Lexical facility:
Developing vocabulary knowledge as a skill-it's what you know and when you know itMichael Harrington
School of Languages & Comparative Cultural Studies
m.harrington@uq.edu.au
関西英語教育学会 2013年度（第18回）	
13.6.9

Talk outline
Introducing lexical facility
The importance of vocabulary size.
The importance of vocabulary speed.
Measuring lexical facility
Relating lexical facility to English performance
A lexical facility approach to vocabulary instruction.

13.6.92

Introducing lexical facility (LF)
Lexical facility refers to having both vocabulary knowledgeof adequate knowledge and being able to access thatknowledge in a timely manner.
Lexical facility brings together these two key aspects of vocabularyknowledge in a unitary construct to assess how the two develop,interact, and serve to measure or predict performance in English as asecond language.
Harrington, M. (Forthcoming) Lexical facility: Vocabulary size andspeed as an index of second language performance – time as adimension of second language proficiency. London: Palgrave
Macmillan
13.6.93

Lexical facility is a critical bottleneck in
discourse processing“Successful text comprehension requires that lower level linguistic
processes be efficient, in that they are available in a timely manner,and effective, in that they provide information of an adequate
quality to the higher level processes (Just & Carpenter, 1992).”– This requires a vocabulary of adequate size and the ability toaccess this knowledge in a way appropriate to the context.

13.6.9 18th KELES4

Vocabulary size as element of LF
Relating learner vocabulary size onto receptive and productive L2
performance (Adolphs & Schmitt 2003; Daller, Milton et al.
2007; Laufer, Elder et al. 2004; Laufer & Nation, 1995; Meara,2005; Nation 2006).
Benchmarked by use frequency of occurrence statistics obtained
from corpora, e.g. British National Corpus (BNC) and readily
available on-line, e.g. http://www.lextutor.ca/.
Discrete, largely context-free approach to measuring L2
vocabulary.
13.6.9

Data-driven learning: Lexical frequency profiles
The likelihood ofknowing a word
depends on how
frequently the word
is encountered in
the language.

13.6.96

How much vocabulary is needed to function
in English?
Everyday conversation/80% text written text coverage(Schonell, Meddleton & Shaw, 1956)> 2000 (most frequent) word families

Threshold for initial access to authentic reading = 95% text coverage.
(Nation, 2001)> 2000-3000 word families

Reading English university textbooks = 98-99% text coverage.
> 8000-9000 word families

Native speaker vocabulary size:
15,000-20,000 word families

Nation (2006); Adolphis & Schmitt (2003)
13.6.97

Is 95% enough?

13.6.9(From Nation 2001, p.148)

8

Vocabulary speed as element of LF• Speed of lexical retrieval measured by mean response time &standard deviation (measure of response consistency)•Development of lexical retrieval speed as element ofautomaticity (Akamatsu, 2008; Harrington, 2006; Segalowitz,Segalowitz, & Wood, 1998; Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993).

•In addition to differences in mean response time, response
stability, or consistency, can be measured by the coefficient ofvariation (Segalowitz, Segalowitz, & Wood, 1998; Hulstijn, Van
Gelderen, & Schoonen, 2009).

• Experiment-based research
13.6.9

LF: Bringing size and speed together• Vocabulary size researchers (Laufer, Nation, et al) have had a
primary focus on vocabulary assessment in the context of formal
language instruction, while speed/automaticity researchers(Segalowitz et al) have been concerned with understanding basic
psycholinguistic mechanism responsible for fluent language
performance.
• The lexical facility construct brings these two research
perspectives together, with a primary focus on what the inclusionof speed in our models of L2 proficiency will do for SLA theory
and L2 assessment and teaching practice.

13.6.9

Measuring lexical facility
The Yes-No test (Meara, 1989; Eyckmans, 2004, Harrington, 2006)
measures receptive L2 vocabulary knowledge by eliciting a simple
judgement as to whether a presented item is known or not.
Test item selection is based on frequency-of-occurrence statistics.
These are used to inferring the size of the individual’s receptive
vocabulary (Meara, 1996). Size is indexed using performance on
items sampled from frequency of occurrence bands
1-1000th most frequent words = 1K band
1001-2000th = 2K band
2001-3000th = 3K band
Etc.
13.6.9

Adding a timed component
The Timed Yes/No Test measures both vocabulary size
and the speed with which the judgement is made.
Both elements contribute to proficiency measurement
The use of timed responses also adds an additional task
demand.

13.6.9

Timed Yes/No Test format• Base on lexical decision task widely used in cognitive
psychology• Uses word and nonword (or pseudowords) to assess vocabularysize.
• Nonword performance used to adjust overall score.
• Speed-accuracy trade-off potential problem

13.6.9

Lexical decision item-response matrix‘Guessing’ on the part of the test-taker is reflectedin nonword performance.

Response

Item

13.6.9Yes
NoWordNonwordcorrect(‘hit’)

incorrect(‘false alarm’)incorrect(‘miss’)correct(‘correct reject’)14Evaluating the lexical facility construct
Research questions
1. How does vocabulary size and speed compare as stablemeasures of individual differences in English L2 performance?
Do they correlate?
2. Do the two measures reliably predict performance differencesin common domains of L2 performance?
3. Does a combination of size and speed provide a better pictureof individual differences than size (or speed) alone?

13.6.915

The data set
Data sets

NSetting

Learner Level

Criterion

Language program placement
testing(Harrington & Carey, 2009)88

ESL
Australia

Low to Mid

Placement test

Predicting IELTS performance(Harrington, in preparation)

310

ESL
Australia

Low to HighIELTS overallbandscores

Predicting academic performancefor diagnostic purposes(Harrington & Roche, forthcoming;
Roche & Harrington, 2012)

70

EFL
Oman

Low

GPA
Academic skills
test

In addition to multiple sites in Australia, data also collected in Singapore
and Kansas, USA.
13.6.9

Vocabulary size as stable indicator of L2
development

13.6.917

Vocabulary speed as stable indicator of L2
development

13.6.9Size and speed measures
Research question #1 Do item response times mirror vocabulary
size differences as stable measures of individual differences in L2
lexical performance?
• Yes• Accuracy (size) is better than RT• RT shows more variability• Both measures less sensitive at lower levels
13.6.9Size and speed as predictors of performance

Research question 2: Do the two measures reliably predict
performance differences in functional domains of L2 performance?
1. Language program placement
2. Predicting IELTS scores
3. Academic English and GPA in PELA setting

13.6.9Size & speed as a placement measure•

Milton College: Sydney language school placement study•

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of the TYNT as a tool for placement
decisions in a commercial language school. The study was carried out at an
established English language school in Sydney, Australia.

•••

13.6.9Participants (n=88): Ranged from 19 to 33 years (mean= 24.3, SD = 3.8)
with many intending to continue on to university study in Australia andelsewhere at the end of language study. The largest number was from Korea(32) and Japan (18), with the remainder from 14 different first languages.
Design. Performance on two versions of the TYN test was compared withinhouse grammar and listening tests on placement level decisions.

Vocabulary size and placement decisions

13.6.9

Vocabulary response speed and language
program placement decisions

Mean word rt (msec)

2500

2000

1500

1000

VLT

Milton500

0Beginner

ElementaryLower
Intermediate

Placement Level

13.6.9Upper
Intermediate

Advanced

IELTS performance
Design. The TYN test was given to volunteers at the University of Queenslandand the University of Queensland Foundation Program between 2008-2011.
• Tests were taken at entry to the program. IELTS scores were self-reported.
Students took one or both versions.
Test consisted 80 items (66 words, 14 nonwords)
Participants. Approximately 75% of the test takers were Chinese L1, withmost of the remainder (20%) from Southeast Asia and the remainder from theMiddle East and elsewhere.

13.6.9

TYN Test performance and IELTS overallbandscores: Accuracy (N=310)
90
8070

Accuracy (cfg)

60
50
40

Accuracy

30
20
10
05

5.5

66.57IELTS Overall Bandscore13.6.97.5

8

TYN Test performance and IELTS overallbandscores: Response times (N=310)
1400

1200

Response time (msec)

1000

800
Response time

600

400

200

055.5

66.5
IELTS Overall

13.6.977.5

8

Lexical facility as a diagnostic in an EFLPELA setting• English-medium college of education in the Sultanate of Oman,
Arabic L1 users (N=70)• Timed Y/N Test performance correlated with written Academic
English Proficiency (AEP) and overall Academic Achievement(GPA)• AEP was assessed using an academic writing test based onIELTS.
• Vocabulary size and speed correlated with both academic
writing and GPA measures.
(Roche & Harrington, 2013)13.6.9

Oman study descriptive stats

13.6.9Research question #2
Do the two measures reliably predict performancedifferences in common domains of L2 performance?
• Yes• Accuracy (size) is better than RT• RT shows more variability• Both measures less sensitive at lower levels
13.6.9Combining vocabulary size and speed

Research question #3. Do size and speed together
provide a better picture of individual differences thansize (or speed) alone?

13.6.9Milton placement study Additional varianceaccounted for by RT

13.6.9

IELTS study
test responsetime
by IELTSNoverall
IELTS
overall bandscoreand sample size,for= 311
AdditionalTYNvarianceaccounted
by bandscore
response time

N=310

VariableR2

Std Error
Estimate

R2
ChangeF
Changedf1

df2

Sig. F
ChangeAccuracy

0.459

0.447

0.459

261.0851309.000

RT

0.474

0.441

0.016

9.18

1308

0.003

Accuracy (size) as 1st predictor variable
RT = response time as 2nd predictor variable

13.6.9

Oman study RT variance accounted for13.6.933

Research question #3
Do size and speed together provide a better picture ofindividual differences than size (or speed) alone?
• In general yes, but RT variability can affect outcomes.
• Used as complementary measures or as composites>

13.6.9Future research on lexical facility• A normative model of temporal processing?
• Taking a closer look at response variability as a dimension ofdevelopment.
• Response time variability is a central issues• Longitudinal development of size and speed in relation toperformance.
• Response time and other domains of vocabulary knowledge
13.6.9

Lexical facility and vocabulary instruction
The process of learning vocabulary is characterised by a set of featuresthat distinguish it from other domains of language.
Design features
1. Word learning involves other words.
2. Vocabulary size is important.
3. Word meaning is open-ended.
4. Words must be available for use.
5. Words are things.
13.6.918th KELES

36

1 Word learning involves other words

A new word is not learned in isolation. Learning new words
is a process of modifying the existing network of words inthe learner’s head (the “mental lexicon”).

No word is an island.** Apologies to John Donne	

13.6.9 18th KELES

37

2 Vocabulary size is important.

To be able to function in a language you must know a vast
number of words. This breadth of knowledge continues toexpand as your experience with the language continues

The more the merrier.

13.6.9 18th KELES

38

3 Word meaning is open-ended.

Knowledge of a word is open-ended. The depth of word
knowledge develops through experience.

Word knowledge is not black & white.

13.6.9 18th KELES

39

Do you know the meaning of ‘broke’?
The waves broke on the rock.
He broke his leg.
The cup broke.
After the incident, he was a broken man.
She broke his heart.
He broke his word.
The man broke his oath.
Which country has broken the cease-fire?
Some workers have broken the strike.
She broke the ice with a joke.
The crowd broke up as the police arrived.
His voice broke when he was 13.
Her fall was broken by a tree.

13.6.9 18th KELES

40

4 Words must be available for use.

For fluent performance individual words must be accessed
quickly.

Having a word on the tip of your tongue doesn’t
count.

13.6.9l18th KELES

41

5 Words are things.

Words are physical objects, whether in sound (phonologicalform) or sight (orthographic shape). Part of learning aword is learning the form and then practicing its
recognition and production. Fast retrieval is important toboth.
Vocabulary learning is partly perceptual

13.6.9 18th KELES

42

Conclusion

Lexical facility….
..it’s not just what you know,
it’s when you know it.

13.6.9 18th KELES

43References
Adolphs, S., & Schmitt, N. (2003). Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. AppliedLinguistics, 24, 425-438.
Beeckmans, R., Eyckmans, J., Janssens, V., Dufranne, M. and Van de Velde, H. 2001:
Examining the Yes-No vocabulary test: Some methodological issues in theory andpractice. Language Testing, 18, 235-274.
Kempe, V. and MacWhinney, B. 1996: The crosslinguistic assessment of foreign language
vocabulary learning. Applied Psycholinguistics 17, 149-183.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytics studies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harrington, M. (2006). The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 lexical proficiency.
EUROSLA Yearbook (Vol. 6, pp. 147-168).
Harrington, M. (2007). The coefficient of Variation as an index of L2 lexical processing
skill. , School of English, Media Studies and Art History, The University of Queensland.
Harrington, M. & Carey, M. (2009). The On-Line Yes/No Test as a Placement Tool. System:
An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 37,614-626.
Harrington, M. (Forthcoming) Lexical facility: Vocabulary size and speed as an index ofsecond language performance – time as a dimension of second language proficiency.
London: Palgrave Macmillan
13.6.944

Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both tomeasure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21,202-226.
Lee, Y. H., & Chen, H. (2011). A review of recent response-time analyses in educational
testing. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53(3), 359-379.
Meara, P. 1996: The dimensions of lexical competence. In Brown, G., Malmkjaer, K.,and J. Williams, editors, Performance and competence in second languageacquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 35-53.
Meara, P. and Buxton, B.1987: An alternative multiple choice vocabulary tests.
Language Testing, 4, 142-145.
Mochida, A. & Harrington, M. (Forthcoming). The Yes-No test as a measure ofreceptive vocabulary knowledge. To appear in Language Testing
Nassaji, H. (200). The contribution of phonological and orthographic processing skills toadult ESL reading: Evidence from native speakers of Farsi. Applied Psycholinguistics
20, 2 , 241.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The
Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 63,
59-82.
Roche, T. & Harrington, M. (2013). Recognition vocabulary knowledge as a predictor ofacademic performance. Language Testing in Asia, 3, 1
13.6.9