Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 1998 19(2):255-271; doi:10.1093/applin/19.2.255
© 1998 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (12)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LAUFER, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Articles

The Development of Passive and Active Vocabulary in a Second Language: Same or Different?

BATIA LAUFER

University of Haifa

The study investigates the gains in three types of English as a Foreign Language vocabulary knowledge, passive, ‘controlled active’ and free active, in one year of school instruction. It also examines how these aspects of lexical knowledge are related to one another, and what changes occur in these relationships after one year Gains in vocabulary were measured by comparing two groups of learners with six and seven years of instruction Relationships among the three areas of knowledge were investigated by comparing them within the same individuals The results show that passive vocabulary size (as measured by Vocabulary Levels Test) progressed very well, controlled active vocabulary (as measured by the productive version of the Levels Test) progressed too but less than the passive Free active vocabulary (as measured by Lexical Frequency Profile) did not progress at all Passive vocabulary size was larger than controlled active in both groups of subjects, but the gap between the two types of knowledge increased in the more advanced group. Passive and controlled active size scores correlated with each other well Free active vocabulary, on the other hand, did not correlate with the other two types. The results raise several questions about the nature of vocabulary knowledge and the effect of instruction on vocabulary growth


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Language TestingHome page
P. Snellings, A. van Gelderen, and K. de Glopper
Validating a test of second language written lexical retrieval: a new measure of fluency in written language production
Language Testing, April 1, 2004; 21(2): 174 - 201.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language Teaching ResearchHome page
L. Cameron
Measuring vocabulary size in English as an additional language
Language Teaching Research, April 1, 2002; 6(2): 145 - 173.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
J. Read and C. A. Chapelle
A framework for second language vocabulary assessment
Language Testing, January 1, 2001; 18(1): 1 - 32.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 RELC JournalHome page
M. Fan
How Big Is the Gap and How To Narrow It? an Investigation Into the Active and Passive Vocabulary Knowledge of L2 Learners
RELC Journal, December 1, 2000; 31(2): 105 - 119.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
A. Vermeer
Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data
Language Testing, January 1, 2000; 17(1): 65 - 83.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
D. Beglar and A. Hunt
Revising and validating the 2000 Word Level and University Word Level Vocabulary Tests
Language Testing, April 1, 1999; 16(2): 131 - 162.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.