Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:06:12.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE OF SYNTACTIC KNOWLEDGE AND VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE IN SECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING ABILITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2020

Payman Vafaee Open the ORCID record for Payman Vafaee [Opens in a new window]  and
Yuichi Suzuki Open the ORCID record for Yuichi Suzuki [Opens in a new window]
Payman Vafaee*
Affiliation:
Teachers College, Columbia University
Yuichi Suzuki
Affiliation:
Kanagawa University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Payman Vafaee, Zankel 313, Box 66, 525 W. 120th Street, New York, NY 10027. Teachers College of Columbia University. E-mail: pv2203@tc.columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The main purpose of the current study was to examine the relative significance of vocabulary knowledge (VK) and syntactic knowledge (SK) in second language (L2) listening ability, while accounting for the effect of several cognitive and affective factors. A total of 263 English-as-a-foreign-language learners took a standardized listening test (IELTS), as well as a battery of nine linguistic (two aural SK tests and two aural VK tests—covering both breadth and depth of VK), cognitive (two working memory tests and a metacognitive knowledge questionnaire), and affective measures (two L2 listening anxiety questionnaires). Structural equation modeling analysis revealed that both VK and SK were significant predictors of L2 listening ability; however, VK was a stronger predictor with an effect size being almost twice as much as the one for SK (.55 vs. .28). The results also showed that metacognitive knowledge, working memory, and L2 listening anxiety are significant predictors of L2 listening ability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 383 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank professors Steve Ross, Mike Long, Robert DeKeyser, and Catherine Doughty and the SSLA editors and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful suggestions and constructive feedback. We are also grateful to the participants of our study, and Behrooz Yaghmayean, Mehdi Yaghoubi, Farokh Ziyaee, and Masaki Eguchi, who helped us with our data collection and the revision of the article. All errors and omissions are, of course, our own.

References

REFERENCES

Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62, 49–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, S. M., Harbison, J. I., Bunting, M. F., & Dougherty, M. R. (2012). Using online games to assess cognitive ability: Validity of two web-deployable measures of cognitive ability. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 1–29. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Language Testing, 27, 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S. C., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., & Ross, S. (2010). What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language listening comprehension. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a550176.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, T., & Fox, C. (2001). Applying the Rasch model. Mahwaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunfaut, T., & Révész, A. (2011). EAP listening task difficulty: The impact of task variables, working memory and listening anxiety. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium. Ann Arbor, MI, June 23–25.Google Scholar
Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, M. E. (1985). Auditory short‐term memory, listening comprehension, and the input hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 765–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W. (1994). Working memory and retrieval: a resource-dependent inhibition model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 354–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Progress in Brain Research, 169, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dittmar, M., Abbot‐Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79, 1152–1167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elkhafaifi, H. (2005). Listening comprehension and anxiety in the Arabic language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, J. (2001). Finding one’s way in the fog: Listening strategies and second-language learners. Modern English Teacher, 9, 29–34.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2008). Listening in the language classroom. ELT Journal, 64, 331–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, J. (2009). A cognitive validation of the lecture-listening component of the IELTS listening paper. IELTS Research Reports, 9, 17–65.Google Scholar
Field, J. (2013). Cognitive validity. In Geranpayeh, A. & Taylor, L. (Eds.), Examining listening: Research and practice in assessing second language (pp. 77–151). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Godfroid, A. (2019). Eye tracking in second language acquisition and bilingualism: A research synthesis and methodological guide. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, C. (2005). Second language listening expertise. In Jonson, K. (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 64–84). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, M., & Stewart, A. J. (2011). The influence of clause order, congruency, and probability on the processing of conditionals. Thinking & Reasoning, 17, 402–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers: Theory and research (Vol. 41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In Conway, A. R. A., Jarrold, C., Kane, M. J., Miyake, A., & Towse, J. N. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 21–46). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1247–1282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Osthus, P., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 861–883. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44, 283–305. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01103.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. & Milton, J. (2003). X_Lex, The Swansea Levels Test. Newbury: Express.Google Scholar
McLean, S., Kramer, B., & Beglar, D. (2015). The creation and validation of a listening vocabulary levels test. Language Teaching Research, 19, 741–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mecartty, F. H. (2000). Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning, 11, 323–348.Google Scholar
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2006). A reevaluation of the role of anxiety: Self‐efficacy, anxiety, and their relation to reading and listening proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 39, 276–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milton, J. (2010). The development of vocabulary breadth across the CEFR levels: A common basis for the elaboration of language syllabuses, curriculum guidelines, examinations, and textbooks across Europe . In Bartning, I., Martin, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 211–232). Eurosla Monograph Series I. Amsterdam: European Second Language Association.Google Scholar
Milton, J. & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size: do vocabulary tests underestimate the knowledge of some learners. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 127–147.Google Scholar
Milton, J., Wade, J., & Hopkins, N. (2010). Aural word recognition and oral competence in a foreign language. In Chacón-Beltrán, R., Abello-Contesse, C., Torreblanca-López, M., & López-Jiménez, M. (Eds.), Further insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and learning (pp. 83–98). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In Osborne, J. (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 488–508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31, 9–13.Google Scholar
Nguyen, T. M. H., & Webb, S. (2017). Examining second language receptive knowledge of collocation and factors that affect learning. Language Teaching Research, 21, 298–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qian, D. D., & Schedl, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing, 21, 28–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2007). Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, E. K., & Joanisse, M. F. (2010). Spoken sentence comprehension in children with dyslexia and language impairment: The roles of syntax and working memory. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 348–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Rost, M. (2002). Teaching and researching Listening. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Rost, M. (2013). Teaching and researching: Listening. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 199–221. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02034.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasao, Y., & Webb, S. (2017). The word part levels test. Language Teaching Research, 21, 12–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarcella, R. C., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64, 913–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N., Nation, P., & Kremmel, B. (2019). Moving the field of vocabulary assessment forward: The need for more rigorous test development and validation. Language Teaching, 1–12. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1017/S0261444819000326Google Scholar
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stæhr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 577–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y. (2017). Validity of new measures of implicit knowledge: Distinguishing implicit knowledge from automatized explicit knowledge. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1229–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2018). Automatization in second language sentence processing: Relationship between elicited imitation and maze tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 32–46. doi: 10.1017/S1366728916000857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2017). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 59–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2004). Learning to listen or listening to learn. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency? The Modern Language Journal, 90, 6–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00381.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2007). Recent developments in second and foreign language listening comprehension research. Language Teaching, 40, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2011). Second language listening: Presage, process, product, and pedagogy. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 455–471). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65, 390–416. doi: 10.1111/lang.12105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York, NY: Rutledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogely, A. J. (1998). Listening comprehension anxiety: Students’ reported sources and solutions. Foreign Language Annals, 31, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. D., Linacre, J. M., Gustafson, J. E., & Martin-Lof, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch measurement transactions, 8, 370.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Vafaee and Suzuki supplementary material

Vafaee and Suzuki supplementary material

Download Vafaee and Suzuki supplementary material(File)
File 1.8 MB