Author:

Keywords:

vocabulary, second language acquisition

Abstract:

This study builds on a pilot investigation on whether Lexical Frequency Profiles (LFP) can be used to measure vocabulary growth. This use was first suggested by Laufer and Nation (1995), but results so far have been mixed. Laufer (1998), in an investigation of students at a more advanced level, did not find significant differences. However, it could be argued that her design, using two populations at different stages within the same study programme exerted an influence on the results. In a more recent longitudinal study of beginners over an 80-week period, Daller et al (2013) did find evidence of changing LFPs. However, the writing products were highly varied, ranging from descriptions over stories to opinion texts, on different topics, so that task influence cannot be discounted. The pilot study by this author, using different versions of the LFP-tool (GSL-based, BNC-based, COCA-based) suggested that students at different levels show development in different areas of vocabulary use. Compared to the pilot study, the present study uses a tighter design and adds profiling data using Davies and Gardner’s academic vocabulary profiler (http://www.wordandphrase.info/academic/). The following research questions were addressed: can lexical profiling tools be used to chart progress in vocabulary use of students at an upper intermediate level, and to differentiate between student performances. Students wrote three ‘pros and cons’ essays on different topics (stable according to Laufer and Nation, 1995), over a period of 6 months during their first year of studying English in higher education. Each essay was analyzed using different LFP versions and different ways of reading LFP results suggested by previous researchers. Vocabulary levels tests were used as an independent measure. Preliminary analyses confirm the differential development paths, but also indicate a possible influence of topic (contrary to Laufer and Nation’s claim).