Vocabulary of L1 and L2 Graduation Theses Written by English Philology Students: Academic Writing of Montenegrin and US Students Compared
The paper explores the lexical profile of graduation theses written by the students at the University of Montenegro and compares it against that of BA theses authored by native speakers of American English. We study their lexical level (LFP method), lexical variation (sTTR method), and share of academic vocabulary according to the New Academic Word List (Browne, Culligan and Philliphs). We depart from the assumption that L2 academic writing is less complex vocabulary-wise and aim to determine how different it is and where the lexical differences may lie, so that pedagogical recommendations can be made. The results show that the Montenegrin theses are readable at 4,000 words, which means that B2 learners (according to CEFR) can read them at a reasonable level. In contrast, the theses written by native speakers can be read at 7,000 words, i.e. only by those commanding good C levels. As this is in line with our expectations, we conclude that the Montenegrin theses display a sufficient vocabulary size. Since the students still underuse academic vocabulary, we recommend that more emphasis should be placed on it in the course of their studies.
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntWordProfiler (version 1.4.1). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University.
Brezina, Vaclav, and Dana Gablasova. 2013. “Is There a Core General Vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List.” Applied Linguistics 36 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin%2famt018.
Browne, Charles, Brent Culligan, and Joseph Phillips. n.d.a. “The New Academic World List 1.0.” New General Service List. http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org/nawl-new-academic-word-list/.
—. n.d.b. “The New General Service List.” Accessed September 1, 2019. http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org/.
Capel, Annette. 2012. “Completing the English Vocabulary Profile: C1 and C2 Vocabulary.” English Profile Journal 3 (e1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2041536212000013.
Cobb, Tom, and Marlise Horst. 1999. “Vocabulary Sizes of Some City University Students.” Journal of the Division of Language Studies of City University of Hong Kong 1: 59–68.
Council of Europe. 2001. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coxhead, Averil. 2000. “A New Academic Word List.” TESOL 34 (2): 213–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951.
Crossley, Scott A., Tom Cobb, and Danielle S. McNamara. 2013. “Comparing Count-Based and Band-Based Indices of Word Frequency: Implications for Active Vocabulary Research and Pedagogical Applications.” System 41 (4): 965–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002.
Douglas, Scott Roy. 2015. “The Relationship between Lexical Frequency Profiling Measures and Rater Judgements of Spoken and Written General English Language Proficiency on the CELPIP-General Test.” TESL Canada Journal 32 (9): 43–64. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i0.1217.
Eckstein, Grant, and Dana Ferris. 2018. “Comparing L1 and L2 Texts and Writers in First‐Year Composition.” TESOL Quarterly 52 (1): 137–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.376.
Hirsh, David, and Averil Coxhead. 2009. “Ten Ways of Focusing on Science-Specific Vocabulary in EAP Classrooms.” English Australia Journal 25 (1): 5–16.
Hsu, Wenhua. 2014. “Measuring the Vocabulary Load of Engineering Textbooks for EFL Undergraduates.” English for Specific Purposes 33: 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.001.
Khani, Reza, and Khalil Tazik. 2013. “Towards the Development of an Academic Word List for Applied Linguistics Research Articles.” RELC Journal 44 (2): 209–32. https://doi.org/10.1177%2f0033688213488432.
Kubát, Miroslav, and Jiří Milička. 2013. “Vocabulary Richness Measure in Genres.” Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 20 (4): 339–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2013.830552.
Laufer, Batia. 1989. “What Percentage of Text Lexis Is Essential for Comprehension?” In Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines, edited by Christer Laurén and Marianne Nordman, 316–23. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Laufer, Batia, and Paul Nation. 1995. “Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2 Written Production.” Applied Linguistics 16 (3): 307–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307.
Lindqvist, Christina, Anna Gudmundson, and Camilla Bardel. 2013. “A New Approach to Measuring Lexical Sophistication in L2 Oral Production.” In L2 Vocabulary Acquisition, Knowledge and Use: New Perspectives on Assessment and Corpus Analysis, edited by Camilla Bardel, Christina Lindqvist, and Batia Laufer, 109–26. European Second Language Association.
Linnarud, Moira. 1986. Lexis in Composition: A Performance Analysis of Swedish Learners’ Written English. Malmo: Liber Forlag Malmo.
McCarthy, Michael, and Anne O’Keeffe. 2010. “What Are Corpora and How Have They Evolved?” In The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, edited by Michael McCarthy and Anne O’Keeffe, 3–13. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Milton, James. 2010. “The Development of Vocabulary Breadth across the CEFR Levels.” In Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections Between SLA and Language Testing Research, edited by Inge Bartning, Maisa Martin, and Ineke Vedder, 211–32. European Second Language Association.
Morris, Lori, and Tom Cobb. 2004. “Vocabulary Profiles as Predictors of the Academic Performance of Teaching English as a Second Language Trainees.” System 32 (1): 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.05.001.
Nation, Paul. 2006. “How Large a Vocabulary Is Needed for Reading and Listening?” Canadian Modern Language Review 63 (1): 59–82.
—. 2013. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
—. 2020. “The BNC/COCA Word Family Lists.” Accessed September 1, 2019. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1857641/about-bnc-coca-vocabulary-list.pdf.
Nation, Paul, and Robert Waring. 1997. “Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage and Word Lists.” In Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, edited by Norbert Schmitt and Michael McCarthy, 6–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Read, John, and Paul Nation. 2006. “An Investigation of the Lexical Dimension of the IELTS Speaking Test.” IELTS Research Reports 6: 1–25.
Scott, Mike. 2004. Oxford WordSmith Tools (version 4.0). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sonomura, Marion Okawa. 1996. Idiomaticity in the Basic Writing of American English. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Staples, Shelley, and Randi Reppen. 2016. “Understanding First-Year L2 Writing: A Lexico-Grammatical Analysis across L1s, Genres, and Language Ratings.” Journal of Second Language Writing 32: 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.02.002.
Troia, Gary. 2007. “Research in Writing Instruction: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” In Shaping Literacy Achievement: Research We Have, Research We Need, edited by Michael Pressley, Alison Billman, Kristen Perry, Kelly Reffitt, and Julia Reynolds, 129–56. New York: Guilford Press.
Vuković Stamatović, Milica. 2019. “Vocabulary Complexity and Reading and Listening Comprehension of Various Physics Genres.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0022.
Webb, Stuart. 2008. “Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Sizes of L2 Learners.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 30 (1): 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080042.
Wang, Jing, Shao-lan Liang, and Guang-chun Ge. 2008. “Establishment of a Medical Word List.” English for Specific Purposes 27: 442–58.
West, Michael. 1953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman.
Copyright (c) 2020 Milica Vukovic Stamatovic, Vesna Bratic, Igor Lakić
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitting article, which will be published (print and online) in journal ELOPE by Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia). Author’s name will be evident in the article in journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in hands of the publisher.
- Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit their self to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.