Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T08:23:42.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASPECTS OF LEXICAL SOPHISTICATION IN ADVANCED LEARNERS’ ORAL PRODUCTION

Vocabulary Acquisition and Use in L2 French and Italian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2012

Camilla Bardel ,
Anna Gudmundson  and
Christina Lindqvist
Camilla Bardel*
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Anna Gudmundson
Affiliation:
Stockholm University
Christina Lindqvist
Affiliation:
Uppsala University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Camilla Bardel, Department of Language Education, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: camilla.bardel@isd.su.se.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on the design and use of a profiler for lexical sophistication (i.e., use of advanced vocabulary), which was created to assess the lexical richness of intermediate and advanced Swedish second language (L2) learners’ French and Italian. It discusses how teachers’ judgments (TJs) of word difficulty can contribute to the methodology for lexical profiling and compares two methods, one purely frequency based and one modified on the basis of TJs of word difficulty. It has been suggested elsewhere that factors other than frequency play an important role in vocabulary acquisition. Here it is argued that cognates and thematic vocabulary related to teaching materials, although infrequent in target language (TL) corpora, should not necessarily be considered advanced and that analyses of learners’ lexical sophistication would benefit from integrating these aspects. In this study, the frequency-based method normally used in lexical profiling was modified by recategorizing some low-frequency words considered easy by many teachers. On the basis of the TJs, a basic vocabulary, which consisted mainly of high-frequency words but also of cognates and thematic words, was defined, which was based on the fact that teachers judged certain low-frequency cognates and thematic words as relatively easy. Using the modified method, learners’ lexical profiles were found to be more homogeneous within groups of learners at specific proficiency levels. The superiority of the new method over the purely frequency-based one was shown when comparing effect sizes. It is argued that this method gives a more correct picture of advanced L2 lexical profiles.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 34 , Special Issue 2: High-Level L2 Acquisition, Learning, and Use , June 2012 , pp. 269 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bardel, C., & Lindqvist, C. (2011). Developing a lexical profiler for spoken French and Italian L2: The role of frequency, cognates and thematic vocabulary. In Roberts, L., Pallotti, G., & Bettoni, C. (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 11 (pp. 75–93). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bartning, I., & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2 [Acquisitional sequences and developmental stages in L2 French]. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campione, E., Véronis, J., & Deulofeu, J. (2005). The French corpus. In Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M. (Eds.), C-ORAL-ROM, Integrated reference corpora for spoken Romance languages (111–133). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T., & Horst, M. (2004). Is there room for an academic word list in French? In Bogaards, P. & Laufer, B. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 15–38). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). The common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24, 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Mauro, T., Mancini, F., Vedovelli, M., & Voghera, M. (1993). Lessico di frequenza dell’italiano parlato [Frequency lists of spoken Italian]. Milano: Etaslibri.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G. (1959). Le français fondamental 1er degree [Basic French 1st degree]. Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. Paris: Institut National de Recherche et de Documentation Pédagogiques.Google Scholar
Horst, M., & Collins, L. (2006). From faible to strong: How does their vocabulary grow? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (1988). Lexical characteristics of near-native second-language learners of Swedish. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 9, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. (1995). Beyond 2000: A measure of productive lexicon in a second language. In Eubank, L., Selinker, L., & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.), The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E. Rutherford (pp. 265–272). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. (1997). What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy? Intralexical factors affecting the difficulty of vocabulary acquisition. In McCarthy, M. & Schmitt, N. (Eds.), Vocabulary description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140–155). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, C. (2010). La richesse lexicale dans la production orale de l’apprenant avancé de français [Lexical richness in the oral production of the advanced learner of French]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66, 393–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, C., Bardel, C., & Gudmundson, A. (2011). Lexical richness in the advanced learner’s oral production of French and Italian L2. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 49, 221–240.Google Scholar
Milton, J. (2007). Lexical profiles, learning styles and the construct validity of lexical size tests. In Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 47–58). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ovtcharov, V., Cobb, T., & Halter, R. (2006). La richesse lexicale des productions orales: Mesure fiable du niveau de compétence langagière [Lexical richness of oral productions: A reliable measure of proficiency levels]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallaud, B., & Henry, S. (2004). Amorces de mots et répétitions: Des hésitations plus que des erreurs en français parlé [Beginnings of words and repetitions: Hesitations rather than errors in spoken French]. In Purnelle, G., Fairon, C., & Dister, A. (Eds.), Le poids des mots: Actes des 7es Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles (pp. 848–858). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, S., Myles, F., Mitchell, R., David, A., & dos Santos, C. (2010). The development of receptive lexical knowledge of instructed young learners of L2 French. Paper presented at the 20th Eurosla Conference, Reggio Emilia, September 1–4, 2010.Google Scholar
Tidball, F., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2008). Analysing lexical richness in French learner language: What frequency lists and teacher judgement can tell us about basic and advanced words. Journal of French Language Studies, 18, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ek, J. A., & Trim, J. L. M. (1991). Threshold level 1990. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeer, A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, A. (2004). The relation between lexical richness and vocabulary size in Dutch L1 and L2 children. In Bogaards, P. & Laufer, B. (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 173–189). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Véronis, J. (2000). Fréquence des mots en français parlé. Retrieved June 17, 2011, fromhttp://sites.univ-provence.fr/veronis/data/freq-oral.txt.Google Scholar
Willis, M., & Ohashi, Y. (2010). Modelling L2 vocabulary acquisition. Paper presented at the 20th Eurosla Conference, Reggio Emilia, September 1–4, 2010.Google Scholar