing fluency so as not to overly disrupt theflow of reading. There is a step-by-step progression from a narrow focus (e.g. parts ofspeech) to a broader focus (e.g. to guess the meaning using tools introduced in each step).
This strategy is complex, there are clear benefits from training, and it does aid vocabulary
learning and use (although not a flawless technique as wrong guesses can be made).
Word knowledge subsection
This section, titled ​frequency of occurrence,​ deals with generated word lists and frequency.
A word frequency table is provided showing word frequency for spoken and written English(according to the ​Longman Advanced American Dictionary​). The task is a gap-fill in whichlearners must use a given academic word (all from the AWL and previously introduced) toreplace a general English word. This task provides a context and encourages learners toconsider how general English words can be replaced to make them more academic. This
involves choice, requires learners’ knowledge of the words and increases efficiency andvocabulary use by making the distinction between general and academic.

DISCUSSION
The AWL should definitely be considered as an academic vocabulary provision for
university students. These materials are good for encouraging learners to recognise how adictionary can be utilised, how to be autonomous in vocabulary learning and how to selectacademic words. If learners can ​notice (Schmidt, 1990) aspects of language and comparewith their previous encounters of vocabulary in context, they should be able to benefit anddevelop their academic vocabulary knowledge. The strategy sections appear to meet
Nations’ (2001) criteria for what a strategy is, and thus exemplify the AWL well. Therefore,
it is a very worthy academic list that can truly serve learners in university contexts. In the
KUIS context, many learners are required to produce research papers and thus sometimes
struggle to produce the correct academic language. The AWL can help them get a bettergrasp of understanding and using academic vocabulary.
It may indeed be impossible to provide a vocabulary list able to cater to every academic
learners’ specific needs, but providing learners with a general list along with suitable
activities and strategies for noticing and encouraging autonomy can go a long way to aiding
English language learners transition into an academic environment. Furthermore, the word
knowledge section mentions spoken English, this is something the AWL does not accountfor. More work needs to be done to gather real spoken academic texts despite the23

obstacles of cost, time and resources. Including spoken academic data is crucial toaccurately represent all vocabulary produced in academic settings.

CONCLUSION
Communicative purpose and genre determine what words are used, why they are used andhow they are used. Learners need to be directed to understand this, which will help them toanalyse and think about the vocabulary they encounter to work out meaning and function.
In KUIS, many students take academically focused courses and additionally also takecourses in preparation for reputable English proficiency tests such as TOEIC or TOEFL.
Being prepared as a teacher for the potential vocabulary needs of your students issomething essential in providing the students with the relevant knowledge to help build
their vocabulary for a particular course and its content. Being aware as a student and being
autonomous in vocabulary learning is also essential. Students should be actively making
attempts to deepen their understanding of a wide variety of vocabulary relevant to theirneeds and taking it upon themselves to find resources in order to strengthen and extend
their knowledge. At KUIS many teachers are prepared for this and give explicit attention to
the learning of vocabulary in class. Teachers and Learning Advisors in KUIS also guidestudents to vocabulary strategies and resources that they can use for themselves in aneffort to find what works for them. Vocabulary is sometimes an overlooked aspect oflanguage learning, however both educators and learners should be aware of what is neededin their context and how to acquire it best.

REFERENCES
Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). ​EAP essentials: A teacher’s guide to principles
and practice.​ Reading, UK: Garnet Publishing, Ltd.
Biber, D. (2006). Stance in written and spoken university registers​. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 5​(2), 97-116.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary Instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosethal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.) ​Handbook of reading research (Vol 3, pp. 255-91).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chung, T.M. & Nation, P. (2004). Identifying technical vocabulary. ​System, 3​ 2, (2), 251-263.
Clarke, D.F. & Nation, I.S.P. (1980). ​Guessing the meanings of words from context: Strategy
and techniques​. ​System,​ 8(3), 211-220.
Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic words​. Language Learning​, ​47(​ 4),
671-718.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. ​TESOL Quarterly, 34(​ 2), 213-238.
Coxhead, A. (2015). Vocabulary research and pedagogy: Introduction to the special issue.
Language Teaching Research, 19(​ 6), 641-644.

24

Coxhead, A. (2016). Reflecting on Coxhead (2000), A New Academic Word List. ​TESOL
Quarterly, 50​(1), 181-185.
Durrant, P. (2014). Discipline and level specificity in university students' written vocabulary.
Applied Linguistics, 3​ 5(3), 328-356.
Gardner, D. & Davies, M. (2014). A New Academic Vocabulary List. ​Applied Linguistics,
35(​ 3), 305-327.
Harvey, K., & Yuill, D. (1997). A study of the use of a monolingual pedagogical dictionary bylearners of English engaged in writing. ​Applied Linguistics, 18(​ 3), 253–278.
Hyland, K. (2006). ​English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. New York:
Routledge.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an "academic vocabulary”?​ ​TESOL Quarterly, 41(​ 2),
235-253.
Jordan R. (1997). ​English for academic purposes: A guide and resource book for teachers​.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach​. Hove,
UK: Language Teaching Publications.
Liu, N., & Nation, I. S. P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. ​RELC
Journal, 16​(1), 33–42.
Ming-Tzu, K., & Nation, P. (2004)​.​Word meaning in academic English: Homography in theacademic word list. ​Applied Linguistics,25(​ 3), 291-314.
Nagy, W., Townsend, D., Lesaux, N., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Words as tools: Learning
academic vocabulary as language acquisition. ​Reading Research Quarterly. 47(​ 1)​,​ 91-108.
Nation P. (1990). ​Teaching and learning vocabulary.​ New York: Heinle and Heinle.
Nation P. (2001​)​. Learning vocabulary in another language.​ Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, P. & Hwang. (1995). Where would general service vocabulary stop and special
purposes vocabulary begin? ​System, 23(​ 1), 35-41.
Scharle A., & Szabo A. (2000). ​Learner Autonomy.​ London: Oxford University Press.
Schmitt N. (2000) ​Vocabulary in language teaching.​ Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (1997​)​. Vocabulary description, acquisition, and pedagogy​.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. & Zimmerman, C.B. (2002). Derivative word forms: What do learners
know? ​TESOL Quarterly, 36​(2), 145-171.
Sinclair J. (1991). ​Corpus, concordance, collocation​. London: Oxford University Press.

25

Snow, C. E., & Kim, Y.S. (2007). Large problem spaces: The challenge of vocabulary for
English language learners. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum(Eds.), ​Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension.​ (pp. 123-139). New
York: Guilford Press.
Townsend, D. Filipini, D. Collins, P. & Biancarosa, G. (2012). Evidence for the importance of
academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school
students. ​The Elementary School Journal,​ ​112(​ 3), 497-518.
Townsend, D., & Kiernan, D. (2015). Selecting academic vocabulary words worth
learning. ​The Reading Teacher, 69​(1), 113-118.
West, M. (1953). ​A General Service List of English words.​ London: Longman, Green &Company.

26

Appendix A: AWL words
Words recycled in chapter 12, the chapter within the same unit which they were introduced
and the sub-list of the AWL; e.g. ​potential and its family members are in sub-list 2. Sub-list 1= most frequent words in the list and 10 = least frequent.
Words in chapter
12

Chapter previously introduced in the textbook

Sub-list of
AWL

Potential

10

2

Indication

10

1

Seek

9

2

Undergo11

10

Facilitate

95

Preceding

11

6

Approximately

11

4

Crucial108Sufficient

11

3

Display10

6Authority

10

1

Period11

1

Assign9

6

Contract

111Enhance

9

6

Exhibition

10

8

Restrict92Conclusion

102

Corporate

10

3

Exclusion

93

Innovation

10

7

Transmit

11

727