This article was downloaded by: [171.67.34.

205]
On: 04 August 2013, At: 13:35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Language Learning Journal

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

A model of L2 vocabulary learning and

retention
a a
Martin Willis & Yoshie Ohashi
a
Department of Language Sciences, Tokyo Women's Christian
University, Tokyo, Japan
Published online: 02 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Martin Willis & Yoshie Ohashi (2012) A model of L2 vocabulary learning and
retention, The Language Learning Journal, 40:1, 125-137

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658232

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
 The Language Learning Journal
Vol. 40, No. 1, April 2012, 125–137

A model of L2 vocabulary learning and retention

Martin Willis* and Yoshie Ohashi

Department of Language Sciences, Tokyo Women’s Christian University, Tokyo, Japan

Vocabulary is an essential component of language. It is central to reading ability,

writing ability and listening ability, and the most important aspect of second-
language (L2) knowledge for academic achievement. The aim of this paper is to
investigate quantitatively some of the factors that make some L2 words more
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

difficult to learn and retain over time than others. It builds upon similar research
carried out by Milton and Daller which investigated the relationship between
word difficulty and frequency, cognateness and word length, but differs from it in
the type of test used to measure word difficulty and the ways in which cognateness
and word length were operationalised.

Background
A great many factors have been shown to influence second-language (L2) vocabulary
acquisition. Research into initial vocabulary learning, or more specifically paired
associate learning, has found that initial learning difficulty is influenced by the
pronounceability of the target L2 word, its form class (content or function) (Rodgers
1967), abstractness (Higa 1965), part of speech (Glanzer 1962, cited in Rodgers
1967), the semantic relatedness of the words in the learning set (Erten and Tekin
2008; Higa 1963; Tinkham 1993, 1997; Waring 1997), cognateness (Tonzar, Lotto
and Job 2009), frequency of the first-language (L1) translation equivalent and even
the presence of music during memorisation (de Groot 2006). Factors found in
research into knowledge of words retained over time are: frequency (Culligan 2008;
Kirkpatrick and Cureton 1949; Konishi 2010; Saragi, Nation and Meister 1978;
Vermeer 2001; Willis 2001), word length (Culligan 2008), inflectional complexity,
derivational complexity, polysemy, synformy (Laufer 1997; Laufer-Dvorkin 1991),
degree of synonymy with another L2 word that shares a common L1 equivalent
(Jiang 2002, 2004; Matikainen 2011; Matikainen and Willis 2007) and cognateness
(Daulton 1998, 2003a, 2003b, 2008; Lado 1956, 1972; Nation 2006).
Most studies, however, have been somewhat simple, looking at the relationship
between word difficulty or word learning difficulty and just one variable at a time.
One exception to this is a study of British learners of French (Milton and Daller
2007; Milton 2009) which attempted to investigate the relationship between word
difficulty and frequency (lemma frequency in the British National Corpus (BNC)),
cognateness (proportion of letters common to L1 and L2 words), and word length

*Corresponding author. Email: mwillis@lab.twcu.ac.jp

ISSN 0957-1736 print/ISSN 1753-2167 online

Ó 2012 Association for Language Learning
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658232
http://www.tandfonline.com
 126 M. Willis and Y. Ohashi

(number of syllables in the L2 word) in a Multiple Linear Regression model, which

accounts for the contributions of all the variables together. The only statistically
significant variable in their model was word frequency, which explained about 30%
of the variance.
The present study aims to find answers to similar research questions to those
investigated by Milton and Daller (2007):

(1) What combination of variables (cognateness, frequency and length) best

predicts the difficulty of learning and retaining words?
(2) What are the ‘sizes’ of their contribution?

One motivation for the study is to see if similar results would be obtained with
learners (Japanese) of a non-cognate L2 (English). The study is not a ‘pure’
replication, however. Reservations about the type of test used by Milton and Daller
to estimate word difficulties, their operationalisation of cognateness, and the
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

possibility that other measures of word length may be more appropriate for an L2
that uses a different script from the L1 have led to changes to the research
instruments and variables. These changes and the reasons for them are discussed
below.

Vocabulary tests
Research has consistently shown that yes/no tests are a reliable and valid means of
estimating the receptive vocabulary size of L2 learners (Culligan 2008; Huibregtse,
Admiraal and Meara 2002; Meara and Buxton 1987; Mochida and Harrington 2006;
Shillaw 1996). This, however, does not mean that they provide accurate estimates of
word difficulty.
Since yes/no tests are not really tests in the traditional sense but self-report
questionnaires in which test-takers indicate whether they know the meanings of
words or not, the major concern about using them has been about test-taker
‘honesty’ and how this can be corrected for. One solution, inspired by signal
detection theory, is to have a number of non-words mixed in with real words and
adjust test-taker vocabulary size scores using data from these ‘false’ items
(Huibregtse, Admiraal and Meara 2002; Meara and Buxton 1987). Unfortunately,
these adjustments do not correct for the effects that inaccurate self-report has on the
estimates of difficulty of the real words on the test. Another solution is to simply
remove from the study the subjects marking too many of the false items (Barrow,
Nakanishi and Ishino 1999; Culligan 2008; Milton and Daller 2007).
Another reported problem is confusion with similar-looking (or -sounding)
words, or what Laufer (1988) calls synform confusions. Synform confusions can
cause test-takers to mark as known unknown words that look similar to words that
they know. Konishi (2010), in a study that investigated vocabulary learning from a
reading textbook by Japanese university students using a slightly modified version of
the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht and Wesche 1997), found that 23.5% of
the words marked as known on her test were actually synform confusions. Some
examples are shown in Table 1. Interestingly, errors like these may not seriously
affect estimates of vocabulary size since the test-taker clearly knows a word
(although not the word on the test), but they are likely to affect the accuracy of
estimates of individual word difficulties calculated from the data.
 The Language Learning Journal 127

Table 1. Examples of synform errors in Konishi (2010).

Test item Meaning of translation

distract destruct, distance
embrace embarrass
constitute consist, continue
violate violence, violent, violet

In order to avoid these problems, part of the Vocabulary Size Test (VST) (Nation
and Beglar 2007) was used in this study. The VST is a test of written receptive
vocabulary size.1 It consists of 14 frequency bands, from the first 1000 to the 14th
1000 most frequent spoken word families in the BNC and has 10 multiple choice
questions at each level. It has been shown to be a generally reliable, valid test (Beglar
2010). The following is an example item from the third 1000 level:
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

(1) soldier: He is a soldier.

(a) person in a business
(b) student
(c) person who uses metal
(d) person in the army

‘In order to answer the items, the test-takers have to have a moderately developed
idea of the meaning of the word’ (Nation and Beglar 2007: 11). This makes it
different from the self-report yes/no test and provides some protection against
synform and other kinds of errors that can lead to inaccurate estimates of word
difficulty. This does not mean, of course, that the VST will not suffer from
inaccuracies. As a multiple choice test, a certain degree of error is likely to be
introduced because of guessing of unknown items. The inaccuracies caused by this,
we would argue, are likely to be less severe than those of yes/no tests.

Cognateness
Cognates are words in different languages ‘that are similar in form and in
meaning’ (Lado 1956: 32). There is a lot of evidence in support of a generally
facilitating effect on vocabulary learning for cognates, but there are opinions that
stress the possible negative effects, especially of deceptive or false cognates, ‘words
that are similar in form but represent meanings that are different’ (Lado 1956:
33). The contribution of cognates to a multivariate model of word difficulty does
not appear to have successfully been quantified in a model of L2 vocabulary
acquisition.
In the study of British learners of French reported in Milton and Daller (2007)
and Milton (2009), cognateness was found not to contribute significantly to word
difficulty. One reason for this may have been the way that cognateness was
operationalised in the study. Milton and Daller operationalised it as the proportion
of letters in common in the L1 and L2 words. Their reasoning for using this kind of
measurement rather than a simple binary measure (cognate/non-cognate) was that a
binary measure ‘fails to reflect the fact that L2 words may vary in how similar they
are to L1 equivalents’ (Milton and Daller 2007: 39). It would seem to us, however,
that this kind of ‘graded’ cognateness is more likely to affect their recognisability as
 128 M. Willis and Y. Ohashi

cognates, and much less their difficulty after a form-meaning link has been
established and the word’s ‘cognateness’ becomes apparent, or over the long term,
which is mostly what is being measured by tests of vocabulary size. A simple
binary variable also seems more reasonable in the case of languages that use
different scripts, especially with one, like Japanese, that orthographically
distinguishes recent lexical borrowings through the use of a different script
(katakana) from those usually used for other lexical items (hiragana and kanji) (cf.
Uchida 2001).
From a statistical point of view, the use of a binary variable for cognateness also
allows us to investigate whether the effects of the other variables in the study, e.g.
frequency and word length, are the same for cognates and non-cognates. It is
possible that they are not. For example, it seems intuitively quite plausible that
learning cognates, or at least true cognates, is less strongly affected by word
frequency or word length than non-cognates.
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

Word length
Milton and Daller (2007) and Milton (2009) used number of letters as the measure of
word length in their study. However, given the differences in Japanese and English
written scripts, it is not clear which measure might work best. In this study, word
length measured in letters, phonemes and syllables are all explored.

Research questions
The research questions for this study are:

(1) What combination of variables (cognateness, frequency and word length)

best predicts the difficulty for English as a second language (ESL) learners of
learning and retaining L2 words over time (i.e. the likelihood that words are
known)?
(2) What are the ‘sizes’ of contributions of each of the variables?
(3) Is knowledge of cognates and non-cognates influenced to the same degree by
frequency and word length?

Methodology
Participants
The participants of this study were 69 first- and second-year students studying in the
Departments of Communication, Linguistics, Mathematics and Science, and
Psychology at a women’s university in Tokyo. They had been studying English
formally for at least seven years at school and university, and had a wide range of
English proficiency levels.

Instrument
The test instrument used was the first seven levels of the VST, a multiple choice
recognition vocabulary size test (Nation and Beglar 2007). One reason for not using
all 10 levels of the test was constraints on the time that could be used for testing.
 The Language Learning Journal 129

Another was that a pilot study using only the first five levels of the VST indicated
that more items would be needed to get a satisfactory level of statistical power for
the study, and past experience with the Vocabulary Levels Test suggested that the
very infrequent levels would probably introduce too many unknown items and
reduce statistical power by skewing the data. The first seven levels were therefore
chosen.

Variables
Frequency
Word frequency was operationalised as the BNC lemma frequency of the word on
the test. In other words, it was the frequency of all the word types in the lemma for
the part of speech used in the item cue. For example, in the sample item above, the
tested word is soldier and it is used as a noun in the example sentence. The lemma
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

frequency used in this study was the frequency of the noun lemma for soldier, i.e. the
word types soldier and soldiers. Uses of the verb lemma soldier were not included in
the frequency count.

Cognateness
Cognateness was treated as a binary variable on the basis of whether the L1 word
was found in Daulton’s (2008) list of cognates, or in a dictionary of loanwords (Sato
1990) and a Japanese–Japanese dictionary (Shinmura 1998). Altogether, there were
20 cognates in the test, i.e. 28.57% of the total. They were fairly evenly distributed
across the frequency levels: with four at the first 1000 level, two at the third and sixth
1000 levels and three at all the others (Table 2).

Table 2. Cognates in the 1000–7000 levels of the VST.

Level L2 L1 equivalent (katakana) L1 equivalent (romaji)

1000 time taimu
drive doraibu
jump janpu
standard sutandaado
2000 pub pabu
circle saakuru
pro puro
3000 strap sutorapu
dash dasshu
4000 quiz kuizu
input inputo
vocabulary bokyaburarii
5000 cube kyuubu
miniature minichuaa
bacterium bakuteriaa
6000 premier puremiaa
accessory akusesarii
7000 olive oriibu
bloc burokku
yoghurt yooguruto
 130 M. Willis and Y. Ohashi

Word length
Three measures of word length, number of letters, number of syllables and number
of phonemes, were used. Summary statistics are shown in Table 3.

Procedure
The VST was given to the participants during regular university classes. The test
took the participants about 15–25 minutes to complete.

Data analysis
The data were analysed using R (R Development Core Team 2010). In addition
to descriptive statistics and correlations, a Multiple Linear Regression model of
the data was found using a stepwise variable selection procedure in which
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

predictor variables are iteratively removed from or added to the model until the
most parsimonious model that explains the data is found. In technical terms, this
is the model with the smallest AIC (Akaike’s Information Criterion). The starting
point for this procedure was a model containing cognateness, frequency and the
three measures of word length (letters, phonemes and syllables) and the
interactions between cognateness and frequency and the word-length measures.
The interaction effects were included in order to investigate whether the frequency
and word-length variables had different effects for cognates and non-cognates.
The three measures of word length were included as it was believed that, because
of the strong correlations between them, only one would be left in the final
model.

Results
Descriptives
Participants
The reliability (Cronbach alpha) of the VST was a somewhat low 0.67. The
participants’ estimated vocabulary sizes ranged from 2000 to 5000, with a mean of
3571 words (SD ¼ 603). These figures are fairly close to the 3708 vocabulary size
estimate for Japanese university and college students (aged 21–25) of Browne, Cihi
and Culligan (2007) using yes/no data from the first 6000 words. However, after
adjusting for guessing (Prihoda et al. 2006), the vocabulary sizes ranged from 333 to
4333 with a mean of 2482 words (SD ¼ 805).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and distributions of the different measures of word length.

Length
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M SD

Letters 6 14 10 11 13 9 4 3 5.99 1.91

Syllables 26 33 8 2 1 1.84 0.85
Phonemes 4 11 14 14 14 6 4 2 1 5.06 1.85
 The Language Learning Journal 131

Correlations
Table 4 shows the correlations between word difficulty, or more precisely item
facility (IF), and the predictor variables. The variable that correlates most strongly
with IF is cognateness, which accounts for 29% of the variance, followed by BNC
lemma frequency, accounting for 23%. Both of these correlations are positive,
indicating that it is generally easier to learn and retain cognates and more frequent
vocabulary items. The word-length variables all correlate much more weakly with IF
accounting for between 7 and 8% of the variance. The negative correlation shows
that it is harder to learn and or retain longer words than shorter ones.

Multiple Linear Regression model

The best Multiple Linear Regression Model (Table 5) found using the stepwise
procedure consisted of three statistically significant simple effects: cognateness,
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

frequency and number of phonemes (F ¼ 21.65, df ¼ 3, 66, p ¼ .000). The word length
variables – number of letters and number of syllables – both dropped out of the
model. The interaction effects between cognateness and frequency and the word-
length measures also dropped out of the model, which indicates that both cognates
and non-cognates are affected by frequency and phoneme length in the same way.
The model accounted for almost 50% of the variance (Multiple R2 ¼ 0.496).
According to the model, non-cognates are harder to learn and retain than cognates
and their IFs are 0.30 lower than non-cognates of the same frequency and phoneme
length. Frequent words are also more likely to be known than less-frequent words, as

Table 4. Correlations (r) and coefficients of determination (r2) between IF and the predictor
variables.

IF
r r2 p
log(frequency) 0.478 0.229 .000 ***
Cognateness 0.541 0.293 .000 ***
log(NLET) 7 0.278 0.077 .020 *
log(NPHN) 7 0.274 0.075 .022 *
log(NSYL) 7 0.257 0.066 .032 *

Notes: NLET ¼ word length in letters, NPHN ¼ word length in phonemes, and NSYK ¼ word length in
syllables.
Significance: * 5 .05, *** 5 .001.

Table 5. Best Multiple Linear Regression model found using the stepwise procedure.

Estimate SE t Value Pr(4jtj)

(Intercept) 0.563 0.173 3.260 0.002 **
Cognateness (non-cognate) 70.300 0.053 75.648 0.000 ***
log(frequency) 0.055 0.014 3.855 0.000 ***
log(NPHN) 70.147 0.065 72.253 0.028 *

Note: NPHN ¼ word length in phonemes.

Significance: * 5 .05, ** 5 .01, *** 5 .001.
 132 M. Willis and Y. Ohashi

are shorter words. The relative importance, or contribution, of each of the variables
to the model is shown in Table 6. Cognateness is the most important variable,
accounting for 54% of the variance explained by the model, followed by frequency
which accounts for 34%. Phoneme length is relatively minor, accounting for about
11%.
Figure 1 shows the model graphically. The cognate ‘advantage’ can clearly be
seen, as can the increase in word facility with frequency (left panel) and the decrease
in word facility with number of phonemes (word length). The figures also show that
the points representing cognates (solid dots) appear to be more tightly clustered
around the regression lines than non-cognates, suggesting that the model may be
more robust for cognates than non-cognates. To test this, linear regressions (with
frequency and phoneme length) were run separately on cognates and non-cognates.
The results suggest that this is so; the model for cognates accounting for the data
better (Multiple R2 ¼ 0.405, F ¼ 5.78, df ¼ 2, 17, p ¼ .012) than that for non-cognates
(Multiple R2 ¼ 0.270, F ¼ 8.644, df ¼ 2, 47, p ¼ .001).
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

Table 6. Relative importance of predictor variables (averaged over all orders of entry into
the model).

Contribution
2
r %
Cognateness 0.268 54.06
log(frequency) 0.171 34.46
log(NPHN) 0.057 11.47
Total 0.496 100.00

Note: NPHN ¼ word length in phonemes.

Figure 1. Graphical representation of the Multiple Regression model: left panel shows the
relationship between word facility and frequency for cognates and non-cognates; right shows
the relationship between word facility and word length (number of phonemes) for cognates
and non-cognates.
 The Language Learning Journal 133

Discussion and implications

The results showed that an additive model of simple effects for cognateness,
frequency and word length in phonemes best predicts the difficulty for Japanese ESL
learners of learning and retaining L2 words over time. The largest contributor to
difficulty was cognateness, followed by frequency and then word length in phonemes.
Since there was no interaction effect, the effects for frequency and word length in
phonemes are similar for both cognates and non-cognates, although there is some
evidence that the relationship might be more robust with cognates than non-
cognates. The model, although statistical, has several implications for teaching and
learning vocabulary.
First, it confirms what many teachers and learners probably ‘know’ intuitively,
that cognateness gives learners a very large advantage in vocabulary learning. For
example, if a cognate of a particular frequency is known to 70% of learners, an
equivalent non-cognate of a similar frequency would be known by only 40%.
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

Clearly, learners need many more encounters with non-cognates for long-term
retention. Second, longer words, or more precisely words with more phonemes, are
more difficult to learn. The effect is much smaller, but important because it is
persistent over time.
Cognateness and phoneme length are both fixed properties of words and, as such,
are not amenable to manipulation in learning materials and learning tasks to
promote learning. The third variable in the model, frequency, is a very different kind
of variable and is important from the pedagogical viewpoint, first, because it is
amenable to manipulation and planning to promote learning and, second, because it
shows that the more often learners encounter words, the more likely they are to learn
and retain them. This is true of cognates and non-cognates, and short and long
words, although learning cognates and shorter words appears to require fewer
encounters. Indeed it is likely that repeated encounters are one of the keys to long-
term retention of not only vocabulary but a great many other aspects of language as
well (Ellis 2002).
Frequency can be manipulated in classrooms in two fundamental ways. One is by
providing frequent, concentrated encounters with words in order to promote
learning and retention of new words. The other is by providing a rich lexical
environment that not only provides opportunities for meeting new words but is also
structured to provide sufficient opportunities for periodically repeated encounters
with lexical items to stop them being forgotten. Unfortunately, it appears that
textbooks may not provide learners with these opportunities. Konishi (2010), in an
analysis of a fairly typical, popular and well-regarded reading textbook in Japan
found that very few of the words likely to be unknown to learners occurred more
than once, or twice when they were included in a form-focused activity as well as in a
reading passage. It appears therefore to be largely up to teachers to provide their
learners the opportunities to meet new words again and again in order to help them
learn and remember them.
In order to learn new vocabulary and retain it, intensive, multiple form-focused
activities appear to be the most effective. Roitblat and Laufer (2008) investigated the
effects of number of encounters with a word and type of encounter, in a text
(incidental learning) or in a form-focused activity, on long-term retention. They
found a clear advantage for form-focused activities after a minimum of four
encounters. It was further suggested that seven meetings with words in form-focused
 134 M. Willis and Y. Ohashi

activities generally led to long-term retention. The learning tasks they used were
described as very conventional and typical of tasks found in textbooks and resource
books. For teachers finding and/or adapting seven different activities for newly
introduced vocabulary is likely to be challenging, but not impossible, especially in
the early stages of learning an L2.
An alternative strategy that is perhaps easier to implement is a systematic
extensive reading programme using graded readers. Nation and Wang (1999) suggest
that in such a programme learners read a book a week at an appropriate level and
five books at each band. Doing this, they claim, will ensure that they meet new words
at a rate frequent enough to help them remember them. They also recommend that,
in order to help them cope with a sudden increase of unknown vocabulary when they
move to a higher level, they write new vocabulary on word cards for direct study.
Rosszell (2007) has suggested that extensive reading programmes can be
implemented using self-selected readers, group-selected readers or class readers.
With group and class readers, he believes that vocabulary learning can be enhanced
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

through group discussions about the book currently being read. Class readers have
the added advantage that words unlikely to be known can be pre-taught in class, and
learners’ knowledge of the words reinforced through further encounters with them
during reading.
A further advantage of graded readers is that they can also contribute towards a
rich lexical environment structured to provide ample opportunities for periodic
repeated encounters with previously met vocabulary over an extended time period.
According to Nation and Wang (1999: 375):

As well as providing opportunities for vocabulary growth, graded readers also allow
learners to develop fluency with the words they already know. If the degree of
vocabulary control in a graded reader is well applied, then by reading books at levels
that they have already passed through, learners will meet few unknown words and will
be able to concentrate on reading faster.

It can further be argued, we believe, that this process also prevents relatively
infrequent words from being forgotten, permanently or temporarily. Other effective
ways to ensure that vocabulary is met again may be to periodically recycle lesson
topics and even learning activities with or without modification. While this may
sound boring and may invite resistance, learners in a study by Milton (2008) were
willing to do repetitive tasks using a cartoon, a DVD of a film and a CD of songs in
informal out-of-class activities when they found them enjoyable. The learners in
Roitblat and Laufer’s (2008) study also reported that frequent encounters with
words, especially in the form-focused activities, helped learning and retention,
suggesting that successful learning may be more important to learners than the
tedium of multiple form-focused activities focusing on the same words.
Since the demise of audiolingualism some 40 years ago, word frequency and its
pedagogical operationalisation, repeated encounters with words, have tended to be
overlooked in language teaching and learning. Evidence from a growing number of
studies, including this one, strongly suggests that language learners will benefit
significantly if they are afforded a more central role.
One word of caution, however: the model of vocabulary acquisition found in this
study is a model of vocabulary acquisition by Japanese learners. For learners of
other languages, models are likely to be different (Green and Meara 1995). Different
language pairs, for example, will have different cognates, and differences in writing
 The Language Learning Journal 135

script and pronunciation that may significantly affect the recognisability of cognates,
and therefore also have an impact on the model. It is therefore important that
models are developed for different language pairs.

Note
1. The VST is freely available at http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/
nation.aspx.

References
Barrow, J., Y. Nakanishi and H. Ishino. 1999. Assessing Japanese college students’ vocabulary
knowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey. System 27: 223–47.
Beglar, D. 2010. A Rasch-based validation of the vocabulary size test. Language Testing 27,
no. 1: 101–18.
Browne, C., G.Cihi and B. Culligan. 2007. Measuring Vocabulary Size via Online Technology.
Tokyo: Lexxica. http://www.wordengine.jp/research/pdf/Measuring_vocabulary_via_
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

online_technology.pdf.
Culligan, B. 2008. Estimating word difficulty using yes/no tests in an IRT framework and its
application for pedagogic objectives. Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Japan.
Daulton, F.E. 1998. Loanword cognates and the acquisition of English vocabulary. The
Language Teacher 20: 17–25.
Daulton, F.E. 2003a. The effect of Japanese loanwords on written English production: a pilot
study. JALT Hokkaido Journal 7: 3–12.
Daulton, F.E. 2003b. Identifying the Japanese loanword cognates for high-frequency English
vocabulary. Paper presented at Temple University Applied Linguistics Colloquium 2003,
in Tokyo, Japan.
Daulton, F.E. 2008. Japan’s Built-In Lexicon of English-Based Loanwords. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
de Groot, A.M.B. 2006. Effects of stimulus characteristics and background music on foreign
language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning 56, no. 3: 463–506.
Ellis, N.C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in SLA 24, no. 2: 143–88.
Erten, I.H. and M. Tekin. 2008. Effects on vocabulary acquisition of presenting new words in
semantic sets versus semantically unrelated sets. System 36, no. 3: 407–22.
Green, D. and P.M. Meara. 1995. CALL and vocabulary teaching. Computer Assisted
Language Learning 8, nos 2–3: 91–101.
Higa, M. 1963. Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 2: 170–5.
Higa, M. 1965. The psycholingistic concept of ‘difficulty’ and the teaching of foreign language
vocabulary. Language Learning 15, nos 3–4: 167–79.
Huibregtse, I., W.Admiraal and P. Meara. 2002. Scores on a yes–no vocabulary test:
Correction for guessing and response style. Language Testing 19, no. 3: 227–45.
Jiang, N. 2002. Form–meaning mapping in vocabulary acquisition in a second language.
Studies in SLA 24, no. 4: 617–37.
Jiang, N. 2004. Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second
language. The Modern Language Journal 88, no. 3: 416–32.
Kirkpatrick, J.J. and E.E. Cureton. 1949. Vocabulary item difficulty and word frequency.
Journal of Applied Psychology 33: 347–51.
Konishi, Y. 2010. Reading and second language vocabulary acquisition. MA thesis, Tokyo
Women’s Christian University.
Lado, R. 1956. Patterns of difficulty in vocabulary. Language Learning 1, no. 1: 23–41.
Lado, R. 1972. Patterns of difficulty in vocabulary. In Teaching English as a Second Language,
ed. H.B. Allen and A. Campbell, 275–88. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Laufer, B. 1988. The concept of ‘synforms’ similar lexical forms in vocabulary acquisition.
Language and Education 2, no. 2: 113–32.
Laufer, B. 1997. What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy? Intralexical factors affecting the
difficulty of vocabulary acquisition. In Vocabulary Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy,
ed. M. McCarthy and N. Schmitt, 140–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 136 M. Willis and Y. Ohashi

Laufer-Dvorkin, B. 1991. Similar Lexical Forms in Interlanguage. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.

Matikainen, T.J. 2011. Semantic representation of the L2 lexicon in Japanese university
students. Doctoral diss., Temple University, Japan.
Matikainen, T.J. and M. Willis. 2007. Lexical semantic development: just because it’s slow,
doesn’t mean it’s fossilized. Poster presented at EUROSLA 2007, September 11–14, in
Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Meara, P. and B. Buxton. 1987. An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language
Testing 4, no. 2: 142–54.
Milton, J. 2008. Vocabulary uptake from informal learning tasks. The Language Learning
Journal 36, no. 2: 227–37.
Milton, J. 2009. Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multi-
lingual Matters.
Milton, J. and H. Daller. 2007. The interface between theory and learning in vocabulary
acquisition. Paper presented at EUROSLA 2007, September 11–14, in Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK.
Mochida, A. and M. Harrington. 2006. The yes/no test as a measure of receptive vocabulary
knowledge. Language Testing 23, no. 1: 73–98.
Nation, I.S.P. 2006 Vocabulary: second language. In Encyclopaedia of Language and
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013

Linguistics, vol. 13, 2nd ed., ed. K. Brown, 448–54. Oxford: Elsevier.
Nation, P. and D. Beglar. 2007. A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31, no. 7: 9–13.
Nation, P. and K.M. Wang. 1999. Graded readers and vocabulary. Reading in a Foreign
Language 12, no. 2: 355–80.
Paribakht, T.S. and M. Wesche. 1997. Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for
meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition, ed. J. Coady and T. Huckin, 174–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Prihoda, T.J., R.N. Pinckard, C.A.McMahan and A.C. Jones. 2006. Correcting for guessing
increases validity in multiple-choice examinations in an oral and maxillofacial pathology
course. Journal of Dental Education 70: 378–86.
R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Computer software.
Rodgers, T.S. 1967. Measuring Vocabulary Difficulty: An Analysis of Item Variables in
Learning Russian–English and Japanese–English Vocabulary Pairs. Technical Report no.
124. Stanford, CA: Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford
University.
Roitblat, B. and B. Laufer. 2008. Long-term retention of new words: number of encounters or
type of encounters? Paper presented at EUROSLA 18, September 10–13, in Aix-en-
Provence, France.
Rosszell, R. 2007. Two key issues to consider in the design of an effective ER program: self-
selection and integration. The Language Teacher 31: 3–8.
Saragi, T., I.S.P.Nation and G.F. Meister. 1978. Vocabulary learning and reading. System 6,
no. 2: 72–8.
Sato, K. 1990. Gairaigo eiwa jiten [English–Japanese dictionary of loanwords]. Tokyo: Yashio.
Saville-Troike, M. 1984. What really matters in second language learning for academic
achievement? TESOL Quarterly 18, no. 2: 199–217.
Shillaw, J. 1996. The application of Rasch modelling to yes/no vocabulary tests. Vocabulary
Acquisition Research Group, University of Wales Swansea. http://www.swan.ac.uk/cals/
calsres/vlibrary/js96a.htm (accessed June 20, 2010).
Shinmura, I., ed. 1998. Koujien. 5th ed. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Tinkham, T. 1993. The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language
vocabulary. System 21, no. 3: 371–80.
Tinkham, T. 1997. The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of second
language vocabulary. Second Language Research 13, no. 2: 138–63.
Tonzar, C., L.Lotto and R. Job. 2009. L2 vocabulary acquisition in children: effects of
learning method and cognate status. Language Learning 59, no. 3: 623–46.
Uchida, E. 2001. Audio and visual identification of unknown L2 cognates involving different
scripts. Essex Graduate Student Papers in Language and Linguistics 3: 211–30. http://
www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/egspll/volume_3/index.aspx.
 The Language Learning Journal 137

Vermeer, A. 2001. Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to acquisition and frequency of
input. Applied Psycholinguistics 22, no. 2: 217–34.
Waring, R. 1997. The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets: a replication. System
25, no. 2: 261–74.
Willis, M. 2001. Lexico-syntactic development at intermediate/advanced levels. Paper
presented at BAAL 2001, September 6–8, in Reading, UK.
Downloaded by [171.67.34.205] at 13:35 04 August 2013