SECOND LANGUAGE Vol. 16 (2017, pp.

5-18)
The Japan Second Language Association
http://www.j-sla.org/

Lexical Facility: Bringing Size and Speed Together 1

語彙の即時的運用能力
— 語彙サイズと処理速度の統合—

Michael Harrington University of Queensland

マイケル ハリントン クイーンズランド大学

Abstract

This article introduces the lexical facility construct, an approach that characterizes vocabulary
size and processing skill dimensions as complementary indices of second language (L2)
vocabulary skill that, when combined, provide a more sensitive measure of individual
differences in L2 vocabulary skill than vocabulary size alone. Lexical facility is described here
as a vocabulary skill construct and a measurement construct. Theoretical and methodological
issues arising from the proposal are discussed.

要旨
本稿では，語彙の即時的運用能力の概念を紹介する。この概念は，語彙サイズと語彙処理能力
の 2 つの側面を第二言語（L2）の語彙スキルの相補的な指標とするアプローチである。2 つの側
面を結びつけると，語彙サイズのみの場合と比較して，L2 の語彙スキルの個人差のより敏感な指
標となる。本稿では，語彙スキルの概念および測定法の概念として，語彙の即時的運用能力を説
明する。この提言から生じる理論的，および方法論的諸問題について論じる。

1 Introduction

Lexical facility is an approach to L2 vocabulary skill and its measurement that brings together
vocabulary size and the two dimensions of word recognition skill, recognition speed and

1
This article is an abridged version of Chapter 4 in Harrington, M. (2017). Lexical facility: Size, recognition
speed and consistency as dimensions of second language vocabulary knowledge. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.

－5－
Second Language 16

consistency. It characterizes vocabulary size and processing skill dimensions as

complementary indices of L2 vocabulary knowledge that, when combined, provide a more
sensitive measure of individual differences in L2 vocabulary than vocabulary size alone. The
focus here is on the conceptual basis for lexical facility. The construct is first defined and
related to existing research on word recognition skill. Lexical facility is approached both as a
vocabulary skill construct and as a measurement construct. As a vocabulary skill construct, it
represents lower-level word recognition processes that play a crucial role in discourse
comprehension skill. As a measurement construct, it combines the three dimensions of
vocabulary size, recognition speed, and consistency as trait-like entities underlying
performance across contexts and uses. The lexical facility proposal represents a significant
departure from the traditional practice in vocabulary learning and assessment of treating
knowledge and speed as independent entities. The implications of the proposal are discussed,
and the ways in which the account differs from current directions in L2 vocabulary research
are highlighted.

2 Defining Lexical Facility

Lexical facility is the capacity to recognize words quickly. It combines vocabulary knowledge,
as manifested by vocabulary size, with the processing skill needed to access these words. This
latter includes how fast, on average, these words are recognized, as measured by mean
recognition time (mnRT), and the consistency in the speed with which this takes place, as
captured in the coefficient of variation (CV). All refer to the linking of a visual word form to a
meaning (semantic representation) in the individual’s mental lexicon. The recognition process
is bounded in time from the moment the visual stimulus is first perceived until the lexical
entry—the meaning component—becomes available. Vocabulary size is the boundary
condition on lexical facility because a word must be known before it can be recognized. Size
is measured using the Timed Yes/No Test, which elicits simple judgments as to whether the
individual knows the word, but does not indicate what is known about it, nor how it is used.
Recognition speed reflects the mnRT with which words are identified. The interest here is how
differences in mnRT correlate with vocabulary size and the relationship of the two to L2
performance.
Along with vocabulary size and mnRT, lexical facility includes consistency with which
words are recognized. The measure of consistency used here is the CV, which is a single value
that reflects the stability of response times across a set of items (Segalowitz, Segalowitz, &
Wood, 1998). It is the ratio of recognition speed variability (the standard deviation of the mean,
SDmnRT) divided by the mean recognition speed. The CV has been implicated in the
development of L2 automaticity (Akamatsu, 2008; Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, & Schoonen, 2009;
Segalowitz et al., 1998), but the concern here is the usefulness of the measure as an index of
L2 vocabulary skill development. The relative speed and consistency of recognition reflect how
strongly the words are represented in the mental lexicon. This strength determines the amount

－6－
 Harrington, M.

of processing required, with stronger representations yielding faster and more consistent
responses and drawing on fewer processing resources (Balota, Yap, & Cortese, 2006; Luce,
1986).

3 The Importance of Lexical Facility in Text Comprehension

Lexical facility is about skill in word identification. Although narrow in scope, this skill is
crucial for discourse comprehension in general and written text comprehension in particular.
Lexical facility plays a primary—as in both initial and central—role in the text comprehension
process. It is a lower-level process that links a written form with a semantic entry in a user’s
mental lexicon. The output of this process then feeds into sentence-level processes, which in
turn interact with higher-level discourse and cognitive processes.
The importance of fluent word recognition cannot be exaggerated. Recognizing words is
a singular recurring cognitive activity in reading, with individual differences in word
recognition skills serving to separate lower-proficiency learners from their more fluent
counterparts (Perfetti, 2007, p. 357). It is also one of the most observable differences between
advanced L2 readers and their L1 counterparts (Koda, 2005; Meara, 2002). Individuals with
smaller and slower vocabularies, that is, less lexical facility, expend greater effort in identifying
individual words and attempting to figure out unfamiliar words encountered in a text. This, in
turn, results in slower and less effective comprehension outcomes. These individuals will
process fewer words, cover less text, and achieve a diminished understanding compared to
more fluent readers in the same amount of time.
The degree of lexical facility thus has a direct impact on the working memory resources
available for higher-level comprehension. Working memory is the capacity to maintain
previously encountered material while simultaneously processing new material. It is an
important determinant of text comprehension in particular and L2 learning and use in general
(Juffs & Harrington, 2011). For less fluent readers, slower, less effective word recognition
processes draw directly upon available memory resources and limit the amount of working
memory available for executing the higher-level processes needed for successful
comprehension (Perfetti, 1985). This is not the case for fluent L1 readers, for whom word
identification is generally automatic and assumed to play a relatively indirect role in
comprehension outcomes. Hannon (2012), for example, links word identification efficiency to
overall text comprehension via sentence-level processing, where it combines word integration
and syntactic processes that together determine text comprehension outcomes. The word
identification skills represented in the lexical facility construct are an integral element of L2
vocabulary skill, with efficient word identification processes being important predictors of
fluent L2 reading outcomes (Koda, 1996, 2005; see also Shiotsu, 2009; Wang & Koda, 2005).

－7－
Second Language 16

4 Lexical Facility as a Vocabulary Skill Construct: The Focus on the Single Word

L2 vocabulary knowledge is a multidimensional construct (Read, 2000) of which lexical

facility is but one, albeit crucial, element. The lexical facility account makes a set of related
assumptions regarding how words are learned and represented in the mental lexicon, how this
knowledge is processed, and how it relates to language performance. Each assumption draws
on established findings and traditions, but several are at odds with dominant approaches in
current theory and methodology in L2 vocabulary research. These will be identified in turn.
The primary unit of analysis in the lexical facility account is the single word. The
motivation for focusing on the single word is both theoretical and practical. Words are the basic
stuff of language use. Balota et al. (2006) liken the role of individual words in language to the
role of the cell in biology. The cell is the basic element of which the larger organism is
constituted. The function of the organism depends on how the cells are organized, and the
health of these cell assemblies dictates the organism’s health. Furthermore, a given cell has
value and function only in combination with other cells. The single word is likewise the basic
building block of the mental lexicon and a primary unit of language performance (Grigorenko
& Adams, 2008).
The focus on the single word also accords with psycholinguistic models of reading
comprehension. What is known about basic reading processes is based on the study of single
words: ‘Studies of single word reading are the source of nearly all our crucial knowledge of
reading mechanisms’ (Magnuson, 2008, p. 379). Andrews (2008) uses another metaphor, that
of a ‘pivot’, to describe the crucial role that words play in reading comprehension: ‘Whatever
the “grain size” of linguistic knowledge in general, there is a functional level at which lexical
knowledge acts in a “localist” manner … because words serve as the interface or “pivot” for
reading comprehension’ (p. 319). This so-called pivot is the meeting place of lower-level
perceptual processes and higher-level processes that yield comprehension. Andrew draws on
both the physical sense of a pivot as a mechanical device that supports the movement of an
object and the more abstract sense of being an event or action on which further progress
depends. Words are described as pivots in comprehension because they are at the end of
perceptual (orthographic) processing and the starting point of conceptual processing. Lexical
facility can thus be said to be pivotal.
The focus on single words is also warranted by the manner in which lexical information
is represented in the mental lexicon. Single words are nodes of information an individual
develops as a function of experience and learning. This information is orthographic, graphemic,
and semantic, and in total constitutes the representations needed for successful reading
(Grigorenko & Naples, 2009, p. ix). Word-level representations also have a distinctive status
in memory. Individual words are learned and stored in declarative memory (Ullman, 2005;
Paradis, 2010). Declarative memory (also called explicit memory) is responsible for the
conscious learning of new material, as well as the recall of previously learned material.
Declarative knowledge can be talked about and explicitly taught, and is affected directly by the
frequency and specific characteristics of input. In contrast, basic elements of language structure,

－8－
 Harrington, M.

particularly phonology, morphology, and syntax, are supported by procedural memory systems.
These rule-based processes are typically not available to conscious deliberation, and the
relationship between their development and experience is more complex.
The single word is also a fundamental unit of L2 vocabulary instruction. It is the starting
point for beginner learners and a basic unit of learning, teaching, and assessment at all levels
of development (Grabe, 2009). This is not to discount the importance of multiword units such
as lexical phrases, collocations, and other fixed forms in fluent performance. Spoken and
written discourse rarely involves single-word utterances alone, and these larger units are
increasingly viewed as being of equal importance to individual words in teaching and learning.
The importance of multiword units is also evident from corpus linguistics research, where the
context-dependent nature of much word meaning and the role that morphological rules play in
relating and mediating the meaning of individual words suggest limits to focusing on single
words alone in vocabulary teaching and research (Gardner, 2007). However, neither concern
invalidates the single-word focus of the lexical facility proposal. Vocabulary knowledge is a
multidimensional notion, and the perspectives complement rather than oppose each other.
However, even while recognizing the importance of lexical units above the single word, it is
also a fact that multiword units are ultimately composed of individual words, both at the
perceptual and at the representational level.
Word knowledge emerges from the individual’s experience with the language. The user’s
vocabulary size, speed, and consistency reflect the frequency of exposure to the words in the
language. Frequency of occurrence is a strong predictor of when a word will be learned and an
important determinant of the strength of word representation in the mental lexicon (Ellis 2002,
2012). This strength develops as a result of successive word retrieval events and the resulting
multiple associations formed with other words in the mental lexicon. It, in turn, predicts how
quickly a word will be accessed in use (Balota et al., 2006). Recent research also suggests that
frequency-of-occurrence statistics may be more than just a quantitative notion. The frequency
with which a word appears has been shown to closely relate to the range of contexts in which
it appears, not just to the overall number of occurrences (Adelman & Brown, 2006). Frequency
thus serves as an indicator of how widely a particular word is used, that is, as a measure of
vocabulary depth. The focus on the single-word unit in the lexical facility account is thus
motivated by the central role that the word plays in learning, representation, and processing.
These properties, in turn, make it a particularly appropriate unit for the measurement of L2
vocabulary knowledge. It also provides a unit of measurement for L2 vocabulary knowledge
that can be readily quantified.

5 A Quantitative Approach to L2 Vocabulary Knowledge

The three elements of the lexical facility construct lend themselves to quantitative measurement.
Vocabulary size is measured by performance on tests that use word items drawn from a range
of frequency-of-occurrence bands to yield an estimate of vocabulary size. Speed is measured

－9－
Second Language 16

by mean response time of the words correctly recognized, and consistency by the SD of the
mean and the CV. All other aspects of word knowledge are ignored—in particular, the multiple
associations that a given word shares with other words in the individual’s mental lexicon, for
example, semantic and usage-based associations and collocations, are excluded (Fitzpatrick,
2006). These are traditionally viewed as measures of vocabulary depth and are contrasted with
the breadth of vocabulary measured by the vocabulary size test (Read, 2004). The bread/depth
distinction is a simple, intuitively appealing way to characterize user vocabulary knowledge;
however, the actual independence of the two is open to question. Researchers such as Qian
(1999) and Read (2004) have argued that the two are independent dimensions of vocabulary
knowledge, while others view them as the same, with an increase in vocabulary breadth
accompanied closely by increasing depth (e.g., Vermeer, 2001). This debate is beyond the
scope of this book, but the assumption here is that the two are not, for practical purposes,
independent. All things being equal, increases in depth are accompanied by an increase in
breadth. As is the case with vocabulary speed and size, learners with very ‘broad’ vocabularies
also have very ‘deep’ ones.

6 Is It a Good Idea to Combine Size and Speed?

Lexical facility is unique in that it examines vocabulary size and recognition skill (recognition
speed and consistency) concurrently as correlates of L2 vocabulary skill. The prima facie case
for combining size and speed seems strong. Fluent performance depends on what you know
(i.e., having enough words to be able to access the ones needed for the particular discourse
context) and when you know it (i.e., being able to access these words in a manner quick enough
and consistent enough for the specific discourse demands). Despite the intuitive nature of the
idea, recognition speed—not to mention response consistency—is neglected in models of L2
vocabulary measurement. Response speed has received scant mention in standard L2 testing
texts (Bachman, 1990; McNamara, 1996). Likewise, L2 vocabulary testing research devotes
little attention to temporal measures in the discussions of models of L2 vocabulary assessment
(Hulstijn, 2011; Milton, 2009; Read, 2000; Schmitt, 2010). In recent work on L2 proficiency
testing, Hulstijn (2011) mentions speed as an index of L2 proficiency but does not include it as
an explicit measure. This is partly due to current methodological limitations in the field.
Hulstijn et al. (2009) note that the emergence of vocabulary size (or ‘knowledge acquisition’,
in their terms) and of the speed and consistency of recognition (or ‘skill acquisition’) are
fundamentally intertwined, making the isolation of the knowledge and skill dimensions
difficult, if not impossible (p. 579).

6.1 Theoretical Issues

The difficulty posed in trying to relate knowledge to speed is also recognized by testing
specialists. Van der Linden (2009) describes the tension between the intuitive attraction of

－10－
 Harrington, M.

combining the two and its operationalization in theory and practice in the following terms:

Test theorists have always been intrigued by the relationship between responses to test
items and the time used by a test taker to produce them. Both seem indicative of the same
behavior on test items. Nevertheless, their relationship appears to be difficult to
conceptualize, let alone represent coherently in a statistical model. (2009, p. 247)

The lexical facility proposal might thus appear to be a case of treading where others fear to go.
It attempts to answer the basic question as to whether size and speed combined provide a more
sensitive indicator of individual differences in a fundamentally important aspect of L2
vocabulary skill.
Among other things, the proposed combination of size and speed ignores the long-
standing distinction in the psychometric literature between lower-order behavior that is defined
by speed and higher-order behavior defined by knowledge (Carroll, 1993). Speed has been
viewed as a defining attribute for lower-level behavior typified in simple perceptual and motor
tasks such as sorting and typing. In these tasks, the underlying knowledge is of limited
cognitive complexity, and the processing task by which it is manifested is simple and well
understood. In contrast, knowledge (also called power) is the critical attribute of higher-order
complex cognitive domains, in which the knowledge is complex and displayed in performance
that is varied and of varying degrees of complexity. Test performance draws on reasoning and
other higher-order cognitive skills, including language, and is characteristic of almost all
testing done for educational purposes. Rather than reflecting a single underlying ability, power
and speed are assumed to be qualitatively different dimensions (Carroll, 1993).
In educational testing, individual differences in how fast a test-taker can answer a test
item are assumed to be irrelevant to assessing mastery of the material. Instead, what is crucial
is the ability to demonstrate mastery of the knowledge—that is, answering the item correctly.
This might involve answering a question, solving a problem, or relating some aspect of
knowledge to another. For example, if a geography test item asks for the names of all the
countries bordering Switzerland, what is important is that the test-taker gives the correct names
of the countries. The speed with which these names are produced is assumed to have no bearing
on whether the material is known, nor is it seen as relevant to how that information might be
used in other tasks, say, writing an essay on the causes of World War I. Time limits in
educational tests are set to allow an individual who has mastered the material adequate time to
demonstrate that knowledge (Schnipke & Scrams, 2002). Running out of time in properly
designed tests is a function of inadequate mastery of the material, not a problem arising from
slow retrieval processes.
In general, there has been little need for speed in educational testing in general, and in
L2 testing in particular. John Carroll, a seminal figure in psychometrics, notes that the value of
including a speed component in the measurement of cognitive performance may (merely)
reflect ‘a societal judgment concerning the value of high intelligence combined with quickness
of response or problem-solving’ (Carroll, 1993, p. 509). The speed with which knowledge is

－11－
Second Language 16

demonstrated is of limited importance outside of TV quiz shows and party games. This is
particularly the case in educational testing, where the demonstration of knowledge is an
outcome-oriented process. The nature of L2 knowledge is arguably such that the sole emphasis
on what the learner knows ignores an integral aspect of that knowledge.

6.2 The Time-Contingent Nature of L2 Knowledge

The lack of interest in speed as a measure of cognitive performance arises from the distinction
made between lower-order skills (such as typing) and higher-order cognitive skills (such as
knowledge of geography). Speed is deemed essential for the first but extraneous to the second.
This prompts the question as to the nature of the linguistic knowledge that underpins
performance in the L2. In short—and oversimplifying matters greatly—is L2 knowledge more
like typing or geography? Language tests in formal settings typically resemble those given in
other academic subjects. The student needs to show on paper, or increasingly online, mastery
of the material; how quickly this is done is largely irrelevant. There is the assumption and hope
that knowledge demonstrated in a test will be applied in actual language use. However,
experience has long suggested that successful classroom performance does not necessarily
result in communicative competence. A central question raised by the lexical facility proposal
is the extent to which the treatment of vocabulary knowledge (size) and processing skill (speed)
as a unitary measurement construct provides a more sensitive discriminator of individual
differences in L2 vocabulary knowledge/skill, which in turn relates to L2 performance.

6.3 Methodological Issues

In addition to these theoretical considerations, there is also a serious methodological problem
that can arise when examining knowledge and speed simultaneously. Individuals can vary in
the relative emphasis placed on giving a quick answer versus a correct one—quick and sloppy
versus slow and careful. As a result, final accuracy and speed measures may reflect in part an
individual response bias. Fast responses accompanying lower-accuracy scores may indicate
that the test-taker is emphasizing a fast response over a correct one. Conversely, slower
responses accompanied by high accuracy may indicate an overly deliberate approach on the
part of the test-taker in answering. In both cases, test performance does not directly reflect the
nature of the underlying knowledge representations. The potential for such trade-offs depends
greatly on the nature of the test task and can differ widely across individuals (Luce, 1986).
These individual differences arise from a range of cognitive, attentional, and motivational
factors often not related to the knowledge being measured. This means that the researcher must
be careful when setting up the testing task, and particularly the instructions, in a manner that
minimizes the likelihood of these trade-offs occurring. The accuracy and speed responses
results must also be carefully observed for the presence of possible trade-offs, and appropriate
steps must be taken when they are present. It is assumed that speed–accuracy trade-offs can
never be eliminated completely, and that attention must be given to their potential effects (Heitz,
2014).

－12－
 Harrington, M.

Finally, the use of speed as a standard proficiency measure also presents technical
challenges. Before the development of computer-based data collection tools, Time measures
were unwieldy to collect and analyze, with adequate control possible only in laboratory
conditions. Increasingly accessible off-the-shelf and online tools are now available that allow
RT and other temporal measures to be incorporated in test development, administration, and
scoring in the classroom and other settings outside the laboratory (Lee & Chen, 2011).
The lexical facility proposal attempts to establish whether the processing skill measures
(speed and consistency), both independently and in combination with vocabulary size, can
provide a fuller picture of L2 vocabulary skill, and one that is more sensitive to differences in
proficiency and performance levels than vocabulary size alone.

7 Empirical Research on Size and Speed

Recognition speed as an L2 vocabulary measure has not been totally ignored. The lexical
facility account is not the first attempt to examine vocabulary size and recognition speed as co-
varying elements in measuring L2 proficiency. Laufer and Nation (2001) examined item
accuracy and response speed in Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) performance. The study
compared item completion speed and accuracy scores for university-level EFL students and L1
controls on a computerized version of the VLT. They found that greater accuracy was
accompanied by faster response times, as evident in a significant inverse correlation between
overall mean response times and scores at all levels of the test. Mean response times also
discriminated individual performance, but only for the L2 participants with larger vocabularies.
The L2 participants also showed significantly greater response time variability than the L1
controls. Finally, in comparisons where vocabulary size was controlled, speed-up in response
times lagged behind increases in overall size (Laufer & Nation, 2001, p. 18). Despite these
results, the authors have shown little subsequent interest in response time as a measure of
vocabulary skill in applied settings (Nation, 2013).
A more recent longitudinal study also examined the relationship between vocabulary size
and response speed in VLT performance. Zhang and Lu (2013) administered the test to 300
EFL learners at a Chinese university three times over a 22-month period to examine how
vocabulary size and item response speed (which they labelled ‘fluency’) co-varied over time.
Both accuracy scores and response times improved systematically across the three tests as a
function of the VLT frequency levels, but only a weak relationship overall was observed
between vocabulary size and response speed. Like Laufer and Nation (2001), the authors found
that increases in vocabulary size outpaced the development of faster response times. Both
studies demonstrated a relationship between learners’ response speed and vocabulary size. But
due to the design of the studies, they provide only a coarse picture of that relationship.
The speed measure in both studies reflects overall item response time rather than
individual word recognition time. Each item in the VLT presents the same six word options
that are alternatives to match to three different phrases. As a result, the item response times

－13－
Second Language 16

for each phrase are not independent. Relatively less time is spent processing the six words in
the second and third phrase presentations. Also, and crucially, the response time measures
reflect the average speed of item completion. They are not a direct measure of word recognition
speed, though Zhang and Lu (2013, p. 8) use that term interchangeably with response time.
Rather, the times are measures of word and meaning-matching speeds that involve the
consideration of alternatives before a response is given. As a result, the mean response time
values are very high. In both studies, response times for the 3000 level word responses ranged
from 8 seconds to beyond 15 seconds. In contrast, in L2 word recognition studies in which
individual word recognition is measured, values typically range from 500 milliseconds to 1500
milliseconds (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993; Van Gelderen et al., 2004).
A small number of studies have used the Timed Yes/No format to examine the
relationship between vocabulary size and mean recognition speed (mnRT). The studies differ
in aims, settings, and participants, but all report a correlation between vocabulary size and
recognition speed when size and mnRT measures are collected on the same words, but all found
a consistent correlation between word size and recognition speed (Harrington, 2006;
Harrington & Carey, 2009; Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2012; Shiotsu & Read, 2009). In
contrast, the only study that reported no correlation between vocabulary size and speed was
Miralpeix and Meara (2010) who correlated performance using separate size and speed tests.
The notion that larger vocabulary size correlates with faster recognition is supported by all but
one of the studies, and that study examined size and speed measures on different sets of lexical
items.

8 Conclusion

The lexical facility account is distinctive among L2 vocabulary approaches in that it combines
vocabulary size and recognition speed. The proposed combination of size and processing skill
(recognition time and consistency) is at odds with the traditional psychometric approach to
measurement which treats the two as independent dimensions of behavior. There are a number
of reasons for the practice, both in testing theory in general and in L2 vocabulary assessment
in particular, but treating size and speed as independent entities may also obscure a basic
underlying relationship, given the time-contingent nature of L2 knowledge.
Central to the lexical facility account is the proposal that the combination of recognition
speed (and to a lesser extent, consistency) with vocabulary size provides a combined measure
of greater sensitivity to group and individual differences than vocabulary size alone. The
research approach can be seen as part of an emerging interest in understanding language
proficiency in temporal terms (Hird & Kirsner, 2010). Evidence for the account has been
presented in Harrington (2017). The research has broad implications for theory and practice in
L2 vocabulary instruction and assessment.

－14－
 Harrington, M.

References

Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word
frequency, determines word-naming and reading times. Psychological Science, 17(9),
814–823.
Akamatsu, N. (2008). The effects of training on automatization of word recognition in English
as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(2), 175–193.
Andrews, S. (2008). Lexical expertise and reading skill. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology
of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 49, pp. 247–281). San
Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., & Cortese, M. J. (2006). Visual word recognition: The journey from
features to meaning (a travel update). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.),
Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 285–375). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for
theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188.
Ellis, N. C. (2012). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition,
cognition, and use? In S. T. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language
learning and processing (pp. 7–34). Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.
Fitzpatrick, T. (2006). Habits and rabbits: Word associations and the L2 lexicon. EUROSLA
Yearbook, 6, 147–168.
Gardner, D. (2007). Validating the construct of ‘word’ in applied corpus-based vocabulary
research: A critical survey. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 242–265.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Naples, A. J. (2009). Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological
perspectives. Hove, UK: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Hannon, B. (2012). Understanding the relative contributions of lower-level word processes,
higher-level processes, and working memory to reading comprehension performance in
proficient adult readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 125–152.
Harrington, M. (2006). The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 lexical proficiency.
EUROSLA Yearbook, 6, 147–168.
Harrington, M. (2017). Lexical Facility: Size, recognition speed and consistency as dimensions
of second language vocabulary knowledge. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harrington, M., & Carey, M. (2009). The online yes/no test as a placement tool. System, 37(4),
614–626.

－15－
Second Language 16

Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: History, physiology, methodology, and

behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 150.
Hird, K., & Kirsner, K. (2010). Objective measurement of fluency in natural language
production: A dynamic systems approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23(5), 518–530.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2011). Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: An agenda for
research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 8(3), 229–249.
Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language
acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics,
30(4), 555–582.
Juffs, M., & Harrington, M. (2011). Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language
Teaching, 44(2), 137–166.
Koda, K. (1996). L2 word recognition research: A critical review. The Modern Language
Journal, 80(4), 450–460.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (2001). Passive vocabulary size and speed of meaning recognition:
Are they related? EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 7–28.
Lee, Y. H. & Chen, H. (2011). A review of recent response-time analyses in educational testing.
Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 53(3), 359–379.
Luce, R. D. (1986). Response times. New York: Oxford University Press.
Magnuson, J. S. (2008). Nondeterminism, pleiotropy, and single-word reading: Theoretical and
practical concerns. In E. L. Grigorenko & A. J. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading:
Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 377–404). New York: Lawrence.
McNamara, T. F. (1996). Measuring second language performance. London: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Meara, P. (2002). The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18(4), 393–407.
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Miralpeix, I., & Meara, P. (2010). The written word. Retrieved from www.lognostics.co.uk/
Vlibrary.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Paradis, J. (2010). Bilingual children’s acquisition of English verb morphology: Effects of
language exposure, structure complexity, and task type. Language Learning, 60(3), 651–
680.
Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, S. (2012). Scoring yes-no vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs.
nonword approaches. Language Testing, 29(4), 489–509.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical ability to comprehension. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 11(4), 357–383.

－16－
 Harrington, M.

Qian, D. D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in
reading comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), 282–307.
Raymond, W. D., & Brown, E. L. (2012). Are effects of word frequency effects of contexts of
use? In S. T. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language learning and
processing (pp. 35–52). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Read, J. (2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be
defined? In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection,
acquisition, and testing (pp. 209–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schnipke, D. L., & Scrams, D. J. (2002). Exploring issues of examinee behavior: Insights
gained from response-time analyses. In C. N. Mills, M. Potenza, J. J. Fremer, & W. Ward
(Eds.), Computer-based testing: Building the foundation of future assessments (pp. 237–
266). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary. A vocabulary research manual. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan
Segalowitz, N., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice and differentiation
of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word
recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385.
Segalowitz, N., Segalowitz, S. J., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of
automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(1), 53–
67.
Shiotsu, T. (2009). Reading ability and components of word recognition speed: The case of
L1-Japanese EFL learners. In Z. Han & N. J. Anderson (Eds.), Second language reading
research and instruction: Crossing the boundaries (pp. 15–39). Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Shiotsu, T., & Read, J. (2009, November). Extending the yes/no test as a measure of the English
vocabulary knowledge of Japanese learners. Paper presented at the Annual Conference
of the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia, Brisbane.
Ullman, M. T. (2005). A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition:
The declarative/procedural model. In C. Sanz (Ed.), Mind and context in adult second
language acquisition: Methods, theory, and practice (pp. 141–178). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
van der Linden, W. J. (2009). Conceptual issues in response time modelling. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 46(3), 247–272.
Van Gelderen, A. V., Schoonen, R., Glopper, K. D., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., &
Stevenson, M. (2004). Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive
knowledge in and first- and second- language reading comprehension: A componential
analysis. Journal of Educations Psychology, 96(1), 19–30.
Vermeer, A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and
frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(2), 217–234.

－17－
Second Language 16

Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills
among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 55(1), 71–98.
Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2013). A longitudinal study of receptive vocabulary breadth knowledge
growth and fluency development. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 283–304.

－18－