Volume 169, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The present study aims to replicate Stæhr’s (2009) study on the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension. To explore the generalizability of Stæhr’s findings, two experiments were conducted. However, the study changed the population (Flemish learners) and proficiency level of the materials in the first experiment (intermediate) and also the language in the second experiment (French). Our results generally confirm Stæhr’s findings. We also found a positive correlation between vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension. Although our findings reveal that learners probably need fewer words for adequate listening comprehension at an intermediate proficiency level, our study also showed that learners who knew more words had higher listening comprehension scores. Finally, our study seems to suggest that learners might need less lexical coverage for intermediate listening.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adolphs, S. , & Schmitt, N.
    (2003) Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 425–438. doi: 10.1093/applin/24.4.425
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.425 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonk, W.
    (2000) Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 14(1), 14–31. doi: 10.1080/10904018.2000.10499033
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2000.10499033 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cobb, T.
    (n.d.) Compleat lexical tutor. Retrieved from https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages; Learning, teaching, assessment.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dang, T. N. Y. , & Webb, S.
    (2014) English for specific purposes. The lexical profile of academic spoken English. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 66–76. doi: 10.1016/j.esp.2013.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davies, M.
    (2008) Corpus of Contemporary American English. Retrieved from corpus.byu.edu/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  7. European Commission
    European Commission (2012) The European survey on language competences.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Elgort, I.
    (2013) Effects of L1 definitions and cognate status of test items on the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing, 30(2), 253–272. doi: 10.1177/0265532212459028
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212459028 [Google Scholar]
  9. Laufer, B. , & Levitzky-Aviad, T.
    (2018) Loanword proportion in vocabulary size tests: Does it make a difference?ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 169(1), 94–113.10.1075/itl.00008.lau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.00008.lau [Google Scholar]
  10. Laufer, B. , & McLean, S.
    (2016) Loanwords and vocabulary size test scores: A case of different estimates for different L1 learners. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 202–217. doi: 10.1080/15434303.2016.1210611
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1210611 [Google Scholar]
  11. Londsdale, D. , & Le Bras, Y.
    (2009) A frequency dictionary of French core vocabulary for learners. Londen: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Milton, J.
    (2009) Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Nation, I. S. P.
    (2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. doi: 10.1353/cml.2006.0049
    https://doi.org/10.1353/cml.2006.0049 [Google Scholar]
  14. Peters, E. , Velghe, T. , & Van Rompaey, T.
    (2015, May) A post-entry English and French vocabulary size for Flemish learners. Paper presented atEALTA. Copenhagen, Denmark.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Plonsky, L. , & Derrick, D. J.
    (2016) A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. Modern Language Journal, 100(2), 538–553. doi: 10.1111/modl.12335
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12335 [Google Scholar]
  16. Porte, G.
    (2012) Introduction. In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics (pp.1–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Read, J.
    (1993) The development of a new measure of vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10(3), 355–371. doi: 10.1177/026553229301000308
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229301000308 [Google Scholar]
  18. Schmitt, N. , Cobb, R. , Horst, M. & Schmitt, D.
    (2017) How much vocabulary is needed to use English? Replication of van Zeeland & Schmitt (2012), Nation (2006) and Cobb (2007). Language Teaching, 50(2), 212–226. doi: 10.1017/S0261444815000075
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000075 [Google Scholar]
  19. Schmitt, N. , Schmitt, D. & Clapham, C.
    (2001) Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 55–89. doi: 10.1177/026553220101800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800103 [Google Scholar]
  20. Stæhr, L.
    (2009) Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 577–607. doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990039
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039 [Google Scholar]
  21. van Zeeland, H. , & Schmitt, N.
    (2013) Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension?Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 457–479. doi: 10.1093/applin/ams074
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams074 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error