The relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary of Slavic EFL learners

Open access


This study investigates the relationship between learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge as measured by the Vocabulary Size Test (Nation and Beglar, 2007) and free productive vocabulary knowledge as demonstrated by the learners when writing a short story based on pictures. The focus is on three different areas of productive vocabulary use: lexical diversity (i.e. the proportion of different words in a text), lexical sophistication (i.e. the proportion of advanced words in a text) and lexical density (i.e. the proportion of content words in a text). The results of a bivariate correlation analysis indicate that there is a moderate relationship between learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical diversity of the texts they produce; there is a weak relationship between their receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical sophistication in the texts; and there is no relationship between their receptive vocabulary knowledge and lexical density.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • ALCARAZ-MÁRMOL G. 2015. Dispersion and frequency: Is there any difference as regards their relation to L2 vocabulary gains? IJES vol. 15 no.2 pp.1-16.

  • BACHMAN L. F. and PALMER A. S. 1996. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • BASTERRECHEA M. MAYO M.P.G. and LEESER M. J. 2014. Pushed output and noticing in a dictogloss: Task implementation in the CLIL classroom. Porta Linguarum vol. 22 pp. 7-22.

  • BEGLAR D. 2010. A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing vol.27 no.1 pp.101-118.

  • CHAMONIKOLASOVÁ J. and STAŠKOVÁ J. 2005. Some difficulties facing native speakers of Czech and Slovak in writing in English. Theory and Practice in English Studies vol.3 pp. 53-59.

  • COBB T. (n.d.) VocabProfiler. [Computer software]. Retrieved October 10 2012 from

  • COH-METRIX 3.0. (n.d.). [Computer software]. Retrieved July 2010 - August 2014 from

  • COUNCIL OF EUROPE. (n.d.). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning teaching assessment. Retrieved August 10 2010 from

  • DALLER H. MILTON J. and TREFFERS-DALLER J. eds. 2007. Editors' introduction. In: Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 1-32.

  • DALLER H. and PHELAN D. 2007. What is in a teacher’s mind? Teacher ratings of EFL essays and different aspects of lexical richness. In: H. Daller J. Milton and J. Treffers-Daller eds. Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press pp. 234-244.

  • DAVIES M. 2010. The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing vol. 9 no.1 pp. 25-28.

  • DE VAUS D. A. 2002. Surveys in social research. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

  • DUNN L.M. and DUNN D.M. 2007. Peabody picture vocabulary test. (4th ed.). London: Pearson Education.

  • FAN M. 2000. How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investigation into the active and passive vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners. RELC Journal vol.31 pp.105-119.

  • HENRIKSEN B. 1999. Three dimensions of vocabulary development. SSLA vol. 21 pp. 303-317.

  • HULSTIJN J. H. 2001. Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration rehearsal and automaticity. In: P. Robinson ed. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press pp. 258-286.

  • LAUFER B. 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics vol.19 pp. 255-271.

  • LAUFER B. ELDER C. HILL K. and CONGDON P. 2004. Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing vol.21 pp. 202-226.

  • LAUFER B. and GOLDSTEIN Z. 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size strength and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning vol.54 no.3 pp. 399-436.

  • LAUFER B. and NATION I.S.P. 1999. A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing vol.16 no.1 pp. 33-51.

  • LAUFER B. and PARIBAKHT T. 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning vol.48 pp. 365-391.

  • LEE S.H. 2003. ESL learners vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. System vol.31 pp. 537-561.

  • LEECH G. RAYSON P. and WILSON A. 2001. Companion website for: Word frequencies in written and spoken English based on the British National Corpus. Retrieved August 20 2009 from

  • LEWIS M. 1993. The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove UK: Language Teaching Publications.

  • MCCARTHY P. 2012. The Gramulator 6.0. [Computer software]. Retrieved August 1 2010 from

  • MCCARTHY P. and JARVIS S. 2010. MTLD vocd-D and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods vol.42 no.2 pp. 381-392.

  • MEARA P. 1980. Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning. Language Teaching vol.13 pp. 221-246.

  • MEARA P. (n.d.). P_Lex v2.0: A program for evaluating the vocabulary used in short texts. [Computer software]. Retrieved October 16 2011 from

  • MILTON J. 2009. Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

  • MONDRIA J. and WIERSMA B. 2004. Receptive productive and receptive + productive L2 vocabulary learning: What difference does it make? In: P. Bogaards and B. Laufer eds. Vocabulary in a second language: Selection acquisition and testing. Amsterdam: Benjamins pp. 79-100.

  • NATION I.S.P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • NATION I.S.P. 2012. The Vocabulary Size Test. Unpublished. Retrieved September 10 2012 from

  • NATION I.S.P. and BEGLAR D. 2007. A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher vol.31 no.7 pp. 9-13.

  • NATION I.S.P. and MEARA P. 2010. Vocabulary. In: N. Schmitt ed. An introduction to applied linguistics. London Hodder Education pp. 34-52.

  • NUNNALLY N.C. 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • PLAUEN E. O. [1952] 1996. Vater und Sohn Band 2. Ravensburger Taschenbuch.

  • READ J. 2000. Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • READ J. 2007. Second language vocabulary assessment: Current practices and new directions. IJES vol.7 no.2 pp. 105-125.

  • SCHMITT N. 2000. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge English Education.

  • SCHMITT N. 2010. Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • SCHMITT N. 2014. Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning vol.64 no.4 pp. 913-951.

  • SKETCH ENGINE. (n.d.). Sketch Engine [Computer software]. Retrieved April 10 2015 from

  • SWAIN M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: S. Gass and C. Madden eds. Input in second l anguage acquisition. Rowley MA: Newbury House pp. 235-253.

  • ŠAFFKOVÁ Z. 2001. The teaching of writing in the Czech Republic. In: D. Klooster J. Steele and P. Bloem eds. Ideas Without Boundaries: International Educational Reform through Reading Writing and Critical Thinking. Newark Del.: International Reading Association.

  • ŠIŠKOVÁ Z. 2015. Lexical richness and textual cohesion in free written production of Slavic EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Reading UK.

  • TREFFERS-DALLER J. 2011. Operationalizing and measuring language dominance. International Journal of Bilingualism vol.15 no.2 pp. 147-163.

  • TREFFERS-DALLER J. 2013. Measuring lexical diversity among L2 learners of French: An exploration of the validity of D MTLD and HD-D as measures of language ability. In: S. Jarvis and H. Daller eds. Vocabulary knowledge: Human ratings and automated measures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • TSCHIRNER E. 2004. Breadth of vocabulary and advanced English study: An empirical investigation. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching vol.1 pp. 27-39.

  • VERMEER A. 2001. Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics vol.22 pp. 217-234.

  • WARING R. 1997a. A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Immaculata [occasional papers of Notre Dame Seishin University Okayama] vol.1 pp. 53-68.

  • WARING R. 1997b. A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards. Studies in foreign languages and literature vol.21 pp. 94-114.

  • WARING R. 1998. Receptive and productive foreign language vocabulary size II. Retrieved June 16 2016 from

  • WEBB S. 2005. Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol.27 no.1 pp. 33-52.

  • WEBB S. 2008. Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition vol.30 pp. 79-95.

  • WEBB S. 2009. The effects of receptive and productive learning of word pairs on vocabulary knowledge. RELC Journal vol.40 no.3 pp. 360-376.

  • WEIGLE S. 2002. Assessing writing. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • YAMAMOTO Y.M. 2011. Bridging the gap between receptive and productive vocabulary size through extensive reading. The Reading Matrix vol.11 no.3 pp. 226-242.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 481 163 10
PDF Downloads 1157 770 76