This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]

On: 25 July 2015, At: 10:51

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

The Language Learning Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rllj20

L2 vocabulary learning and testing:

the use of L1 translation versus L2
definition
a
Paul Joyce
a
Faculty of Law, Kinki University, Osaka, Japan
Published online: 18 May 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Paul Joyce (2015): L2 vocabulary learning and testing: the use of L1 translation
versus L2 definition, The Language Learning Journal, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2015.1028088

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1028088

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015
 The Language Learning Journal, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1028088

L2 vocabulary learning and testing: the use of L1 translation versus L2

definition
Paul Joyce*

Faculty of Law, Kinki University, Osaka, Japan

This paper investigates the effect of using L1 translations versus L2 definitions on the
learning and testing of L2 vocabulary recognition knowledge. For this study, 48
Japanese L2 learners of English studied 200 lexical items from the academic word
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

list (AWL) over a 10-week period. To support their learning, the participants were
provided with the meaning of the target language. The language in which the
meanings were presented was manipulated such that the learners received half of
them in their L1 and half in their L2. Similarly, at pre- and post-test stages, the
participants were tested on their receptive knowledge of the vocabulary equally in
both languages. Through a factorial repeated measures analysis of variance, the
results showed that the students’ recognition of the L2 vocabulary was significantly
higher when asked to match the target vocabulary to L1 translations than L2
definitions. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between study language
and testing language, such that when study and testing language matched, the
participants scored significantly higher. However, overall, the language in which the
target vocabulary was studied did not matter for test scores. The implications of these
results for learning, teaching, and test taking are discussed.
Keywords: L2 vocabulary; L1 translation; L2 definition; testing; intentional learning

Introduction
Vocabulary development is an integral part of second language (L2) acquisition. While
there are many different facets to vocabulary learning, ‘the form-meaning link is the first
and most essential lexical aspect which must be acquired’ (Schmitt 2008: 333). The
reason for the tremendous value attributed to this feature of vocabulary knowledge pertains
to its importance in successful language processing. Vocabulary size has been found to be
one of the greatest predictors of both first language (L1) and L2 reading comprehension
(Anderson and Freebody 1981; Daneman 1991; Laufer 1992) and to correlate highly
with writing quality (Astika 1993). Thus, the acquisition of a large vocabulary is an extre-
mely important aspect of L2 learning. In order to comprehend a range of authentic texts, it
has been estimated that L2 learners require an understanding of 8000–9000 word families
(Nation 2006) with each word family containing several word forms. To succeed in acquir-
ing a vocabulary size of that order, it is vital that students are able to quickly and efficiently
broaden their target language vocabulary knowledge. Yet, the most effective means of
achieving this goal remains unclear.

*Email: pauljoyce@hotmail.com

© 2015 Association for Language Learning

 2 P. Joyce

The communicative approach to vocabulary acquisition retains a primary focus on

inferring the meaning of unknown vocabulary and many teachers consider that vocabulary
should only be presented in context (Schmitt 1997). Clearly, incidental vocabulary learning
is an important means of developing an increased vocabulary size, especially when learners
receive massive exposure to the L2 (Nagy 1997). However, there are also a number of short-
comings to this method, such as learners having a poor long-term retention of new vocabu-
lary (Nagy, Anderson and Herman 1987), difficulty inferring the meaning of unknown
vocabulary (Parry 1991) and skipping unfamiliar lexical items altogether (Paribakht and
Wesche 1993). As a result, L2 vocabulary gains through incidental learning are slow to
accrue (Tudor and Hafiz 1989).
In order to develop a greater vocabulary size, there has been an increasing emphasis on
supplementing incidental learning with intentional learning (Nation 2001; Schmitt 2000).
Intentional or direct L2 vocabulary learning involves working consciously to form associ-
ations between a foreign word and its meaning. This approach to vocabulary learning has
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

been shown to be a powerful means of establishing the word form to meaning link (Fitzpa-
trick, Al-Qarni and Meara 2008; Laufer and Shmueli 1997; Webb 2007). In addition, longi-
tudinal studies have suggested that such gains remain largely intact (Beaton, Gruneberg and
Ellis 1995). Also, while incidental learning relies upon frequent chance encounters with
lexis, through intentional vocabulary study, learners can manage their own vocabulary
acquisition. This can lead to a sense of achievement and enhanced motivation (Nation
and Waring 1997). Thus, as a complement to incidental learning, the incorporation of inten-
tional study into a vocabulary learning programme is an efficient, focused and powerful
means of broadening vocabulary breadth.
There are many different ways of linking the L2 target item and its meaning. For
instance, this can be done through gestures, pictures and realia. However, the most versatile
and widely used approaches involve either an L2 definition or synonym or an L1 trans-
lation. Since the L2 definition or synonym method provides learners with additional
exposure to the target language, and is an option available to both native and non-native
teachers, it has long been an accepted part of language teaching. On the other hand, the
application of the L1 has been described as a ‘crutch’ (Rivers and Temperley 1978) that
encourages ‘lazy minds and so inhibits the transfer of the new vocabulary to long-term
memory’ (Gefen 1987: 42). However, there has been a reevaluation of the role of the L1
in L2 teaching and vocabulary learning (see Cook 2010). As psycholinguistic research
has shown, for both lower and higher proficiency learners, L1 activation occurs during
L2 vocabulary processing (Jiang 2002; Sunderman and Kroll 2006). It has been contended
that this arises due to L2 word forms being attached to the corresponding L1 word represen-
tation during the initial stage of vocabulary acquisition (Hall 2002). However, rather than a
hindrance, the deployment of the L1 in L2 learning can provide a shortcut to acquisition
(Scott and De La Fuente 2008) due to the tremendous conceptual commonality between
languages (Swan 1997). That is, owing to this enormous overlap, it is generally possible
for learners to map the target L2 vocabulary item directly onto their mother tongue at the
form–meaning stage of vocabulary learning (Ringbom 1987). Of course, as learners
deepen their vocabulary knowledge, they may well find that there are differences
between a word and its L1 equivalent, especially regarding its collocations and grammatical
functions. However, this does not constitute a criticism of L1 usage in intentional vocabu-
lary learning. Such refinements in vocabulary knowledge are facilitated by incidental learn-
ing through contextualised encounters with the target lexis over time, and no form–meaning
direct learning technique can replace this.
 The Language Learning Journal 3

There have been a number of studies that have examined the efficacy of L1 translation
as an aid to incidental L2 vocabulary learning. Grace (1998) explored whether English
speakers benefitted from a sentence-level translation option in the learning of French voca-
bulary. Those participants that had been provided with the L1 support were found to have
learnt 42% more vocabulary than the control group. Prince (1996) investigated the relative
benefit to L2 students of learning vocabulary from context versus translation learning. The
results showed that lower proficiency students were able to recall 15% more vocabulary
when learnt from translation than from contextual learning. Laufer and Girsai (2008) com-
pared three different forms of L2 vocabulary instruction: message-focused, non-contrastive
form-focused and contrastive analysis. As was the case in the previous vocabulary learning
studies, the translation condition yielded significantly higher scores than the other
approaches on the post-tests. Thus, the incorporation of L1 translation into the incidental
acquisition of L2 vocabulary has been found to result in improved learning outcomes.
The efficacy of L1 translation for intentional L2 vocabulary learning has also been
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

explored. Ramachandran and Rahim (2004) investigated the effectiveness of the translation
method with 60 low-proficiency Malaysian learners of English. Over a period of four
weeks, 20 lexical items were taught to the students in context. Half of the students were
taught the meaning of the target vocabulary in their L1 and half through their L2. In the
post-test, the participants were asked to provide the meaning of the target vocabulary
either in their L1 or L2. While the results indicated the value of the translation method
over the L2 approach, it is worth issuing a note of caution. For the participants in the trans-
lation condition, the meaning of the target vocabulary was obviously readily apparent.
However, for the group that was taught the meaning of the target vocabulary through
their L2, the definitions were drawn from the Oxford English Dictionary. Since this resource
is designed for native speakers, the language used in the definitions is likely to have proven
very challenging for the low-proficiency participants. The use of graded definitions
intended for L2 learners would have provided a fairer comparison. Furthermore, approxi-
mately a third of the lexical items studied were loanwords drawn from English. The particu-
lar properties of such words obviously favour an L1 translation. As a consequence of these
methodological limitations, the results of the study are likely to have been skewed towards
the L1 translation approach.
In a further study concerning the intentional learning of English vocabulary, Latsany-
phone and Bouangeune (2009) evaluated the relative benefits of L1 translations versus
L2 definitions with 169 Laotian learners of English. Through the use of a pre- and post-
test methodology, the researchers were able to show that the L1 translation group signifi-
cantly outperformed the learners who received the L2 definitions. However, the treatment
of the two groups was not comparable. While the L1 translation group received a written
definition of the target vocabulary, and participated in multiple learning consolidation
activities, the L2 definition group was just provided an oral definition and explanation of
the target vocabulary. This difference casts doubt on their findings.
A final intentional vocabulary learning study that has shed light on inter-lingual direct
vocabulary methods was conducted by Laufer and Shmueli (1997). The researchers com-
pared various modes of vocabulary presentation including a comparison between L1 trans-
lations and L2 definitions to establish the form–meaning link. For this aspect of the study,
the 19 Israeli learners of English each studied 20 vocabulary items. The students were each
supplied with the same 10 words with L1 translations and the remainder with L2 definitions.
The results showed that those who used L1 translations outperformed those who used L2
definitions on the multiple-choice receptive knowledge vocabulary post-tests. However,
the participants’ prior knowledge of the target vocabulary was not measured. Therefore,
 4 P. Joyce

it was neither clear that the two sets of words were of comparable difficulty nor was it appar-
ent how much learning was achieved through the two study methods. Also, since the
reliability of the post-tests was unreported, it was uncertain how consistently the tests
measured the target construct.
From reviewing the literature, the relative benefits of intentional study through L2 defi-
nitions as opposed to L1 translations remain insufficiently understood. There also exists a
need to better grasp the role of testing language upon L2 test performance. As Nation (2001:
351) notes, ‘Although there is no research yet demonstrating this, it is highly likely that a
multiple-choice or matching test would be much easier to do, and more valid, if the defi-
nitions were in the first rather than the second language.’ Since this supplementary issue
could be addressed concurrently to the primary research topic, the following research ques-
tions were pursued:

(1) Is there a significant difference in receptive L2 vocabulary learning through the use
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

of L1 translations versus L2 definitions?

(2) Is there a significant difference in receptive L2 vocabulary test scores when knowl-
edge is evaluated through L1 translations versus L2 definitions?

Methodology
Participants
The research was undertaken in Japan at a university that specialises in foreign language
studies. The 48 participants were Japanese L1 speakers, who were enrolled as full-time
freshman English language major undergraduates. As one of the volunteers did not com-
plete the study due to illness, results were collected from a total of 47 participants. The stu-
dents were in two class groups that both used the same syllabus and course materials. In
regard to their proficiency, the participants could broadly be described as being from a
false beginner to an upper intermediate level. Based on their in-house proficiency scores,
the learners’ proficiency was predicted to range from between 42 and 93 on the TOEFL
computer-based test (see Bonk 2001 for more details).

Design
The participants were divided into two groups; Group A (23 members) and Group B (24
members), which were counterbalanced to ensure they had comparable vocabulary knowl-
edge of the academic word list (AWL) (see Placement test section for more details). The
study included two factors, study language and testing language, which each had two con-
ditions, Japanese translation (JT) and English definition (ED). The JT was simply an L1
translation. Group A studied the meaning of 100 target words (List A) using an ED and
studied a second list of 100 words (List B) using a JT. Group B was given the same
task, but studied List A using a JT and List B with an ED. The participants’ receptive knowl-
edge of the lexis was evaluated using multiple-choice pre-tests and post-tests. Half of these
tests used Japanese translation test (JTT) items and half English definition test (EDT) items.
The definitions and translations used in the tests were identical to those in the word lists.
The language of testing was also manipulated within subjects. That is, the two conditions
(ED and JT) were combined with the two factors, studying and testing, in such a way that
each participant conducted half of the testing in the same condition as the studying phase
(i.e. ED-EDT and JT-JTT) and the other half in a different condition (i.e. ED-JTT and
 The Language Learning Journal 5

JT-EDT). The research design is summarised in Table 1 and is explained in greater depth in
the following sections.

Materials
Placement test
A week prior to the learning phase of the study, the participants were administered the 36-
item version of the Academic Vocabulary section of the vocabulary levels test (VLT)
(Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham 2001). This section of the VLT assesses receptive knowl-
edge of the AWL (Coxhead 2000). The scores on the test were found to be highly reliable
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). The results from the test were used to form two groups that were
counterbalanced for prior knowledge of the AWL using a matched pair design. Although
the participants were divided into two separate classes, the learners could still be flexibly
allocated to the two vocabulary learning groups within their classes. An independent
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

samples t-test was performed on the scores of the two vocabulary learning groups. It
showed that there was no significant difference between Group A (mean = 20.57, SD =
6.91) and Group B (mean = 20.67, SD = 7.09), which indicated that the groups were essen-
tially equal in their prior AWL knowledge, t(45) = −0.05, p > .05.

Target vocabulary and the consolidation task

The focus of the study was the learning of 200 headwords that were drawn from the AWL
(Coxhead 2000). The AWL is a compilation of 570 word families that occur with great fre-
quency across a wide range of academic texts. As this study was focused on the initial stage
of vocabulary learning, the main criterion in the selection of the words was the high like-
lihood of the lexis being unknown to the participants. Since experienced language teachers
have been shown to be able to predict the words with which students are unfamiliar (Brutten
1981), the probability of selecting appropriate lexis was considered high. As ‘part of
speech’ has been shown to be related to ease of guessing and retention (Liu and Nation
1985), this variable was controlled by selecting an equal number of verbs (60), nouns
(20) and adjectives (20) for each of the two word lists (List A and List B).
It was important that the L2 definitions were easy to understand and memorise. There-
fore, short EDs drawn from learner dictionaries, such as the Cambridge Essential English
Dictionary (2004), were provided. It was also essential that the EDs were more understand-
able than the lexis they were describing. Since the AWL assumes knowledge of the first
2000 word families, the EDs only included words from this low frequency range. Given
that words are often polysemous, it was important to ensure that for each target vocabulary
item, both the L2 definition and L1 translation referred to the same aspect of meaning. To
ensure this was the case, once the list of L2 definitions had been assembled, the JTs were
compiled by a paid skilled bilingual.

Table 1. The research design.

Vocabulary List A Vocabulary List B
Group A Study Use ED Use JT
Tests Test 1a (EDT) Test 2a (JTT) Test 3a (EDT) Test 4a (JTT)
Group B Study Use JT Use ED
Tests Test 1b (JTT) Test 2b (EDT) Test 3b (JTT) Test 4b (EDT)
 6 P. Joyce

For 10 weeks, at the start of each week, all the students were each given a new word list
that contained 20 new target vocabulary items. The only difference in the information given
to the two groups was the language in which the meaning of the target vocabulary was pro-
vided. The language was manipulated such that while one group studied a weekly list of 20
target words with an ED, the other studied the same vocabulary with a JT. Each week, for
both groups, the language in which the meaning of the target vocabulary was provided alter-
nated. For each target word, as well as a definition or translation for that word, the partici-
pants received its part of speech and an example sentence containing the word. The
participants studied the words by themselves outside of class time. To encourage them to
study the vocabulary, a quiz was administered at the end of each week during class. The
20-item quizzes assessed the students’ ability to receptively match the target words with
definitions or translations. The quizzes assessed student knowledge in the language in
which they had studied the target vocabulary. The quizzes that the two groups received dif-
fered only in the language that the word meaning (the definition or translation) was sup-
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

plied. As previously mentioned, the target vocabulary was presented to students in the
form of word lists. However, list learning does not easily facilitate adjustments in the
order that students review vocabulary and this has a detrimental impact upon learning
(Nakata 2008). To enable changes in study order, participants were encouraged to transfer
the vocabulary material to word cards.

Pre- and post-vocabulary tests

The format of the tests was broadly modelled on the VLT. That is, the test evaluated lear-
ners’ minimalistic receptive word recognition. As is the case with the VLT, the items were
divided into clusters. Each of the clusters contained six EDs or JTs, and 10 possible answer
choices from which the participants could select. The answer options were all target voca-
bulary items and each of the 200 target words appeared only once and only on a single test
(e.g. only on Test 1a or 1b). For each cluster, the answer choices were all from the same part
of speech, but had distinctly different meanings. The pre- and post-tests were divided into
four sub-tests. Within each test, there were three verb clusters, and both a noun and an
adjective cluster. The answer choices were listed in alphabetical order.
The pre-tests that each of the two groups undertook were identical to the post-tests that
they were given. As can be seen in Table 1, Group A was administered sub-tests 1a, 2a, 3a
and 4a, while Group B was given sub-tests 1b, 2b, 3b and 4b. The tests that the two groups
completed differed only in the language in which the meanings (i.e. definitions or trans-
lations) were provided. The definitions or translations used in the tests were identical to
those provided in the word lists. The sequence in which the participants completed the
tests was carefully counterbalanced at both the pre-test and post-test stages to control for
any possible order effect. Each test contained 30 items.
The pre-tests were used to establish the students’ baseline knowledge. Learning was
defined as the difference between the pre-test and post-test scores. The tests were given
during class and neither of the groups was informed in advance that they were to be
administered.

Proficiency test
The participants’ scores on a university in-house norm-referenced English language test
were used to evaluate their proficiency. The test was divided into five sections: listening
(35 items), grammar (35 items), reading (35 items), writing and speaking. Using the
 The Language Learning Journal 7

Cronbach’s alpha measure of internal consistency, the reliability of the various sections of
the test ranged between 0.75 and 0.8. The test was administered within two weeks of the
vocabulary post-test being given. To explore whether proficiency could be a confounding
variable in the study, an independent samples t-test was performed on the two groups’
overall test scores. There was found to be no significant difference between the proficiency
of Group A (mean = 68.83, SD = 8.64) and Group B (mean = 70.65, SD = 8.93), t(45) =
−0.71, p > .05. Likewise, on the reading section of the test, there was not found to be a sig-
nificant difference between Group A (mean = 23.98, SD = 4.26) and Group B (mean =
24.20, SD = 4.81), t(45) = −0.17, p > .05.

Results
As discussed in the Methodology section, to control for the participants’ prior knowledge of
the target lexis, the learners were placed into two groups of equal vocabulary knowledge
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

using a matched pair methodology. To ensure that the group variable was indeed controlled,
prior to the main analysis, a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to compare the effect of the three within-subjects independent variables (study
language, test language and point in time (the start and end of the study)) and one
between-subjects independent variable (group affiliation) on learning. There was not
found to be a significant effect of group on learning, F(1, 45) = 0.50, p > .05. Consequently,
group affiliation was removed from the analysis. Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the eight
30-item vocabulary tests was found to be consistently high, and ranged between 0.87
and 0.93.

Research question one: is there a significant difference in receptive L2 vocabulary

learning through the use of L1 translations versus L2 definitions?
As can be seen in Table 2, the participants substantially developed their knowledge of the
target L2 vocabulary over the study period.
The students achieved the greater score increases when they studied the L2 vocabulary
in the same language as they were tested. On average, in the ED-EDT condition, the learners
improved their scores by 33.76% (pre-test: mean = 31.49, SD = 18.77; post-test: mean =
65.25, SD = 24.08), and while in the JT-JTT condition, they gained by 33.05% (pre-test:
mean = 46.45, SD = 20.44; post-test: mean = 79.50, SD = 19.00). When the learners were
tested in a different language to that in which they had studied, the increases were more
modest. In the JT-EDT condition, they gained an average of 26.81% (pre-test: mean =
31.13, SD = 19.93; post-test: mean = 57.94, SD = 21.58), and 26.39% in the ED-JTT con-
dition (pre-test: mean = 44.04, SD = 21.20; post-test: mean = 70.43, SD = 19.14).

Table 2. Percentage of correct responses by study language, test language and point in time.
Pre-test Post-test
Study language Test language Mean SD Mean SD
ED EDT 31.49 18.77 65.25 24.08
JTT 44.04 21.20 70.43 19.14
JT EDT 31.13 19.93 57.94 21.58
JTT 46.45 20.44 79.50 19.00
 8 P. Joyce

As can be seen in Table 3, when the effect of study language, test language and time on
test scores was calculated through a factorial repeated measures ANOVA, there was found
to be a significant main effect for study time, F(1.00, 46.00) = 139.65, p < .001, partial η 2 =
0.75. That is, the participants’ scores on the post-test were significantly higher than on the
pre-test, and the effect size was very large (Cohen 1988). However, through the same stat-
istical procedure, there was not found to be a main effect for study language F(1.00, 46.00)
= 0.56, p = .46. In other words, the language in which the participants studied the vocabu-
lary did not matter to their overall test scores. Furthermore, there was not found to be a sig-
nificant interaction between study language and time, F(1.00, 46.00) = .01, p = .94. This
result means that the students gained just as much from the pre-test to the post-test by study-
ing the target L2 vocabulary with EDs as with JTs.

Research question two: is there a significant difference in receptive L2 vocabulary test

scores when knowledge is evaluated through L1 translations versus L2 definitions?
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

As shown in Table 2, the descriptive results show that the EDT pre-tests yielded scores that
were of a similar level (ED-EDT: mean = 31.49, SD = 18.77; JT-EDT: mean = 31.13, SD =
19.93). These scores were much lower than those derived from the JTT pre-tests (ED-JTT:
mean = 44.04, SD = 21.20; JT-JTT: mean = 46.45, SD = 20.44). Similarly, at the post-test
stage, regardless of the study language, the JTT scores (ED-JTT: mean = 70.43, SD =
19.14; JT-JTT: mean = 79.50, SD = 19.00) were higher than the EDT ones (ED-EDT:
mean = 65.25, SD = 24.08; JT-EDT: mean = 57.94, SD = 21.58). When the effect of study
language, test language and time on test scores was explored through a factorial repeated
measures ANOVA, there was found to be a significant main effect for testing language,
F(1.00, 46.00) = 172.03, p < .001, partial η 2 = 0.79. This result indicates that the students’
recognition of L2 vocabulary was significantly higher when asked to match the target voca-
bulary to L1 translations than to L2 definitions, and the effect size was very large (Cohen
1988).
There was also found to be a significant interaction between study language and testing
language, F(1.00, 46.00) = 34.22, p < .001, partial η 2 = 0.43. As can be seen by the size of
the significant interaction between study language, testing language and point in time, F
(1.00, 46.00) = 20.65, p < .001, partial η 2 = 0.31, most of the variance between study
language and testing language occurred at the post-test stage. Thus, particularly at the
post-test stage, the testing language had a different effect on the participants’ scores depend-
ing on the language in which the L2 vocabulary was studied. When the study language and
testing language were matched, the participants scored significantly higher than when they
were unmatched. However, there was not found to be a significant interaction between
testing language and time F(1.00, 46.00) = 0.08, p = .78. That is, the participants gained

Table 3. Within-subjects effects for study language, test language and time on test scores.
Effect F Hypothesis df Error df p Partial η 2
Study language 0.56 1 46 .46
Testing language 172.03 1 46 .00 0.79
Study time 139.65 1 46 .00 0.75
Study * test 34.22 1 46 .00 0.43
Study * time 0.01 1 46 .94
Test * time 0.08 1 46 .77
Study * test * time 20.65 1 46 .00 0.31
 The Language Learning Journal 9

as many points over the period from the pre-test to the post-test when being tested in Japa-
nese as when being tested in English.

Discussion
The results from this study showed the interrelated nature of study language, test language
and study time on the intentional learning of L2 vocabulary. The findings for the first research
question showed that study language alone did not influence L2 vocabulary learning. In
regard to the second research question, the testing language was found to make a significant
difference to L2 vocabulary test performance. As expected, when knowledge of L2 vocabu-
lary was assessed through an L1 translation, test scores were significantly higher than when
evaluated through an L2 definition. Furthermore, as anticipated, study time significantly
improved scores. Lastly, there was also found to be a significant interaction between study
language and testing language. As would be expected, this meant that the participants
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

scored significantly higher on the tests when the learning language and study language
were matched, particularly at the post-test stage. Owing to the combination of these
effects, the highest post-test scores (79.50%) were recorded by taking the easier test
(JTT), when matched with the study language (JT). This was followed (70.43%) by
taking the easier test (JTT), but in the unmatched study condition (EDT). The next highest
post-test scores (65.25%) were attributed to a more difficult test (EDT) that matched the
study language (ED). Finally, the lowest post-test marks (57.94%) were gained through
the more difficult test (EDT), which was unmatched with the study language (JT).
The findings from this study stand in contrast with the previous intentional L2 vocabulary
learning research that has explored this area. As this study expanded upon the methodologi-
cal framework of previous studies, an important reason for this difference is readily apparent.
As discussed in the Introduction, along with the other papers in the area, Ramachandran and
Rahim (2004) ascribed greater learning to the L1 definition approach over the use of L2 defi-
nitions. However, the post-test used in their study allowed participants to submit their
answers in either their L1 or L2. As has been discussed, the students who elected to
answer in the L1 were clearly advantaged especially when it matched their L1 study
language. In other words, the results of the study were contaminated by matching and
testing language effects. The post-test employed by Latsanyphone and Bouangeune
(2009) predominantly comprised translation items. As previously discussed, this study has
found that when the study language matches the testing language, higher scores result.
Thus, through the matching effect, the results of this study were skewed as the L1 post-
test matched some of the participants’ study language, but not others’. Similarly, Laufer
and Shmueli (1997) employed a translation-based test to assess vocabulary knowledge.
As such, they are likely to have suffered from the same forms of bias as the other studies.
The finding for the first research question was unexpected. In accord with the previous
research, it was anticipated that the use of L1 translations would yield greater L2 vocabulary
learning than studying through L2 definitions. In order to explain one possibility for the
results, it is important to first consider the pre-test scores. Through their performance on
the JTT pre-tests, it can be observed that the participants had at least partial knowledge
of around 45% of the target vocabulary. When evaluated through the EDT pre-tests,
scores were 31% lower. In other words, although the participants had at least partial knowl-
edge of around 45% of the target vocabulary, despite the simplicity of the language used in
the EDTs, these definitions proved to be much less comprehensible than the translations
used in the JTTs. At the post-test stage, the scores of those students who studied and
were tested using EDs rose. However, given the difference between the JTT and EDT
 10 P. Joyce

pre-test scores, it can be seen that much of this improvement was attributable to learning to
understand the meaning of the L2 definitions. Thus, performance on the EDTs was not just
about learning the target vocabulary; it was also about learning the meaning of the L2 defi-
nitions. On the other hand, since the meaning of the JTs should have been clear from the
beginning, when learners were studying in the JT condition, they were able to just focus
on learning the meaning of the unknown target vocabulary. Consequently, while the use
of the L1 or L2 to study the target language was not found to influence the quantity of
L2 vocabulary learning, it is posited that the study language made a qualitative difference
to the learning undertaken. As can be seen from the above explanation, owing to the use of
real words and differing testing methods, scores on the pre-test varied. The differing pre-test
results make comparisons between the test results more challenging. As such, this consti-
tutes a limitation to this study. A further methodological limitation which could have influ-
enced the results should also be noted. The time that the participants spent studying the
vocabulary in the L1 translation and L2 definition conditions was not controlled. Therefore,
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

owing to the familiarity of the JTs, the learners may simply have spent less time learning
through this method for the same learning gains. Also, as the proficiency level of the par-
ticipants varied from false beginner to an upper intermediate level, the findings have rel-
evance to a wide range of learners, especially since care was taken to ensure that the
participants’ prior knowledge of the target vocabulary was low. However, given the
broad range of student abilities, the generalisability of the findings to any one proficiency
level is diminished.
The results of this study have clear implications for learning and teaching. As there was
found to be a large study time effect, intentional vocabulary learning was confirmed to be a
powerful means of broadening lexical breadth. As such, students should be encouraged to
use this approach to establish their form–meaning understanding of L2 vocabulary. In order
to do this, teachers should consider incorporating this aspect of language study into their
courses. Nevertheless, the inclusion of intentional vocabulary study should not be at the
expense of contextualised vocabulary learning. Message-focused activities have an essen-
tial role, particularly in the deepening of lexical understanding.
The results also shed light on the language in which the meaning of new L2 vocabulary
is conveyed. At first glance, the results favour neither an L1 translation nor an L2 definition
approach. However, as has been discussed, owing to qualitative differences in the type of
learning undertaken by students using the two different approaches, the L1 translation
method entails greater focus on unknown vocabulary and less on learning the meaning
of the target language. As such, when the goal is primarily vocabulary expansion, the L1
method is preferable. On the other hand, for the purposes of general language development,
learning through an L2 definition is favoured. Nevertheless, when learners opt for an L2
definition approach for the development of their general L2 ability, to ensure a reasonable
balance between the learning of target vocabulary and their definitions, a simplified L2 defi-
nition is recommended. Given the differences in the learning undertaken when studying
vocabulary through an L1 translation or L2 definition, it is suggested that students be
allowed to make their own informed choices about which study language they wish to
use. Furthermore, it is recommended that teachers consider allowing students to receive
meaning-focused vocabulary learning assistance in their L1.
There are also a number of caveats to the use of intentional learning through L1 trans-
lations though. In terms of proficiency, direct vocabulary learning in general is likely to be
of greater suitability to lower proficiency students. At higher levels, the simplicity of
focused form–meaning study is increasingly outweighed by the value that can be attributed
to deeper contextual processing (Carter 1987; Cohen and Aphek 1980; Schmitt 1997).
 The Language Learning Journal 11

In addition, as proficiency increases, students also have a clearer understanding of the

meaning of L2 definitions, and this form of vocabulary learning can provide an additional
L2 study opportunity. As such, the use of L1 translations for intentional vocabulary learning
is seen as being most effective for students at lower proficiency levels.
Practical limitations on intentional learning through the L1 include its use with multi-
lingual classes and when teaching students from a monolingual background, the instructor’s
lack of knowledge of the learners’ L1. However, these qualifications refer to teacher usage
and not specifically to student learning. Even in a multilingual class or with a teacher who is
unable to provide effective L1 assistance, students can still select an L1 translation or L2
definition through a bilingual dictionary. A second issue to consider is the language in
which any vocabulary assessment will occur. As has been discussed, while the results
have shown that L1 tests are easier, the findings also showed that when the learning
language and study language are matched, the participants’ scores were significantly
higher. This is important as some tests, including many Japanese university entrance
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

tests, include receptive items that test L2 vocabulary breadth knowledge through L1 trans-
lations. Thus, when preparing for tests, it is important to carefully select whether the target
vocabulary should be paired with an L2 definition or L1 translation.

References
Anderson, R.C. and P. Freebody. 1981. Vocabulary knowledge. In Comprehension and Teaching:
Research Reviews, ed. J. Guthrie, 77–117. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Astika, G.G. 1993. Analytical assessment of foreign students’ writing. RELC Journal 24: 61–70.
Beaton, A., M. Gruneberg and N. Ellis. 1995. Retention of foreign vocabulary learned using the
keyword method: a ten-year follow-up. Second Language Research 11: 112–20.
Bonk, W.J. 2001. Predicting Paper-and-Pencil TOEFL Scores from KEPT Data. Research Institute
of Language Studies and Language Education, Kanda University of International Studies 12:
65–85.
Brutten, S.R. 1981. An analysis of student and teacher indications of vocabulary difficulty. RELC
Journal 12, no. 1: 66–71.
Cambridge Essential English Dictionary (1st ed.). 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R. 1987. Vocabu1ary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. London: Allen & Unwin.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, A.D. and E. Aphek. 1980. Retention of second-language vocabulary over time: investigating
the role of mnemonic associations. System 8: 221–35.
Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34, no. 2: 213–38.
Daneman, M. 1991. Individual differences in reading skills. In Handbook of Reading Research
(Vol. 2), ed. R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal and P.D. Pearson, 512–38. White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Fitzpatrick, T., I. Al-Qarni and P. Meara. 2008. Intensive vocabulary learning: a case study. The
Language Learning Journal 36, no. 2: 239–48.
Gefen, R. 1987. Increasing vocabulary teaching in Israel schools. English Teachers Journal 35: 38–43.
Grace, C.A. 1998. Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentence-level translations:
implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern Language Journal
82, no. 1: 533–44.
Hall, C. 2002. The automatic cognate form assumption: evidence for the parasitic model of vocabu-
lary development. International Review of Applied Linguistics 40, no. 1: 69–87.
Jiang, N. 2002. Form-meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 24: 617–37.
Latsanyphone, S. and S. Bouangeune. 2009. Using L1 in teaching vocabulary to low proficiency level
students: a case study at the National University of Laos. English Language Teaching 2, no. 3:
186–93.
 12 P. Joyce

Laufer, B. 1992. How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In Vocabulary and Applied
Linguistics, ed. P.J. Arnaud and H. Béjoint, 126–32. London: Macmillan.
Laufer, B. and N. Girsai. 2008. Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: a
case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics 29, no. 4: 694–716.
Laufer, B. and K. Shmueli. 1997. Memorizing new words: does teaching have anything to do with it?
RELC Journal 28: 89–108.
Na, Liu and I.S.P. Nation. 1985. Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC Journal 16,
no. 1: 33–42.
Nagy, W. 1997. On the role of context in first- and second-language vocabulary learning. In
Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, ed. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 64–83.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagy, W., R. Anderson and P. Herman. 1987. Learning word meanings from context during normal
reading. American Educational Research Journal 24: 237–70.
Nakata, T. 2008. English vocabulary learning with word lists, word cards, and computers: impli-
cations from cognitive psychology research for optimal spaced learning. ReCALL 20, no. 1: 3–20.
Nation, I.S.P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 10:51 25 July 2015

Nation, I.S.P. 2006. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian
Modern Language Review 63, no. 1: 59–82.
Nation, I.S.P. and R. Waring. 1997. Vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists. In Vocabulary:
Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, ed. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 6–19. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Paribakht, T.S. and M.B. Wesche. 1993. Reading comprehension and second language development
in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal 11, no. 1: 9–29.
Parry, K. 1991. Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly 25: 629–53.
Prince, P. 1996. Second language vocabulary learning: the role of context versus translations as a
function of proficiency. Modern Language Journal 80: 478–93.
Ramachandran, S.D. and H.A. Rahim. 2004. Meaning recall and retention: the impact of the trans-
lation method on elementary level learners’ vocabulary learning. RELC Journal 35, no. 2:
161–78.
Ringbom, H. 1987. The Role of First Language in Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Rivers, W.M. and M.S. Temperley. 1978. A Practical Guide to the Teaching of English as a Second or
Foreign Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmitt, N. 1997. Vocabulary learning strategies. In Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy, ed. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 199–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. 2008. Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research 12:
329–63.
Schmitt, N., D. Schmitt and C. Clapham. 2001. Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new
versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18: 55–88.
Scott, V.M. and M.J. De la Fuente. 2008. What is the problem? L2 learners’ use of the L1 during con-
sciousness-raising form-focused tasks. The Modern Language Journal 92, no. 1: 100–13.
Sunderman, G. and J.F. Kroll. 2006. First language activation during second language lexical proces-
sing: an investigation of lexical form, meaning, and grammatical class. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 28: 387–422.
Swan, M. 1997. The influence of the mother tongue on second language acquisition and use. In
Vocabulary Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, ed. N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy, 156–80.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tudor, I. and F. Hafiz. 1989. Extensive reading as a means of input to L2 learning. Journal of Research
in Reading 12: 164–78.
Webb, S. 2007. The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 28, no. 1: 46–65.