See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228054193

The Relationship Between

Passive and Active
Vocabularies: Effects of
LanguageLearning Context
Article in Language Learning September 1998
DOI: 10.1111/0023-8333.00046

CITATIONS

READS

118

1,661

2 authors, including:
Batia Laufer
University of Haifa
104 PUBLICATIONS 4,040
CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Batia Laufer

Retrieved on: 15 August 2016

Language Learning 48:3, September 1998, pp. 365391

The Relationship Between Passive

and Active Vocabularies:
Effects of Language Learning Context
Batia Laufer
University of Haifa

T. Sima Paribakht
University of Ottawa

This study investigated the relationships among 3 types

of vocabulary knowledge (passive, controlled active, and
free active) within the same individuals, taking 4 variables
into consideration: passive vocabulary size, language
learning context, second (L2) or foreign (FL), length of
residence in L2 context and, among the Canadians, knowledge of French. Participants were adult learners of English
in Israel (N = 79) and in Canada (N = 103) at different
proficiency levels. We used The Levels Test for passive
vocabulary size, a Controlled Active Vocabulary Test and
The Lexical Frequency Profile (for lexical richness in free
Batia Laufer, Department of English Language and Literature; T. Sima
Paribakht, Second Language Institute.
This research was made possible through grants from the Faculty of Arts
and the School of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Ottawa. We
are grateful to the participating teachers, Geraldine Arbach, Sandra Burger,
Carolyn Ferris and Patricia Raymond, and to their students, to our research
assistants Derrick Barnes and Peter Grav, to Mari Wesche for her valuable
comments and to Beatrice Magyar for word processing. An earlier version of
this paper was presented at the EUROSLA Conference, Barcelona, May 1997.
Correspondence about this paper may be sent to Batia Laufer, Department
of English Language and Literature, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905 Israel,
Internet: batialau@research.haifa.ac.il or to T. Sima Paribakht, Second Language Institute, University of Ottawa, 600 King Edward Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada, Internet: paribakh@aix1.uottawa.ca

365

366

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

written expression). We found that the 3 dimensions of

vocabulary knowledge developed at different rates. Active,
particularly free active, vocabulary developed more slowly
and less predictably than did passive vocabulary. Furthermore, the relationships among the 3 dimensions of vocabulary knowledge differed between the 2 learning contexts.
Although passive vocabulary was always significantly
larger than controlled active and free active, the passiveactive vocabulary gap was smaller in the FL than in the
L2 context. The benefits of residence in an L2 context only
began to appear after about 2 years, as passive vocabulary
was activated and the gap reduced. In the Canadian context, knowledge of French was an asset at the earlier stages
of ESL learning.

Research on vocabulary acquisition requires a definition of

lexical knowledge that in turn should determine what one investigates and with which measurement instruments. For example,
if lexical knowledge means the ability to use words in well-written
sentences or discourse, it would then make little sense to measure
lexical knowledge by testing the ability to recognize the meanings
of selected items on a multiple-choice test.
No clear and unequivocal consensus exists as to the nature
of lexical knowledge. A native language speaker (NS) would probably regard a word as either known or unknown and associate
word knowledge with the ability to link form to meaning. Yes/no
measurement instruments asking whether given words are
known (e.g., Anderson & Freebody, 1983; Meara & Buxton, 1987)
reflect this binary approach to lexical knowledge. Yet, when adult
second language (L2) learners take a yes/no test, some of them
may consider a word as known when they know it exists in the
target language, without necessarily understanding what it actually means; others (usually more experienced language learners)
may not be sure whether they should mark the word as familiar
if they do not feel they can use it in a sentence.
Most researchers nowadays agree that, rather than viewing
it as an all-or-nothing phenomenon, investigators should construe

Laufer and Paribakht

367

lexical knowledge as a continuum consisting of several levels and

dimensions of knowledge. One suggestion views this continuum
as starting with a vague familiarity with the word form (knowing
that the item is a word in the target language) and ending with
the ability to use the word correctly in free production (Faerch,
Haastrup & Phillipson, 1984). Palmberg (1987) adopted a slightly
different position. At the beginning of the continuum he placed the
potential vocabulary; that is, words that the learner has never
encountered but can easily understand because they are cognates
in the learners first language (L1). According to this view, words
the learner has never encountered may be known because, once
having encountered them, the learner will recognize them on the
basis of already existing knowledge of the L1 or of other languages.
The other components of Palmbergs continuum are passive and
active vocabulary (the other extreme).
Following Bialystok and Sharwood-Smiths (1985) distinction between knowledge and control, Henriksen (1996) split the
traditional passive-active continuum into three parts: (a) a
partial-precise knowledge continuum, where levels of knowledge
equal different levels of word comprehension; (b) a depth of knowledge continuum, which includes knowledge of the words syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations with other words; and (c) a
receptive-productive continuum. The first two are knowledgerelated; the third, a control continuum, reflects how well the
learner can access and use a word. Henriksens approach differs
from Faerch et al.s (1984) and Palmbergs (1987) in that it does
not regard word use as part of word knowledge. According to
Henriksen, the fact that learners cannot use a word correctly nor
access it freely for production does not mean they do not know
the word; it only means that they have not yet achieved adequate
control over word access.
Some researchers have described lexical knowledge as a
taxonomy of components. According to Nation (1990), knowing a
word means knowing its form (spoken and written), its position
(grammatical pattern, collocations), its function (frequency, appropriateness), and its meaning (concept, associations). Because of the

368

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

many facets of lexical knowledge, Joe, Nation and Newton (1998)

have claimed that most tests are not sensitive enough to capture
partial knowledge, like the part of speech or the broader semantic
field to which the word belongs. Laufer (1990, 1993) proposed a
slightly different taxonomy of components of word knowledge,
consisting of form (phonological, graphic, morphological), syntactic
behaviour, meaning (referential, associative, pragmatic) and relations with other words (paradigmatic and syntagmatic). Nations
and Laufers taxonomies considered word use a part of knowing
a word, because each of the components could be associated with
comprehension or use. For example, knowledge of the grammatical
property of the word news means that the learner comprehends
the agreement of news with the verb in singular form (the news
is good) and also uses news with verbs in singular form.
This multifaceted view of word knowledge has led some
researchers to develop instruments to measure learners depth
of vocabulary knowledge. Joe et al. (1998) have developed tests
that capture partial knowledge. Other researchers (Paribakht &
Wesche, 1993, 1997; Read, 1993; Schmitt, 1996; Viberg, 1993;
Wesche & Paribakht, 1996) have devised tests to capture as many
aspects of word knowledge as possible, such as basic understanding, full understanding, correct use, sensitivity to collocations and associations. These depth proponents claim that most
traditional vocabulary tests like Educational Testing Services
TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or vocabulary size
tests (e.g., Meara & Buxton, 1987; Nation, 1983, 1990) measure
only partial knowledge, mainly recognition. Meara (1996) proposed an additional component of lexical knowledge, the speed of
access of particular words, claiming speed to be an indication of
fluency, which may or may not relate to how well the learner
understands or uses the target words. Such a relationship, or lack
of it, remains unproven.
Most models of lexical knowledge distinguish between passive/receptive and active/productive vocabulary. Whether the
ability to use a word is described as knowledge or control, researchers generally agree that word comprehension does not

Laufer and Paribakht

369

automatically predict correct use of the word and that passive/receptive knowledge normally precedes active knowledge. In the
case of related languages, however, learners may use a cognate
before encountering it in oral or written input. The relationship
between an L2 learners passive and active vocabularies remains
interesting but unexplored; statements about this relationship
have been vague and unsubstantiated. Most writers have assumed that passive vocabulary is larger than active (e.g.,
Aitchison, 1989; Channell, 1988). But no one has conclusively
demonstrated how much larger it is, or whether growth in passive
vocabulary automatically results in growth in active vocabulary,
or whether the gap between the two remains stable or changes
over time. It also remains unclear whether differences in learners
general L2 proficiencies or in the context of L2 learning (e.g.,
ESL/EFL) would alter the nature of this relationship. Particularly
interesting questions arise in relation to free active vocabulary
(i.e., words learners voluntarily choose) as opposed to controlled
active vocabulary (i.e., words learners can use if required), because
in free expression learners can avoid words that they consider
problematic or about whose use they feel uncertain. A better
understanding of the relationship between passive and active
vocabulary can importantly help both pedagogy and second language acquisition (SLA) research. It may help better understand
the nature of lexical knowledge, which in turn may have implications for teaching vocabulary.
Laufer (1998) addressed some of these issues, comparing two
groups of EFL learners in Israel (grade 10 and grade 11, with 6
and 7 years of English instruction respectively) on passive, controlled or elicited active, and free active vocabulary knowledge (see
description below). Laufer found that the learners with an additional year of instruction had a much larger passive vocabulary
(about 3,500 word families in grade 11, as opposed to 1,900 in
grade 10). Their controlled active vocabulary was also larger,
although not as much (2,550 word families as opposed to 1,700).
The passive-active vocabulary ratio was lower for the older group
(73% as opposed to 89%), indicating an increase in the gap between

370

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

the two vocabularies. Because the two groups of learners were

similar on all variables except the amount of instruction, Laufer
attributed their differences to the additional year at school. The
lexical richness of the learners essays, measured in terms of the
percentage of infrequent words, was similar between the two
groups, indicating that their free active vocabulary knowledge had
not progressed in spite of gains in the other two types (i.e., passive
and controlled active). Laufer suggested, therefore, that these
three dimensions of lexical knowledge develop at different rates
as learners proceed in their L2 learning.
However, Laufer (1998) explored only two levels of learner
proficiency. A clearer picture of the passive/active vocabulary
relationship should probably emerge from learner samples with a
broader range of vocabulary size. Secondly, the participants in the
study were learners of EFL in a non-English-speaking context (i.e.,
Israel). Could one expect a similar passive/active vocabulary relationship in an ESL learning context (e.g., Canada) as in an EFL
context (e.g., Israel)? With these issues in mind, our present study
included a large sample of university-age learners of English in
ESL and EFL contexts, both to extend the ranges of vocabulary
size studied and to examine whether different developmental
rates for different types of vocabulary knowledge arise from lexical
learning generally or result from the context of language learning.
Furthermore, researchers have often assumed that ESL learners
with knowledge of languages that share cognates with English
(e.g., French) have advantages with respect to their English vocabulary knowledge and growth. Our study also examined this
issue as a further potential influence on learners vocabularyknowledge profiles.
Research Issues

We investigated the relationships among three types of vocabulary knowledge (passive, controlled active & free active)
within the same individuals. We defined passive knowledge of a
word as understanding its most frequent meaning. Controlled

Laufer and Paribakht

371

active knowledge refers to a cued recall of the word. Free active

knowledge we defined as spontaneous use of a word in a context
generated by the user, in response to a writing assignment.
Our specific research questions were:
1. What are the relationships among learners passive, controlled active and free active vocabularies? Are these relationships similar or different in ESL and EFL contexts?
2. Do the relationships among passive, controlled active and
free active vocabularies change with shifts in learners passive
vocabulary knowledge? Are these changes similar or different
in ESL and EFL contexts?
3. What is the effect of length of residence in an ESL context
on the relationships among learners passive, controlled active
and free active vocabularies?
4. What is the effect of the Canadian ESL learners French
language knowledge on the relationships among their passive,
controlled active and free active vocabularies in English?

Method
Participants

Israeli (EFL) students. The EFL students were 79 young

adults, 52 of them grade 10 and 11 high school students, with 6
to 8 years of English instruction (4 to 5 hours/week) respectively; 27 were students majoring in English Language and
Literature at the end of their first semester of studies at the
University of Haifa. Following 8 years of high school EFL instruction, these students were screened by a university entrance exam
which required them to write a composition. Once accepted into
the program, they studied all subjects (literature and linguistics)
in English. All high school learners and most university students
were Hebrew NSs; some spoke Arabic or Russian. This range of
participants (from the weakest among the 10th graders to the

372

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

advanced university students) represented a wide range of

English vocabulary knowledge.
The Canadian (ESL) students. The Canadian participants
were 103 university students from a variety of academic programs
and L1 backgrounds (e.g., French, Chinese, Arabic) who were
enrolled in a range of ESL courses at the University of Ottawa.
Many ESL students at this bilingual university have solid
knowledge of French. These students general ESL proficiency
levels varied from low-intermediate to advanced, as measured by
English placements tests developed at the University of Ottawas
Second Language Institute. We used a questionnaire to gather
some background information about the learners (e.g., length of
residence in an ESL context, level of French language knowledge;
see Appendix A for the questionnaire).
Research Instruments

We used 3 instruments to measure 3 dimensions of the

students English vocabulary knowledge:
1. The Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation 1983, 1990) for passive
vocabulary size;
2. The productive version of the Vocabulary Levels Test
(Laufer & Nation, in press) for controlled active vocabulary
size;
3. The Lexical Frequency Profile (Laufer & Nation, 1995) for
lexical richness in free written expression.
Vocabulary Levels Test. The Vocabulary Levels Test, which
measures passive vocabulary knowledge, is based on words from
5 word-frequency levels (2,000, 3,000, 5,000 words, the university
word list containing 836 words, and 10,000 words). Each frequency
level of the test comprises 6 sections and each section includes 6
words and 3 definitions. Words in each level of the test are
representative of all the words at that level. Testees match target
words with their corresponding definitions, as in this example:

Laufer and Paribakht

373

1. copy
2. event

end or highest point

this moves a car

thing made to be like another

3. motor
4. profit
5. pity
6. tip

The test has 90 items (18 in each level). It tests the target words
out of context, because context might provide clues to their meanings (the definitions in the test do not provide such clues). We were
interested only in the number of words the students could understand without any clues, rather than their guessing abilities. We
used the level of passive vocabulary knowledge as the baseline to
equalize groups.
Controlled Active Vocabulary Test. This test is modeled on
the Vocabulary Levels Test, in the sense that it uses the same
frequency bands and the same items. It elicits target items from
5 frequency levels in short sentences with the items first few
letters provided in order to eliminate other possibilities. The
testees provide the missing word in each sentence, for example:
The railway con___________ the city with its suburbs.1
The test has 90 items (18 in each level).
Both the above two tests are available in four parallel versions. We gave the learners version A of the Levels Test and version
C of the Controlled Active Vocabulary Test, thus ensuring that
similar items would not appear in the two tests. The items were,
however, from the same frequency levels.
Free Active Vocabulary Test. The Free Active Vocabulary
Test required the learners to write a composition of about 300
to 400 word tokens on one of two topics: (a) Should governments
be allowed to limit the number of children in families? (b) Can
technology replace traditional face-to-face teaching in the classroom? We analysed the compositions with the Lexical Frequency

374

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

Profile (LFP) measure, which shows the percentage of words in

the writing samples that come from different vocabulary-frequency levels. The calculation is as follows: if, for example, a
composition consisting of 200 word families contained 150 belonging to the first 1,000 most-frequent words, 20 belonging to
the second, 20 from the University Word List and 10 not in any
list and if these numbers were converted into percentages out
of the total of 200 word families, then this compositions LFP
would be 75%10%10%5%. A computer program that
matched vocabulary-frequency lists with the learners compositions, which had been typed into it, did the entire calculation.
Because LFP is defined in terms of word frequency and not specific
vocabulary items taught in a given course, it can be used to
compare learner groups from different educational contexts. The
LFP is also topic-independent: It is stable for compositions on
different topics written by the same students, as long as these are
of a general nature and do not involve infrequently-used jargon
words (Laufer & Nation, 1995). Therefore, we did not expect the 2
different topics to have an effect on the proportions of frequent
and infrequent vocabulary. The LFP has been shown to be a valid
and reliable measure of vocabulary use in writing and to discriminate between learners at different proficiency levels (Laufer &
Nation, 1995).
Procedures

We administered the 3 tests within 7 to 10 days during 3

different class sessions. We presented them to the students as part
of their normal class work. The first two tests took about 2045
minutes each. The time allocated to composition writing was 60 to
90 minutes. Generally speaking, Canadian students used less time
to complete the 3 tests.
We calculated three scores for each participant: the passive
vocabulary score, the controlled active vocabulary score and the
LFP score. We also converted the LFP into a condensed profile,
consisting of the percentage of the basic 2,000 words and the

Laufer and Paribakht

375

percentage of the beyond-basic 2,000 words, that is, the sum of

percentages from the University Word Level (UWL) and not on
the list. Because a single score result is more amenable to statistical analysis, we used scores beyond 2,000 to represent the
learners lexical richness in free expression. The condensed profile
facilitates cross-linguistic and correlational studies; research has
found it reliable and valid (Laufer, 1995; Laufer & Nation, 1995).
Test Scoring

In scoring the passive vocabulary test, we gave each correct

answer one point. Because the total number of items in the test is
90, with 18 items at each frequency level, the maximum score for
each level is 18 and for the whole test 90.
The test of controlled active vocabulary knowledge has the
same maximum scores as the passive vocabulary test (i.e., 90, 18)
because it has the same number of items at each frequency level
and in total. We marked items as correct when the lexical item
elicited was semantically correct. If the learner used it in a wrong
grammatical form, for example the wrong tense, we marked it
correct. Furthermore, a word with a spelling error that did not
distort the word (e.g., recieve instead of receive) was marked
correct.
For the test of free active vocabulary, we prepared learners
compositions for entry into computer files as follows. We deleted
all incorrect uses of lexical items, taking care to distinguish
between grammatical and lexical errors. For example, we considered wrong verb tense, singular instead of plural form, or wrong
prepositions as grammatical errors and did not delete them.
However, we considered the use of wrong derivations (e.g., a verb
instead of a noun) and use of a regular verb past tense inflection
with an irregular verb (e.g., goed instead of went) as lexical
errors. Furthermore, we deleted proper nouns because we did not
consider them part of learners vocabulary knowledge. We also
deleted all non-words: words with inappropriate affixes (e.g., unlegal for illegal) and words that simply do not exist in English.

376

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

We also deleted foreign language words, except those that have

come into common use in English. We corrected spelling errors
that did not distort the word in order to make the words recognizable by the computer program. We then typed the compositions
into the computer for LFP analysis.

Results
Research Question 1

1. What are the relationships among learners passive, controlled active and free active vocabularies? Are these relationships similar or different in ESL and EFL contexts?
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for the
3 vocabulary scores (i.e., passive, controlled active and free active)
for ESL and EFL learners. The raw scores for passive (P) and
controlled active (CA) vocabulary size are out of 90; the beyond2,000 scores are in percentages.
Our results show that the P vocabulary of both ESL and
EFL learners was larger than their respective CA vocabularies. The CA/P ratio is higher in the EFL group, indicating a
smaller gap between the two vocabulary types for this group. We
can reasonably assume that a smaller P vocabulary consists of
more frequent words and a larger P vocabulary includes more
Table 1
Means and standard deviations for the 3 vocabulary scores for EFL
and ESL students
Vocabulary Scores
Passive
Controlled active
CA/P ratio
FA (beyond 2000)

EFL (n = 79)
M
SD
47.6
36.7
77%
11%

20.9
14.6
45%
5.6%

ESL (n = 103)
M
SD
66.7
41.5
61.7%
11.6%

10.9
11.9
12.6%
3.7%

Laufer and Paribakht

377

infrequent words, because students generally learn frequent

words before infrequent ones. Therefore, the different CA/P ratios
between the 2 groups may be related to the frequency of the words
that constitute the learners P vocabulary. To examine this assumption, we broke down the P and CA results by word frequency
levels. Table 2 presents the means for P and CA vocabulary scores
and the ratios between them at each frequency level. The maximum score for each level is 18.
The breakdown of P and CA scores by frequency levels shows
that both P and CA scores decrease with decreasing word frequency, but not at the same rate. In other words, the CA/P gaps
within a learners lexicon differ at various word frequency levels.
That the EFL learners had a higher CA/P ratio at UWL than at
the 5,000 level does not contradict this finding. UWL consists of
words from 4,000 to 6,000 frequency levels; therefore, overall, one
cannot necessarily regard UWL words as less frequent than the
words at the 5,000 level. Thus, the results in Tables 1 and 2 show
a similar trend. The relationship between P and CA vocabularies
is not uniform. The higher the frequency of the passive words in
the learners lexicon, the smaller the P-CA gap. Hence, less
frequent words are less likely to be part of the learners active

Table 2
Means and ratios for passive and controlled active vocabularies at
different word frequency levels for ESL and EFL populations
Word
Frequency

2,000
3,000
5,000
UWL
10,000

Passive
Vocabulary
(18)
EFL
ESL

Controlled
Active
(18)
EFL
ESL

EFL

ESL

15.9
12.8
8
8
2.8

14.9
9.9
5
5.6
1.3

93.5
75.9
62
70
46

84.4
58.3
63
51
44

16.3
15.5
14
12.6
8.2

13.7
9
8.8
6.4
3.6

Ratio
(%)

378

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

vocabulary use. Table 2 shows that the changing P-CA relationships generally hold across the ESL and EFL populations.
Because we measured the free active (FA) vocabulary in
terms of relative proportions of frequent and infrequent vocabulary produced in essays, not in terms of knowledge of specific items,
we cannot calculate the ratio between FA vocabulary and the other
2 types of knowledge. (It is indeed doubtful whether researchers
can devise a measure to check how many words a person actually
uses at free will, unless the persons vocabulary is very limited.)
What research can measure, however, is the Spearman correlations among FA vocabulary (as expressed in the beyond-2,000
score) and the other two scores. These correlations appear in
Table 3.
Table 3 shows moderate but significant correlations between
FA/P and FA/CA vocabulary knowledge for both groups, indicating
that learners with higher P and CA vocabularies also had better
scores on FA vocabulary. However, the 2 groups with different P
and CA vocabularies (see Table 1) had almost identical FA vocabulary scores.
Research Question 2

2. Do the relationships among passive, controlled active and

free active vocabulary change with shifts in learners passive

Table 3
Spearman correlations among the three vocabulary scores
Vocabulary Scores
CA
P
CA

FA

EFL

ESL

EFL

ESL

0.89***

0.72**

0.68***
0.68***

0.41**
0.51**

** p < .01 *** p < .001

Laufer and Paribakht

379

vocabulary knowledge? Are these changes similar or different

in ESL and EFL contexts?
Question 2 investigated the changes that may occur in the
relationships among vocabulary types as a result of increased
vocabulary learning. Therefore, we carried out 2 comparisons:
(a) of groups with different P vocabularies within the same learning context (i.e., EFL or ESL), and (b) of groups with the same P
vocabularies in different learning contexts.
We divided the learners into 3 groups on the basis of their P
vocabulary scores. The low group consisted of learners whose P
scores ranged from 11 to 36; the intermediate groups scores were
37 to 62; the advanced groups scores ranged from 63 to 86. (The
range of P scores for the entire sample was 11 to 86; i.e., 75 points.
Therefore, we made the division into groups by ranges of 25.)
Because there were no low students in the ESL sample we could
compare ESL and EFL learners from the intermediate and advanced groups only. Table 4 presents the mean scores for the 3
types of vocabulary knowledge by learners P vocabulary level. It
also shows t-test results for the differences between ESL and EFL
learners on each of the 3 scores.
In both the ESL and EFL populations the levels of CA and
FA vocabularies increased as the learners P vocabulary knowledge grew. With respect to CA/P ratios, the gap between the 2
Table 4
Comparison of vocabulary test scores of EFL and ESL learners at
the intermediate and advanced levels of passive vocabulary
knowledge
Vocabulary
Scores

Low P
EFL
(n=26)

P
CA
Ratio
FA

23
21
91.1%
6.8%

Intermediate P
EFL
ESL
(n=30) (n=29)
Diff.
50
37
74%
10%

52.7
n.s.
30.3
p<.005
57.5% p<.0005
9.8%
n.s.

Advanced P
EFL
ESL
(n=30) (n=74)
Diff.
72.2
51.6
71.4%
15.8%

72.1
n.s.
45.9 p<.05
63.2% p<.005
12.3% p<.005

380

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

vocabularies widened somewhat as EFL learners acquired more

vocabulary. For ESL students, the gap lessened for learners with
advanced levels of P vocabulary knowledge. However, additional
t-tests comparing the CA/P ratios of the intermediate with advanced groups in each learning context showed that these differences were not significant. As seen in Table 4, the CA/P ratio in
the EFL low P group is 91.1%. An increasingly wider or a stable
P/CA gap means that the more passive words one learns, the larger
the gap between the two vocabularies becomes.2
Across-context (EFL and ESL) comparisons indicate that
EFL learners with intermediate and advanced levels of P vocabulary knowledge had significantly higher levels of CA vocabulary
than ESL learners and that the P/CA gap was significantly less in
EFL learners. EFL learners with advanced P levels also had
significantly higher FA levels than ESL learners. On the whole,
the EFL learners who were comparable to ESL learners on P
vocabulary had greater CA vocabulary; and the more advanced
EFL learners also had higher FA vocabulary.
Research Question 3

3. What is the effect of length of residence in an ESL context

on the relationships among learners passive, controlled active
and free active vocabularies?
To examine this question, we first analysed the data in detail,
following learners vocabulary profiles for each additional month
of stay in an ESL context. Because the effect appeared negligible
at these short intervals, we then merged the data for 3 categories
of length of stay: (a) up to 6 months (new ESL learners); (b) 724
months (recent ESL learners); and (c) 24 months or more (old
ESL learners). Table 5 presents the results for the 3 categories of
length of stay in an ESL context.
One-way ANOVAs comparing the 3 categories on each vocabulary variable showed that the CA score and the P/CA ratio of
old ESL learners differed significantly from the respective

Laufer and Paribakht

381

Table 5
The effect of length of residence in ESL context on learners
vocabulary scores
Length of Residence in ESL Context
n=41
n=21
n=41
New
Recent
Old
Passive
CA
Ratio
FA

66.6
38.3
56.8%
11.7%

63.3
37
58%
10%

68.5
47*
68.4%*
12%

*p < .05

figures for the new and recent learners. In other words, P and
FA vocabularies did not change significantly with longer ESL
residence, but CA vocabulary grew; the gap between P and CA
vocabularies decreased after 2 years of stay in an ESL context. A
breakdown of the results for the learners with intermediate and
advanced levels of P vocabulary knowledge showed that the results in Table 5 were not qualified by the level of P vocabulary
knowledge (see Appendix B).
Research Question 4

4. What is the effect of Canadian ESL learners French language knowledge on the relationships among their passive,
controlled active and free active vocabularies in English?
Because many ESL students in the bilingual University of
Ottawa have high levels of French language knowledge, we could
examine the effects of such knowledge on the relationships among
learners English P, CA and FA vocabularies. Given the vast
number of cognates in English and French, we expected learners
with high levels of French knowledge to have higher scores on all
3 vocabulary tests and to have a smaller P/CA gap.

382

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

To examine the French language knowledge effect, we divided the ESL learners into 2 groups, based on their own assessment of their level of French language knowledge in the
questionnaire (Appendix A): (a) +French, learners with solid
French language knowledge;3 and (b) French, learners with
little or no French language knowledge. Table 6 presents the
results for the entire ESL population. There were no significant
differences between the 2 groups. The means for P, CA and FA
vocabularies and the P/CA ratios were approximately the same for
both groups.
A slightly different picture emerged, however, when we did
this analysis separately for learners with intermediate or advanced levels of P vocabulary. Table 7 indicates that Frenchspeaking learners with an intermediate level of P vocabulary had
significantly higher CA levels than learners with no French.
Furthermore, the P/CA gap was significantly less for Frenchspeaking learners at this level. These differences disappeared,
however, at more advanced levels of P vocabulary knowledge.
Apparently, French language knowledge was an asset only for
ESL students with lower levels of P vocabulary knowledge. In the
case of FA vocabulary, French language knowledge had no effect,
whatever the learners P vocabulary level.

Table 6
The effect of French language knowledge on the vocabulary scores of
ESL learners
Vocabulary Scores
P
CA
Ratio
FA

+French (n=38)

French (n=65)

66.8
42.2
63.4%
11.8%

66.6
41.1
60.8%
11.6%

Laufer and Paribakht

383

Table 7
The effect of French language knowledge on vocabulary scores of
ESL learners at the intermediate and advanced levels of passive
vocabulary knowledge
Vocabulary
scores
P
CA
Ratio
FA

Intermediate P
French
+French (t-test)
Difference
53
28
52%
9.3%

53
35
67%
10.6%

n.s.
p<.05
p=.005
n.s.

French

72
47
64%
12.5%

Advanced P
+French (t-test)
Difference
72
45
62%
12.2%

n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.

Discussion
We examined the effect of 4 variables on the relationship
between passive and active vocabulary: passive vocabulary size,
context of learning, length of residence in L2 context and knowledge of a related languageFrench.
Passive Vocabulary Knowledge

Our results confirmed the general perception that learners

passive (P) vocabulary is larger than their controlled active (CA)
vocabulary. They also showed that learners with larger P vocabularies also had larger CA vocabularies and slightly better free
active (FA) vocabularies in written expression. Yet, we cannot
simplistically express these two relationships (P-CA and P-FA) in
two single scores (ratio and correlation, respectively) for the entire
EFL and ESL populations, because these relationships are neither
uniform nor stable. The CA/P ratio differed within a learners
lexicon for words at different frequency levels: it was higher for
high-frequency words and lower for less-frequent words. Moreover,
the ratio could decrease or stabilize with the growth of learners
overall P knowledge. We found that CA vocabulary development

384

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

lagged behind and did not grow at the same rate as the learners
P vocabulary, whether in an ESL or an EFL context. Frequent
words are more likely to pass from passive to active lexicon,
because they are indispensable for communication and must
therefore be activated or, in learning terms, practised. Such practice may reinforce their long-term retention. Learners encounter
less frequent words, on the other hand, less frequently and use
them less in communication than the frequent words. Possibly,
both limited exposure and lack of practice hinder the successful
passage of words from receptive to productive vocabulary. Receptive vocabulary may take a long time to filter into active vocabulary or may never become a part of it.
The FA vocabulary also grew with an increase in P vocabulary, but the connection between the two is less clear than the P-CA
connection. The results suggest that FA progressed when the
learners moved from intermediate to advanced P level 5; FA
correlated with P and CA across P vocabulary levels. Within each
level separately, the connection was weaker. The correlations were
significant neither for intermediate and advanced EFL learners
nor for intermediate ESL learners, implying that a moderate
increase in P within a proficiency level would not necessarily
result in a more sophisticated FA vocabulary. Learners may need
to learn a lot of P vocabulary (to move from an intermediate to
advanced proficiency level) before growth in the FA vocabulary
becomes apparent.
Taken together, the CA/P ratios and the correlations among
the three types of vocabulary knowledge suggest that the learners
P, CA and FA vocabularies developed at different rates. The development of active, particularly FA, vocabulary was slower and less
predictable than the development of P vocabulary.
Learning Context

We compared ESL and EFL groups on their active vocabulary

with passive vocabulary size held constant. Both the intermediate and the advanced EFL learners had significantly better CA

Laufer and Paribakht

385

vocabularies than the ESL learners. The advanced EFL learners

also had significantly better FA vocabularies. Initially, these results suggest that EFL context was more conducive to the activation of P vocabulary, even though it was disadvantaged in terms
of language input and opportunities for practice. We can explain
this apparent paradox in two ways.
First, the EFL learners probably invested more effort than
ESL learners to acquire a similar amount of passive vocabulary,
because EFL learning occurred mainly through form-focussed
instruction rather than through exposure. The greater mental
effort required for conscious learning may have resulted in better
activation of P vocabulary in the EFL learners. This explanation
is consistent with the output hypothesis (Swain, 1995; Swain &
Lapkin, 1995) that better learning occurs when learners are forced
to stretch their linguistic resources.
Second, the ESL learners larger P/CA gap and lower FA
vocabulary does not necessarily evidence inferior vocabulary
knowledge. These differences also mean that, among EFL and ESL
learners with similar CA or FA, the ESL learners would have a
larger passive vocabulary than the EFL learners.4 The ESL learners passive vocabulary was richer because they were exposed to
a large number of lexical items in their milieu, which propelled a
rapid growth of P vocabulary even though their activation lagged.
In sum, the larger P/A difference of the ESL learners did not
make their lexical knowledge superior or inferior to that of the
EFL learners. It only provided evidence for different developmental patterns of vocabulary in different language-learning contexts.
Length of Residence in Second Language Context

Residence in an L2 environment is thought to contribute

favourably to L2 learning in general and to L2 vocabulary learning
in particular. It provides learners with massive input and with
ample opportunities for challenging their linguistic resources
through everyday use of the language. However, researchers do

386

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

not know what length of residence indeed makes a difference in

the activation of a learners passive vocabulary.
Our results showed that learners with similar passive vocabularies had significantly higher CA vocabulary, and consequently a significantly higher CA/P ratio, only after 2 years of
residence in an ESL context. About 2 years of multiple encounters
with less-frequent words and their uses were necessary to activate
the learners passive vocabulary. However, 2 years of exposure and
use did not improve their FA vocabularies significantly. Such
improvement may occur after longer residence, with its additional
exposure and opportunities for vocabulary use. Alternatively, the
FA vocabulary may have reached a plateau and might therefore
defy further development.
Knowledge of French

Researchers generally assume that learners who know another language (L1 or L2) that shares cognates with the target
language have a larger pool of vocabulary items at their disposal
than learners who do not know a cognate language. Our results
indicate that ESL learners knowledge of French was somewhat
of an asset at the earlier stages of their ESL learning, when their
P vocabulary was at the intermediate level (as defined here). These
learners had higher CA levels and a smaller P/CA gap than those
with no French language knowledge. However, these differences
disappeared once learners picked up large amounts of English P
vocabulary. Surprisingly, FA vocabulary was not affected by the
knowledge of French at any of the P vocabulary levels in our study.
Implications

This study sheds light on some factors that affect passiveactive vocabulary relationships, the nature of vocabulary development and possible reasons for the activation of previously passive
vocabulary. Passive-active vocabulary relationships appear to be
affected by passive vocabulary size, context of learning, length of

Laufer and Paribakht

387

residence in a target language context, and to a lesser extent by

knowledge of a related (cognate) language. The frequency of the
words being learned also influences these relationships. The nonuniformity in passive-active vocabulary relationships suggests
that each of the three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge we
examined (passive, controlled active, free active) develops somewhat differently. Passive vocabulary appears to develop most
rapidly and free active slowest. The activation of passive vocabulary seems to depend on multiple exposures to words and broad
opportunities to use them, conditions abundant in the ESL context. Such activation may also be affected by some characteristics
of the individual learner and the EFL context (e.g., learning effort
and pushed output). We asked whether the different developmental rates we found for different types of vocabulary knowledge
reflect the nature of lexical learning or are rather a consequence
of the learning context. The results point to the importance of both
factors. Different developmental rates characterize lexical learning in all contexts, but the precise nature of these differences may
depend on the environment in which the language is learned.
Revised version accepted 03 March 1998

Notes
1

The controlled active (CA) vocabulary test bears only a limited resemblance
to the C-test. One constructs a C-test by deleting the second half of every
other word in some sentences of a text; the testees are to fill in the missing
letters. The CA test provides minimal clues (one to several of the beginning
letters of the target words) in order to elicit the target words and to eliminate
other possibilities. Furthermore, the CA test clearly elicits beyond passive
vocabulary knowledge, in that it requires the learner to retrieve the target
word. It differs, however, from a free active test, in that it does not elicit or
measure spontaneous target word production.
2
For example, a 70% stable ratio means that when 4,000 words are known
passively, 2,800 are known actively, resulting in a difference of 1,200 words;
when the P vocabulary reaches 5,000, the A becomes 3,500, yielding a
difference of 1,500 words; when the P reaches 6,000, the A is 4,200 and the
difference 1,800.
3
Solid French language knowledge is indicated as very well in the questionnaire.

388

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

For example, a P/CA gap of 2,000 words in an ESL group, as opposed to 1,000
words in an EFL group, means that if the 2 groups know 3,000 words actively,
EFL students P vocabulary will be 4,000 and the ESL students 5,000 words.

References
Aitchison, J. (1989). Words in the mind. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Anderson, R.C., & Freebody, P. (1983). Reading comprehension and the
assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In B. A. Hudson (Ed.),
Advances in reading/language research, Vol. 2 (pp. 231256). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bialystok, E., & Sharwood-Smith, M. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of
mind: An evaluation of the construct for second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 6, 101117.
Channell, J. (1988). Psycholinguistic considerations on the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and
language teaching (pp. 8396). London: Longman.
Faerch, C., Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1984). Learner language and
language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Henriksen, B. (1996, August). Semantisation: A key process for vocabulary
learning and use. Paper presented at the 11th AILA World Congress.
Jyvskyl, Finland.
Joe, A., Nation, P., & Newton, J. (1998). Sensitive tests. Unpublished manuscript.
Laufer, B. (1990). Ease and difficulty in vocabulary learning: Some teaching
implications. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 147156.
Laufer, B. (1993). Appropriation du vocabulaire: Mots faciles, mots difficiles,
mots impossibles. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue trangre, 3,
97113.
Laufer, B. (1995). Beyond 2000: A measure of productive lexicon in a second
language. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The
current state of interlanguage (pp. 265272). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a
second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19, 255271.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in
L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307322.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (in press). A vocabulary size test of controlled
productive ability. Language Testing.
Meara, P. (1996, August).The third dimension of vocabulary knowledge. Paper
presented at the 11th AILA World Congress, Jyvskyl, Finland.

Laufer and Paribakht

389

Meara, P., & Buxton, P. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary

tests. Language Testing, 4, 142151.
Nation, I.S.P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 1225.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Heinle &
Heinle.
Palmberg, R. (1987). Patterns of vocabulary development in foreign-language
learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 201220.
Paribakht, T.S., & Wesche, M. (1993). Reading comprehension and second
language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL
Canada Journal, 11, 929.
Paribakht, T.S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and
reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J.
Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A
rationale for pedagogy (pp. 174200). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355371.
Schmitt, N. (1996, August). How much depth is there in vocabulary size tests?
Paper presented at the 11th AILA World Congress, Jyvskyl, Finland.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In
G. Cook & B. Seidelhoffer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125144). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 372391.
Viberg, A. (1993). Crosslinguistic perspectives on lexical organization and
lexical progression. In K . Hyltestam & A. Viberg (Eds.), Progression and
regression in language (pp. 340385). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary
knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review,
53, 1340.

390

Language Learning

Vol. 48, No. 3

Appendix A
Questionnaire
Instructor: _________________
Name:
Age:
Native language(s):
Other languages:
If French is not your mother tongue, how well do you know the language?
(Circle the appropriate response.)
Very little

some

very well

If you are not a Canadian, how long have you been in Canada?
(Please specify years & months.)
How long have you lived in an English speaking environment?
History of your English language learning:
Where

How Long
Approximate # of hours/week
(# of years & months)
(if applicable)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What kinds of university level ESL courses have you taken so far? (e.g., listening, reading, writing, speaking, four skills)
How good do you think your English vocabulary knowledge is?
Poor
In reading comprehension:
In listening comprehension:
In speaking:
In writing:

average

good

very good

excellent

Laufer and Paribakht

391

Appendix B
The effect of length of residence in ESL context on the vocabulary
scores of learners at the intermediate and advanced levels of
passive vocabulary knowledge
Vocabulary
Scores
P
CA
Ratio
FA
* p < .05

Intermediate P (n=29)
New
Recent
Old
(n=11)
(n=8)
(n=10)
51.5
26
50.2%
10

52
28.9
55.5%
8.9

54.6
36.4*
67%*
10.3

Advanced P (n=74)
New
Recent
Old
(n=30)
(n=13)
(n=31)
72.1
42.9
59.2%
12.3

70.2
42
60%
11.7

73
50.4*
69%*
127