Size and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge: What the Research Shows

By N. Schmitt. 2014

509 citations recorded by the source corpus.

When discussing vocabulary, a distinction is often made between size of vocabulary (number of known words) and depth of knowledge (how well those words are known). However, the relationship between the two constructs is still unclear. Some scholars argue that there is little real difference between the two, while regression analyses show that depth typically adds unique explanatory power compared to size alone. Ultimately, the relationship between size and depth of vocabulary knowledge depends on how each is conceptualized and measured. In an attempt to provide an empirical basis for exploring the size–depth relationship, this critical synthesis identifies studies that contain measures of both size and depth. Based on a number of different conceptualizations of depth, various patterns emerged. For higher frequency words and for learners with smaller vocabulary sizes, there is often little difference between size and a variety of depth measures. However, for lower frequency words and for larger vocabulary sizes, there is often a gap between size and depth, as depth measures lag behind the measures of size. Furthermore, some types of word knowledge (e.g., derivative knowledge) seem to have generally lower correlations with size than other types.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4c61c1372756f8dfa1c439fc3b80918191c0a7d4

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Incidental vocabulary learning in a natural reading context: an eye-tracking study (2017, background): “As learners acquire additional knowledge of a word, depth of knowledge is said to increase (Schmitt, 2014).”
Predicting L2 reading proficiency with modalities of vocabulary knowledge: A bootstrapping approach (2020, background): “Vocabulary has long been seen as a multi-componential or multidimensional construct (e.g., Henriksen, 1999; Hunston, Francis, & Manning, 1997; Laufer & Goldstein, 2004; Read, 2000; Schmitt, 2014).”
The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis (2020, background): “In practice, researchers operationalize vocabulary breadth knowledge as knowledge of form–meaning mapping (Schmitt, 2014).”
The Principles and the Teaching of English Vocabulary: A Review (2019, background): “To better understand the relationship of depth vocabulary and breadth vocabulary according to word frequency level, it is to give credit to Schmitt (2014).”
Interpreting Vocabulary Test Scores: What Do Various Item Formats Tell Us About Learners’ Ability to Employ Words? (2016, background): “That is, they should “explicitly state what correct answers on their tests entail and what degree of depth they represent” (Schmitt, 2014, p. 943).”
Receptive vocabulary size and its relationship to EFL language skills (2018, background): “It is known that there are high correlations between measures of size and of depth (Vermeer 2001; Schmitt 2014).”
Understanding vocabulary acquisition, instruction, and assessment: A research agenda (2019, background): “This virtually eliminates guessing, and also better matches the lexical knowledge necessary for the receptive and productive skills (reading/listening; writing/speaking) (Schmitt, 2010, 2014).”
Examining second language receptive knowledge of collocation and factors that affect learning (2017, background): “There are many variables that might affect the correlation (see Schmitt, 2014).”