Abstract
Academic vocabulary knowledge predicts students’ academic achievement across educational levels. English academic vocabulary knowledge is especially valuable because English is used in academia worldwide. Therefore, examining the factors that can predict English academic vocabulary knowledge can inform pedagogy, thus indirectly boosting students’ chances of academic success around the world. This study examines the extent to which cognateness, word frequency and length predict the ability of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners who have Spanish as their first language (L1) to recognise written English academic words. 38 Spanish L1 university students’ recognition knowledge of English cognates was measured via a Yes/No test containing words sampled from the most frequent 1,000 lemmas of the Academic Vocabulary List (Gardner and Davies 2014). 34 participants’ data were retained in the final analysis, a multiple regression with item facility (IF) as the outcome variable and word frequency, cognateness and word length as predictors. Most of the IF variance is explained by word frequency, followed by cognateness and finally a frequency by cognateness interaction whereby word frequency is more predictive of IF for non-cognates than cognates. These findings indicate that academic cognate-word awareness raising activities can be worthwhile. Implications for research and pedagogy are discussed.
Appendix A: Items in the English Yes/No test
| Cognate words | SUBTLEX-UK frequency-matched non-cognate words |
|---|---|
| university (S: universidad) require (S: requerir) response (S: respuesta) central (S: central) apply (S: aplicar) association (S: asociación) attitude (S: actitud) interaction (S: interacción) interpretation (S: interpretación) evaluate (S: evaluar) definition (S: definición) percentage (S: porcentaje) typical (S: típico) discovery (S: descubrimiento) myth (S: mito) discrimination (S: discriminación) restriction (S: restricción) specify (S: especificar) infrastructure (S: infraestructura) inclusion (S: inclusión) hierarchy (S: jerarquía) conversion (S: conversión) flexibility (S: flexibilidad) substantially (S: substancialmente) considerably (S: considerablemente) justification (S: justificación) |
growth rely knowledge available seek wealth degree likelihood livestock broaden workshop tool useful belief ownership stance thinker outweigh outcome drawback offspring allowance weakness lastly nonetheless outset |
-
Note: Spanish cognates appear within parentheses.
Pseudowords
haddy, nitch, dreas, cag, halm, dracer, cround, cround, bood, stad, jolder, sping, kile, totle, hode, craddock, sporly, verden, poot, cridge, plany, pernicate, treak, repow, witten, earch, enruy, skelding, gurl, jink, lannery, casning, sistence, thint, snurley.
Appendix B: Example and practice items for the Spanish word Yes/No test
Note: The feedback about the practice items appeared on a different page in the handout.
If you know this word___√__ perro
If you do not know this word_____imperceptible
If you do not know this word_____ mintar
(Good, because it is a non-word)
If you check a non-word, you will lose points __√__ mintar
Now try some practice words
_____ coche
_____ remojado
_____ tinfeta
_____ fealdad
_____ chismear
_____ erto
_____ día
_____ fasmoso
_____ conocer
_____ obsequiar
After completing the practice words above, you might have checked any of 7 real words that you know. But you should not have checked “tinfeta,” “erto” o “fasmoso” because they are not real words in Spanish.
Appendix C: Language Background Questionnaire
In this short questionnaire you will be asked about your personal details and about your experience learning English as a foreign language. This test is comprised by 15 questions which do not require long answers. You must answer all the questions that are applicable to you. There are not right or wrong answers to these questions as each person may have a different language learning experience. Completing this questionnaire will not take you more than 3–4 minutes.
Please answer the following questions.
Personal details
1. Name and surname:
2. Age (in years): _____
3. Sex (circle one): Male/Female
4. Education (degree obtained or school level attended/ if you are currently studying specify what):
5. Country of origin:
6. Country of Residence:
7. If your answers to questions 5 and 6 are the same, have you travelled or lived abroad in a country where your second language (English) is spoken? Where? How long for?
8. If your answers to questions 5 and 6 are different, how long have you been in the country of your current residence (in years)?
Language background and experience
9. What is your native language, that is, the language you first spoke? If there is more than one, please list them.
10. Do you know any other languages in addition to your native language(s) and English?
11. If you answered ‘Yes’ to question 10, please list this language or these languages.
Appendix D: Figure 1 in Elgort (2013: 267), reproduced with permission
Appendix E: Summary of multiple regression assumption tests conducted for the stepwise multiple regression analysis reported in Section 7
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test conducted on the residuals (D(48) = 0.07, p = 0.2) and the histogram of the standardised residuals indicated that the data contained approximately normally distributed errors. Tolerance statistics for all predictor variables were higher than 0.2, thus indicating that the assumption of no multicollinearity was met (Centred log of SUBTLEX-UK frequency, Tolerance = 0.51; Cognateness, Tolerance = 1; Centred log of SUBTLEX-UK frequency by Cognateness, Tolerance = 0.51). The loading of predictors on the smallest eigenvalue also indicated that the assumption of multicollinearity was met because most of the variance of only the cognateness variable was related to this eigenvalue (Centred log of SUBTLEX-UK frequency, variance proportion: 0.35; Cognateness, variance proportion: 0.54; Centred log of SUBTLEX-UK frequency by Cognateness, variance proportion: 0.34). The assumption of independent errors was also met (Durbin-Watson = 1.65). The scatterplot between the studentised residuals and the predicted standardised residuals indicates randomly scattered data points without any curvature or funnel shape; therefore, this scatterplot suggests that the assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity were met. Finally, according to the power analysis reported in Section 5, the optimal sample size for a regression analysis with six predictors, expected R2 of 0.496, α level of 0.05 and 80% power is 21; therefore, 26 participants are more than sufficient for this regression analysis.
References
Allen, David B. & Kathy Conklin. 2013. Cross-linguistic similarity and task demands in Japanese-English bilingual processing. Plos One 8(8). 1–14.10.1371/journal.pone.0072631Search in Google Scholar
Alsaif, Abdullah & James Milton. 2012. Vocabulary input from school textbooks as a potential contributor to the small vocabulary uptake gained by English as a foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia. The Language Learning Journal 40(1). 21–33.10.1080/09571736.2012.658221Search in Google Scholar
August, Diane, Maria Carlo, Cheryl Dressler & Catherine Snow. 2005. The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 20(1). 50–57.10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00120.xSearch in Google Scholar
Beeckmans, Renaud, June Eyckmans, Vera Janssens, Michel Dufranne & Hans Van de Velde. 2001. Examining the Yes/No vocabulary test: Some methodological issues in theory and practice. Language Testing 18(3). 235–274.10.1177/026553220101800301Search in Google Scholar
Beglar, David. 2010. A Rasch-based validation of the vocabulary size test. Language Testing 27(1). 101–118.10.1177/0265532209340194Search in Google Scholar
Bennett, Phil & Tim Stoekel. 2014a. Does loanword frequency predict DIF in L2 vocabulary tests? Poster presented at the Japan Association for Language Teaching annual PanSIG Conference, Miyazaki.Search in Google Scholar
Bennett, Phil & Tim Stoeckel. 2014b. Word frequency and frequency of loanwords as predictors of word difficulty. Verb 3(2). 4–5.Search in Google Scholar
Brown, James D. 2005. Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Mark & Boris New 2009 Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English Behavior Research Methods 41(4). 977–990.10.3758/BRM.41.4.977Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Xi, Gloria Ramirez, Yang C. Luo, Esther Geva & Yu-Min Ku. 2012. Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish and Chinese-speaking ELLs: The effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors. Reading and Writing 25(8). 1991–2020.10.1007/s11145-011-9318-7Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Zheng & Grant Henning. 1985. Linguistic and cultural bias in language proficiency tests. Language Testing 2(2). 155–163.10.1177/026553228500200204Search in Google Scholar
Cobb, Tom. 2010. Learning about language and learners from computer programs. Reading in a Foreign Language 22(1). 181–200.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob & Patricia Cohen. 1975. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West & Leona S. Aiken. 2003. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
College Entrance Examination Center. 2002. Reference word list for senior high English education. http://www.ceec.edu.tw/Research2/Default.aspx (accessed March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Conger, Anthony J. 1974. A revised definition for suppressor variables: a guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 34. 35–46.10.2307/3587951Search in Google Scholar
Coxhead, Averil. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34(2). 213–238.10.1016/j.jeap.2018.02.003Search in Google Scholar
Csomay, Eniko & Alexandra Prades. 2018. Academic vocabulary in ESL student papers: A corpus-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 33. 100–118.Search in Google Scholar
Cuetos, Fernando, Maria Glez-Nosti, Analía Barbón & Marc Brysbaert. 2011. SUBTLEX-ESP: Spanish word frequencies based on film subtitles. Psicológica 32. 133–143.10.1177/0265532215572268Search in Google Scholar
Culligan, Brent. 2015. A comparison of three test formats to assess word difficulty. Language Testing 32(4). 503–520.Search in Google Scholar
Daulton, Frank E. 2005. Common Gairaigo loanwords corresponding to high-frequency and academic vocabulary: Are our students ready for foreign study? JALT Hokkaido Journal 9. 1–16.10.21832/9781847690319Search in Google Scholar
Daulton, Frank E. 2008. Japan’s built-in lexicon of English-based loanwords. Clevedon. London: Multilingual Matters.10.1111/0023-8333.00110Search in Google Scholar
De Groot, Annettte M. B. & Rineke Keijzer. 2000. What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign language learning and forgetting. Language Learning 50(1). 1–56.Search in Google Scholar
Demetriou, Lizeta. 2017. Selection, presentation and recycling of phrasal verbs in ESL textbooks in Cyprus. Paper presented at the 2017 BAAL vocabulary special interest group Conference, Reading, UK.10.1017/S1366728910000519Search in Google Scholar
Dressler, Cheryl, Maria S. Carlo, Catherine E. Snow, Diane August & Claire E. White. 2011. Spanish-speaking students’ use of cognate knowledge to infer the meaning of English words. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(2). 243–255.10.1037/t15145-000Search in Google Scholar
Dunn, Lloyd M. & Douglas M. Dunn. 1997. Peabody picture vocabulary test, 3rd edn. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.10.1016/j.esp.2016.01.004Search in Google Scholar
Durrant, Philip. 2016. To what extent is the academic vocabulary list relevant to university student writing? English for Specific Purposes 43. 49–61.10.5007/1984-8412.2014v11n3p360Search in Google Scholar
Ecke, Peter & Christopher J. Hall. 2014. The parasitic model of L2 and L3 vocabulary acquisition: evidence from naturalistic and experimental studies. Fórum Linguístico 11(3). 360–372.10.1177/0265532212459028Search in Google Scholar
Elgort, Irina. 2013. Effects of L1 definitions and cognate status of test items on the vocabulary size test. Language Testing 30(2). 253–272.Search in Google Scholar
Eyckmans, June. 2004. Measuring receptive vocabulary size. Utrecht: LOT.10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. (ed.), 1998. WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
García, Georgia E. 1998. Mexican-American bilingual students’ metacognitive reading strategies: What’s transferred, unique, problematic? National Reading Conference Yearbook 47. 253–263.10.1093/applin/amt015Search in Google Scholar
Gardner, Dee & Marc Davies. 2014. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics 35(3). 305–327.Search in Google Scholar
Garrison, David. 1990. Inductive strategies for teaching Spanish-English cognates. Hispania 73(2). 508–512.10.1075/itl.166.2.04gylSearch in Google Scholar
Greene, Jennifer & Averil Coxhead. 2015. Academic vocabulary for middle school students. Research-based lists and strategies for key content areas. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Gyllstad, Henrik, Laura Vilkaité & Norbert Schmitt. 2015. Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats: Issues with guessing and sampling rates. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 166(2). 276–303.Search in Google Scholar
Hernández, Anita C. & José A. Montelongo. 2018. Word study with English Spanish cognates. In Kathy Ganske (ed.), Word sorts and more: Sound, pattern and meaning explorations K-3, 2nd edn, 81–92 New York: Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Horst, Marlise, Tom Cobb & Paul Meara. 1998. Beyond A clockwork orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 11(2). 207–223.10.1191/0265532202lt229oaSearch in Google Scholar
Howell, David C. 2002. Statistical methods for psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury/Thompson Learning.10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00058.xSearch in Google Scholar
Huibregtse, Ineke, Wilfried Admiraal & P. Paul Meara. 2002. Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test: Correction for guessing and response style. Language Testing 19(3). 227–245.10.1093/applin/21.1.47Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2007. Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’? TESOL Quarterly 41(2). 235–253.10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00238.xSearch in Google Scholar
Jiang, Nan. 2000. Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics 21(1). 47–77.10.1598/RRQ.31.1.5Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Nan. 2004. Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. The Modern Language Journal 88(3). 416–432.Search in Google Scholar
Jiménez, Robert T., Georgia E. García & P. David Pearson. 1996. The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly 31(1). 90–112.10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0022)Search in Google Scholar
Kellerman, Eric. 1978. Giving learners a break: native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism 15. 59–92.10.3758/BRM.42.3.627Search in Google Scholar
Kelley, Alaina & Kathryn Kohnert. 2012. Is there a cognate advantage for typically developing Spanish-speaking English-language learners? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 43(2). 191–204.10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.017Search in Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel & Marc Brysbaert. 2010. Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods 42(3). 627–633.10.1515/iral.1990.28.4.293Search in Google Scholar
Kieffer, Michael J. & Catherine DiFelice Box. 2013. Derivational morphological awareness, academic vocabulary, and reading comprehension in linguistically diverse sixth graders. Learning and Individual Differences 24. 168–175.Search in Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia. 1990. Why are some words more difficult than others? IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 28(4). 293–307.10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.xSearch in Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia. 1997. What’s in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors that affect the learning of words. In Norbert Schmitt & Michael McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, 140–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1080/15434303.2016.1210611Search in Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia & Zahava Goldstein. 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning 54(3). 399–436.10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0Search in Google Scholar
Laufer, Batia & Stuart McLean. 2016. Loanwords and vocabulary size test scores: A case of different estimates for different L1 learners. Language Assessment Quarterly 13(3). 202–217.10.1075/z.195Search in Google Scholar
Lemhöfer, Kristin & Mirjam Broersma. 2012. Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods 44(2). 325–343.10.1080/15235882.2011.568589Search in Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do statistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1177/1362168816645957Search in Google Scholar
Lotto, Lorella & Annette M. B.de Groot. 1998. Effects of Learning Method and Word Type on Acquiring Vocabulary in an Unfamiliar Language. Language Learning 48(1). 31–69.10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.006Search in Google Scholar
Lubliner, Shira & Elfrieda H. Hiebert. 2011. An analysis of English–Spanish cognates as a source of general academic language. Bilingual Research Journal 34(1). 76–93.Search in Google Scholar
Macis, Marijana & Norbert Schmitt. 2017. Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations. Language Teaching Research 21(3). 321–340.10.1177/026553228700400202Search in Google Scholar
Masrai, Ahmed & James Milton. 2018. Measuring the contribution of academic and general vocabulary knowledge to learners’ academic achievement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 31. 44–57.10.1111/twec.12643Search in Google Scholar
Meara, Paul & Barbara Buxton. 1987. An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testing 4(2). 142–154.Search in Google Scholar
Melitz, Jacques. 2018. English as a lingua franca: Facts, benefits and costs. The World Economy 41. 1750–1774.10.21832/9781847692092Search in Google Scholar
Miles, Jeremy N. V. & Mark Shevlin. 2001. Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Milton, James. 2009. Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.1002/TRTR.01019Search in Google Scholar
Milton, James & Helmut Daller. 2007. The interface between theory and learning in vocabulary acquisition. Paper presented at EUROSLA 2007, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.10.1080/10862969009547816Search in Google Scholar
Montelongo, José A., Anita Hernández & Roberta Joan Herter. 2011. Identifying Spanish–English cognates to scaffold instruction for Latino ELs. The Reading Teacher 65(2). 161–164.Search in Google Scholar
Nagy, William E, Georgia Earnest García, Aydin Y. Durgunogiu & Barbara Hancin-Bhatt. 1993. English–Spanish bilingual students’ use of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior 25(3). 241–259.Search in Google Scholar
Nash, Rose. 1997. NTC’s dictionary of Spanish cognates. Chicago, IL: NTC Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. Paul. 1983. Learning vocabulary. New Zealand Language Teacher 9(1). 10–11.Search in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. Paul. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. Florence, KY: Heinle and Heinle.10.1080/13670050.2017.1325834Search in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. Paul. 2012. The BNC/COCA word family lists. Unpublished paper. (17 September 2012). http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paulnation (accessed June 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. Paul & David Beglar. 2007. A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31(7). 9–13.10.1017/CBO9781139524643.013Search in Google Scholar
Otwinowska, Agnieszka & Jakub M. Szewczyk. 2017. The more similar the better? Factors in learning cognates, false cognates and non-cognate words. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism10.1080/13670050.2017.1325834.Search in Google Scholar
Paquot, Magali. 2010. Academic vocabulary in learner writing. From extraction to analysis. London: Continuum.10.1017/S0272263117000407Search in Google Scholar
Paulhus, Delroy L., Richard W. Robins, Kali H. Trzesniewski, & Jessica L. Tracy. 2004. Two replicable suppression situations in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39(2). 301–326.10.1016/j.esp.2017.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Paribakht, T. Sima & Marjorie Wesche. 1997. Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In James Coady & Thomas Huckin (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition, 174–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1177/1367006915586586Search in Google Scholar
Pellicer-Sánchez, Ana. 2017. Learning L2 collocations incidentally from reading. Language Teaching Research 21(3). 381–402.10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00232.xSearch in Google Scholar
Peters, Elke & Stuart Webb. 2018. Incidental vocabulary acquisition through viewing L2 television and factors that affect learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40. 551–577.10.1016/j.esp.2018.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Petrescu, Maria Claudia, Rena Helms-Park & Vedran Dronjic. 2017. The impact of frequency and register on cognate facilitation: Comparing Romanian and Vietnamese speakers on the vocabulary levels test. English for Specific Purposes 47. 15–25.10.1002/tesq.197Search in Google Scholar
Potapova, Irina, Henrike K. Blumenfeld & Sonja Pruitt-Lord. 2016. Cognate identification methods: Impacts on the cognate advantage in adult and child Spanish-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism 20(6). 714–731.10.1515/applirev-2015-0006Search in Google Scholar
Proctor, C. Patrick & Elain Mo. 2009. The relationship between Cognate awareness and English comprehension among Spanish–English Bilingual Fourth Grade Students. TESOL Quarterly 43(1). 126–136.10.1177/026553229100800201Search in Google Scholar
Reynolds, Barry Lee, Ying-Chun Shih & Wei-Hua Wu. 2018. Modeling Taiwanese adolescent learners’ English vocabulary acquisition and retention: The washback effect of the college entrance examination center’s reference word list. English for Specific Purposes 52. 47–59.10.1111/1467-9922.00042Search in Google Scholar
Reynolds, Barry Lee & David Wible. 2014. Frequency in incidental vocabulary acquisition research: An undefined concept and some consequences. TESOL Quarterly 48(4). 843–861.Search in Google Scholar
Reynolds, Barry Lee, Wei-Hua Wu, Hui-Wen Liu, Shu-Yuan Kuo & Ching-Hua Yeh. 2015. Towards a model of advanced learners’ vocabulary acquisition: An investigation of L2 vocabulary acquisition and retention by Taiwanese English majors. Applied Linguistics Review 6(1). 121–144.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.xSearch in Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Timothy A. 2010. Teaching cognates in isolation and context: a practical note on Montelongo et al. (2009). Psychological Reports 107(2). 564–566.10.1017/S0261444812000018Search in Google Scholar
Sasaki, Miyuki. 1991. A comparison of two methods for detecting differential item functioning in an ESL placement test. Language Testing 8(2). 95–111.10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.005Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert. 1998. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning 48(2). 281–317.10.1111/1460-6984.12309Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.7820/vli.v02.1.stoeckel.bennettSearch in Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert, Xiangying Jiang & William Grabe. 2011. The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 95(1). 26–43.10.1111/ijal.12092Search in Google Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert & Diane Schmitt. 2014. A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching 47(4). 484–503.Search in Google Scholar
Schuth, Elisabeth, Judith Köhne & Sabine Weinert. 2017. The influence of academic vocabulary knowledge on school performance. Learning and Instruction 49. 157–165.10.1086/663301Search in Google Scholar
Spencer, Sarah, Judy Clegg, Hilary Lowe & Joy Stackhouse. 2017. Increasing adolescents’ depth of understanding of cross-curriculum words: an intervention study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 52(5). 652–668.10.1007/s11145-019-09938-7Search in Google Scholar
Stoeckel, Tim & Phil Bennett. 2013. Sources of differential item functioning between Korean and Japanese examinees on a second-language vocabulary test. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction 2(1). 47–54.10.1080/17470218.2013.850521Search in Google Scholar
Szudarski, Paweł & Ronald Carter. 2016. The role of input flood and input enhancement in EFL learners’ acquisition of collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 26(2). 245–265.10.1093/applin/24.1.56Search in Google Scholar
Tabachnick, Barbara G. & Linda S. Fidell. 2014. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson.Search in Google Scholar
Townsend, Dianna, Alexis Fillippini, Penelope Collins & Gina Biancarosa. 2012. Evidence for the importance of academic word knowledge for the academic achievement of diverse middle school students. The Elementary School Journal 112(3). 497–518.10.1080/09571736.2012.658232Search in Google Scholar
Truckenmiller, Adrea J. & Yaacov Petscher. 2019(online first). The role of academic language in written composition in elementary and middle school. Reading and Writing10.1007/S11145-019-09938-7.Search in Google Scholar
van Heuven, Walter J.B., Pawel Mandera, Emmanuel Keuleers & Marc Brysbaert. 2014. SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 67(6). 1176–1190.Search in Google Scholar
Vidal, Karina. 2003. Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics 24(1). 56–89.Search in Google Scholar
West, Michael. 1953. A general service list of English words. London: Longman, Green & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Willis, Martin & Yoshie Ohashi. 2012. A model of L2 vocabulary learning and retention. The Language Learning Journal 40. 125–137.Search in Google Scholar
Zumbo, Bruno D. 1999. A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense. http://faculty.educ.ubc.ca/zumbo/DIF/ (accessed 19 September 2019).Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
