In:Approaches to Learning, Testing and Researching L2 Vocabulary
Edited by Stuart Webb
[Benjamins Current Topics 109] 2020
► pp. 95–115
Loanword proportion in vocabulary size tests
Does it make a difference?
Published online: 6 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.109.itl.00008.lau
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.109.itl.00008.lau
Abstract
We investigated the effect of English-Hebrew loanwords on English vocabulary test scores when the number of loanwords in the test is random and when it is representative of their proportion in the vocabulary lists from which the test items were taken. 303 EFL learners, speakers of Hebrew as L1, at three L2 proficiency levels, received tests with no loanwords, with a representative number of loanwords and with a random number of loanwords in four modalities: word form recall, word meaning recall, word form recognition, word meaning recognition. Though different effects were found for different modalities and different language proficiencies, the score increases from the representative loanword test version to the random loanword version were low and the effect sizes of the differences were very low. We suggest that the inclusion of loanwords in vocabulary tests may not inflate the true vocabulary knowledge score.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The study
- 2.1Research aim and questions
- 2.2Participants
- 2.3Instruments, procedure and data analysis
- The original – the ‘random number of loanwords’ version
- The ‘non loanword’ test version
- The ‘representative number of loanwords’ version
- 3.Results
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Concluding remarks
Notes References
References (18)
Aviad-Levitzky, T., Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2019). The New Computer Adaptive Test of Size and Strength (CATSS): Development and Validation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 16(3), 345–368.
Cobb, T. (2000). One size fits all? Francophone learners and English vocabulary tests. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 295–324.
Cobb. T. Lextutor. Retrieved from <[URL]> ‘ongoing unpublished development work’
Daulton, F. E. (2008). Japan’s built-in lexicon of English-based loanwords. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Elgort, I. (2013). Effects of L1 definitions and cognate status of test items on the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing, 30(2) 253–272.
Jordan, E. (2012). Cognates in vocabulary size testing – A distorting influence? Language Testing in Asia, 2(3), 5–17.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33–51.
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 469–52.
Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21, 202–226.
Laufer, B., & McLean, S. (2016). Loanwords and vocabulary size test scores: A case of different estimates for different L1 learners. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 202–2177.
McLean, S., Hogg, N., & Kramer, B. (2014). Estimations of Japanese university learners’ English vocabulary sizes using the vocabulary size test. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 47–55.
McLean, S., Kramer, B., & Beglar, D. (2015). The creation and validation of a listening vocabulary levels test. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 741–760.
McLean, S., & Kramer, B. (2016). The development of a Japanese bilingual version of the New Vocabulary Levels Test. VERB, 5(1), 2–5.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88.
Webb, S., Sasao, Y., & Ballance, O. (2017). The updated Vocabulary Levels Test: Developing and validating two new forms of the VLT. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 34–70. Available on <[URL]>.