ThesisPDF Available

Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring Norwegian-speaking students' knowledge, awareness, and conceptions

Authors:
Kimberly Marie Skjelde at University of Bergen
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation
Content uploaded by Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kimberly Marie Skjelde on Nov 12, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English
Education: Exploring Norwegian-
speaking students' knowledge,
awareness, and conceptions
2024
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
University of Bergen, Norway
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
at the University of Bergen
Avhandling for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d )
ved Universitetet i Bergen
.
2017
Dato for disputas: 1111
Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education:
Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Thesis for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD)
Date of defense: 01.11.2024
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen
© Copyright Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Name: Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Title: Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Year: 2024
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen
© Copyright Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Name: Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Title: Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Year: 2024
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen
© Copyright Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Name: Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Title: Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Year: 2024
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen
© Copyright Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Name: Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Title: Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Year: 2024
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen
© Copyright Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Name: Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Title: Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Year: 2024
The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act.
Print: Skipnes Kommunikasjon / University of Bergen
© Copyright Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Name: Kimberly Marie Skjelde
Title: Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring Norwegian-speaking students'
knowledge, awareness, and conceptions
Year: 2024
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iii
Scientific Environment
The doctoral research Academic Vocabulary in L2 English Education: Exploring
Norwegian-speaking Students’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Conceptions was
conducted in the Humanities Faculty at the University of Bergen, within the
Department of Foreign Languages. It was financed through a four-year PhD
fellowship for research in English didactics, where I also completed one year of duty
work. During this time, I taught courses at the BA and MA levels and supervised
students completing their MA theses in the section for English didactics. The
fellowship started in April 2017, with financial support concluding in August 2021, at
which time I accepted a university lecturer position.
I was an active member of the Norwegian Graduate Researcher School in
Linguistics and Philology (LingPhil), completed several courses organized through
them at universities across Norway, and served on the board for two years. I have
also attended classes at the Western Norway Graduate School of Educational
Research II (WNGER II). In addition, I was an active member of a local research
group, Forum for språkdidaktisk forskning [Forum for language didactics research],
and was instrumental in organizing two research seminars for them. During a three-
month exchange at Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, I also attended
two courses related to conducting and publishing doctoral research.
My doctoral research was presented at both national and international conferences.
These include a poster presentation at the NoFa6 Nordic Conference on Subject
Education in Odense, Denmark (May 2017) and three papers. Paper presentations were
given at the Norwegian Forum for English for Academic Purposes (NFEAP) in Oslo
(June 2018), the TESOL Research Network Colloquium in Sydney, Australia
(September 2019), and Vocab@Vic 2023, in Wellington, New Zealand (December
2023).
iv
Acknowledgments
This dissertation project would not have come to fruition without the help of a large
number of people. I would like to thank my supervisor, Aud Solbjørg Skulstad, for
gently reminding me to focus on the job at hand. You did not give up despite my
constant wondering! To my co-supervisor, Averil Coxhead, I must give a heartfelt
thanks for your constant guidance and unwavering faith in my journey to becoming a
researcher. My thanks also go to Birgit Henriksen for her helpful advice and
encouragement and to Lisa Woods for her guidance with the statistical analyses. I
must thank Nicole Busby for being my go-to person, stimulating conversations,
inspiring travel experiences, and, not least, for your continued interest in my research.
Thanks are also necessary to all my colleagues who have supported me with kind
words of encouragement. A special shout-out to the PhD lunch group. Our
conversations have been uplifting and valuable in so many ways! In addition, many
thanks must be given to the teachers and students willing to participate in my
research. Finally, I would like to thank my children for tolerating a mother who has
lived in her own bubble for way too long and my husband, without whom this project
would not have been possible. Thank you for holding down the fort and believing in
me.
iv
iv
Acknowledgments
This dissertation project would not have come to fruition without the help of a large
number of people. I would like to thank my supervisor, Aud Solbjørg Skulstad, for
gently reminding me to focus on the job at hand. You did not give up despite my
constant wondering! To my co-supervisor, Averil Coxhead, I must give a heartfelt
thanks for your constant guidance and unwavering faith in my journey to becoming a
researcher. My thanks also go to Birgit Henriksen for her helpful advice and
encouragement and to Lisa Woods for her guidance with the statistical analyses. I
must thank Nicole Busby for being my go-to person, stimulating conversations,
inspiring travel experiences, and, not least, for your continued interest in my research.
Thanks are also necessary to all my colleagues who have supported me with kind
words of encouragement. A special shout-out to the PhD lunch group. Our
conversations have been uplifting and valuable in so many ways! In addition, many
thanks must be given to the teachers and students willing to participate in my
research. Finally, I would like to thank my children for tolerating a mother who has
lived in her own bubble for way too long and my husband, without whom this project
would not have been possible. Thank you for holding down the fort and believing in
me.
iv
Acknowledgments
This dissertation project would not have come to fruition without the help of a large
number of people. I would like to thank my supervisor, Aud Solbjørg Skulstad, for
gently reminding me to focus on the job at hand. You did not give up despite my
constant wondering! To my co-supervisor, Averil Coxhead, I must give a heartfelt
thanks for your constant guidance and unwavering faith in my journey to becoming a
researcher. My thanks also go to Birgit Henriksen for her helpful advice and
encouragement and to Lisa Woods for her guidance with the statistical analyses. I
must thank Nicole Busby for being my go-to person, stimulating conversations,
inspiring travel experiences, and, not least, for your continued interest in my research.
Thanks are also necessary to all my colleagues who have supported me with kind
words of encouragement. A special shout-out to the PhD lunch group. Our
conversations have been uplifting and valuable in so many ways! In addition, many
thanks must be given to the teachers and students willing to participate in my
research. Finally, I would like to thank my children for tolerating a mother who has
lived in her own bubble for way too long and my husband, without whom this project
would not have been possible. Thank you for holding down the fort and believing in
me.
iv
Acknowledgments
This dissertation project would not have come to fruition without the help of a large
number of people. I would like to thank my supervisor, Aud Solbjørg Skulstad, for
gently reminding me to focus on the job at hand. You did not give up despite my
constant wondering! To my co-supervisor, Averil Coxhead, I must give a heartfelt
thanks for your constant guidance and unwavering faith in my journey to becoming a
researcher. My thanks also go to Birgit Henriksen for her helpful advice and
encouragement and to Lisa Woods for her guidance with the statistical analyses. I
must thank Nicole Busby for being my go-to person, stimulating conversations,
inspiring travel experiences, and, not least, for your continued interest in my research.
Thanks are also necessary to all my colleagues who have supported me with kind
words of encouragement. A special shout-out to the PhD lunch group. Our
conversations have been uplifting and valuable in so many ways! In addition, many
thanks must be given to the teachers and students willing to participate in my
research. Finally, I would like to thank my children for tolerating a mother who has
lived in her own bubble for way too long and my husband, without whom this project
would not have been possible. Thank you for holding down the fort and believing in
me.
iv
iv
iv
Acknowledgments
This dissertation project would not have come to fruition without the help of a large
number of people. I would like to thank my supervisor, Aud Solbjørg Skulstad, for
gently reminding me to focus on the job at hand. You did not give up despite my
constant wondering! To my co-supervisor, Averil Coxhead, I must give a heartfelt
thanks for your constant guidance and unwavering faith in my journey to becoming a
researcher. My thanks also go to Birgit Henriksen for her helpful advice and
encouragement and to Lisa Woods for her guidance with the statistical analyses. I
must thank Nicole Busby for being my go-to person, stimulating conversations,
inspiring travel experiences, and, not least, for your continued interest in my research.
Thanks are also necessary to all my colleagues who have supported me with kind
words of encouragement. A special shout-out to the PhD lunch group. Our
conversations have been uplifting and valuable in so many ways! In addition, many
thanks must be given to the teachers and students willing to participate in my
research. Finally, I would like to thank my children for tolerating a mother who has
lived in her own bubble for way too long and my husband, without whom this project
would not have been possible. Thank you for holding down the fort and believing in
me.
iv
Acknowledgments
This dissertation project would not have come to fruition without the help of a large
number of people. I would like to thank my supervisor, Aud Solbjørg Skulstad, for
gently reminding me to focus on the job at hand. You did not give up despite my
constant wondering! To my co-supervisor, Averil Coxhead, I must give a heartfelt
thanks for your constant guidance and unwavering faith in my journey to becoming a
researcher. My thanks also go to Birgit Henriksen for her helpful advice and
encouragement and to Lisa Woods for her guidance with the statistical analyses. I
must thank Nicole Busby for being my go-to person, stimulating conversations,
inspiring travel experiences, and, not least, for your continued interest in my research.
Thanks are also necessary to all my colleagues who have supported me with kind
words of encouragement. A special shout-out to the PhD lunch group. Our
conversations have been uplifting and valuable in so many ways! In addition, many
thanks must be given to the teachers and students willing to participate in my
research. Finally, I would like to thank my children for tolerating a mother who has
lived in her own bubble for way too long and my husband, without whom this project
would not have been possible. Thank you for holding down the fort and believing in
me.
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
v
Abstract in English
This dissertation explores Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’
knowledge and awareness of academic vocabulary, that is core academic lexis that
occurs across academic disciplines and is less common in general language (e.g.,
Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). The research was motivated by two
strands of previous research. The first contained studies that questioned whether
formal English instruction prepared students for the English reading demands of
tertiary education. The second strand included research that had shown correlations
between academic vocabulary knowledge and academic reading comprehension.
Therefore, the main aim of the current dissertation was to explore the following two
questions: To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary
students demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary
and awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis? In what ways do
Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of features common to
academic vocabulary? It is an article-based thesis comprised of three published
articles and an extended abstract. The theoretical underpinnings are closely tied to
usage-based approaches in second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular
focus on the concepts of frequency and awareness. The mixed methods research, with
an emphasis on quantitative methods, was guided by a belief in the advantages of
combining research paradigms and methodologies. All three articles report on
empirical studies conducted in Norway.
Article I examined Norwegian-speaking upper secondary students’ extent of
receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English and associations with their
English course grades. The findings from this quantitative study revealed that while
many students mastered the academic vocabulary tested, a majority failed to do so.
Also, there were significant correlations between scores on the Vocabulary Levels
Test (VLT) academic levels (Schmitt et al., 2001) and English course grades with a
moderate effect size. For participants who reached recommended levels of mastery,
defined as scores between 86,7% and 96,7%, the odds of achieving a higher grade were
between four and nine times that of students who did not master this lexis. These
vi
findings suggest the need for teachers to take a more principled approach to
expanding their students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary.
In Article II, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to elaborate upon
the previous study in several ways. The research provided a more in-depth
exploration of tertiary students’ receptive academic vocabulary knowledge, included
an investigation of Graeco-Latin cognate translations of academic vocabulary, and
assessed students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary as a construct. The VLT
academic levels test, a decontextualized L2 English to L1 Norwegian translation test,
and focus group discussions (FGD) provided data used for the investigations. Student
conceptions were operationalized through their expressed awareness of characteristics
commonly associated with academic lexis. Findings revealed that most of these
students had extensive written receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and that
they recognized many features of this lexis. However, despite achieving high scores
on the vocabulary tests, many students reported having difficulties translating the
Graeco-Latin test items, suggesting that they found the translations cognitively
demanding. Findings also showed that some students conceptualized Norwegian as
less formal than English. The results from this study suggest that L2 English students
proficient in English may also profit from support to increase their ability to navigate
between academic languages during tertiary studies.
Article III employed quantitative methods and revisited data collected from the
first study. It expanded on the previous studies by analyzing a larger sample of upper
secondary students’ translations of Graeco-Latin cognates and exploring the
relationship between cognate translations and English proficiency. Associations
between upper secondary students’ proficiency, their extent of translations, and their
tendency to translate academic English vocabulary with Graeco-Latin cognates were
analyzed. Findings revealed that less proficient learners had more untranslated target
words than their more adept peers and used fewer cognates to translate the academic
English target words. Findings indicate that less proficient students could potentially
be unable to capitalize on the cognate status of many academic words and suggest
that most students could profit from in-class attention to academic vocabulary
acquisition. Also, findings suggest that teachers should be careful to expect most
vi
vi
findings suggest the need for teachers to take a more principled approach to
expanding their students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary.
In Article II, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to elaborate upon
the previous study in several ways. The research provided a more in-depth
exploration of tertiary students’ receptive academic vocabulary knowledge, included
an investigation of Graeco-Latin cognate translations of academic vocabulary, and
assessed students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary as a construct. The VLT
academic levels test, a decontextualized L2 English to L1 Norwegian translation test,
and focus group discussions (FGD) provided data used for the investigations. Student
conceptions were operationalized through their expressed awareness of characteristics
commonly associated with academic lexis. Findings revealed that most of these
students had extensive written receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and that
they recognized many features of this lexis. However, despite achieving high scores
on the vocabulary tests, many students reported having difficulties translating the
Graeco-Latin test items, suggesting that they found the translations cognitively
demanding. Findings also showed that some students conceptualized Norwegian as
less formal than English. The results from this study suggest that L2 English students
proficient in English may also profit from support to increase their ability to navigate
between academic languages during tertiary studies.
Article III employed quantitative methods and revisited data collected from the
first study. It expanded on the previous studies by analyzing a larger sample of upper
secondary students’ translations of Graeco-Latin cognates and exploring the
relationship between cognate translations and English proficiency. Associations
between upper secondary students’ proficiency, their extent of translations, and their
tendency to translate academic English vocabulary with Graeco-Latin cognates were
analyzed. Findings revealed that less proficient learners had more untranslated target
words than their more adept peers and used fewer cognates to translate the academic
English target words. Findings indicate that less proficient students could potentially
be unable to capitalize on the cognate status of many academic words and suggest
that most students could profit from in-class attention to academic vocabulary
acquisition. Also, findings suggest that teachers should be careful to expect most
vi
findings suggest the need for teachers to take a more principled approach to
expanding their students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary.
In Article II, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to elaborate upon
the previous study in several ways. The research provided a more in-depth
exploration of tertiary students’ receptive academic vocabulary knowledge, included
an investigation of Graeco-Latin cognate translations of academic vocabulary, and
assessed students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary as a construct. The VLT
academic levels test, a decontextualized L2 English to L1 Norwegian translation test,
and focus group discussions (FGD) provided data used for the investigations. Student
conceptions were operationalized through their expressed awareness of characteristics
commonly associated with academic lexis. Findings revealed that most of these
students had extensive written receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and that
they recognized many features of this lexis. However, despite achieving high scores
on the vocabulary tests, many students reported having difficulties translating the
Graeco-Latin test items, suggesting that they found the translations cognitively
demanding. Findings also showed that some students conceptualized Norwegian as
less formal than English. The results from this study suggest that L2 English students
proficient in English may also profit from support to increase their ability to navigate
between academic languages during tertiary studies.
Article III employed quantitative methods and revisited data collected from the
first study. It expanded on the previous studies by analyzing a larger sample of upper
secondary students’ translations of Graeco-Latin cognates and exploring the
relationship between cognate translations and English proficiency. Associations
between upper secondary students’ proficiency, their extent of translations, and their
tendency to translate academic English vocabulary with Graeco-Latin cognates were
analyzed. Findings revealed that less proficient learners had more untranslated target
words than their more adept peers and used fewer cognates to translate the academic
English target words. Findings indicate that less proficient students could potentially
be unable to capitalize on the cognate status of many academic words and suggest
that most students could profit from in-class attention to academic vocabulary
acquisition. Also, findings suggest that teachers should be careful to expect most
vi
findings suggest the need for teachers to take a more principled approach to
expanding their students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary.
In Article II, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to elaborate upon
the previous study in several ways. The research provided a more in-depth
exploration of tertiary students’ receptive academic vocabulary knowledge, included
an investigation of Graeco-Latin cognate translations of academic vocabulary, and
assessed students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary as a construct. The VLT
academic levels test, a decontextualized L2 English to L1 Norwegian translation test,
and focus group discussions (FGD) provided data used for the investigations. Student
conceptions were operationalized through their expressed awareness of characteristics
commonly associated with academic lexis. Findings revealed that most of these
students had extensive written receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and that
they recognized many features of this lexis. However, despite achieving high scores
on the vocabulary tests, many students reported having difficulties translating the
Graeco-Latin test items, suggesting that they found the translations cognitively
demanding. Findings also showed that some students conceptualized Norwegian as
less formal than English. The results from this study suggest that L2 English students
proficient in English may also profit from support to increase their ability to navigate
between academic languages during tertiary studies.
Article III employed quantitative methods and revisited data collected from the
first study. It expanded on the previous studies by analyzing a larger sample of upper
secondary students’ translations of Graeco-Latin cognates and exploring the
relationship between cognate translations and English proficiency. Associations
between upper secondary students’ proficiency, their extent of translations, and their
tendency to translate academic English vocabulary with Graeco-Latin cognates were
analyzed. Findings revealed that less proficient learners had more untranslated target
words than their more adept peers and used fewer cognates to translate the academic
English target words. Findings indicate that less proficient students could potentially
be unable to capitalize on the cognate status of many academic words and suggest
that most students could profit from in-class attention to academic vocabulary
acquisition. Also, findings suggest that teachers should be careful to expect most
vi
vi
vi
findings suggest the need for teachers to take a more principled approach to
expanding their students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary.
In Article II, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to elaborate upon
the previous study in several ways. The research provided a more in-depth
exploration of tertiary students’ receptive academic vocabulary knowledge, included
an investigation of Graeco-Latin cognate translations of academic vocabulary, and
assessed students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary as a construct. The VLT
academic levels test, a decontextualized L2 English to L1 Norwegian translation test,
and focus group discussions (FGD) provided data used for the investigations. Student
conceptions were operationalized through their expressed awareness of characteristics
commonly associated with academic lexis. Findings revealed that most of these
students had extensive written receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and that
they recognized many features of this lexis. However, despite achieving high scores
on the vocabulary tests, many students reported having difficulties translating the
Graeco-Latin test items, suggesting that they found the translations cognitively
demanding. Findings also showed that some students conceptualized Norwegian as
less formal than English. The results from this study suggest that L2 English students
proficient in English may also profit from support to increase their ability to navigate
between academic languages during tertiary studies.
Article III employed quantitative methods and revisited data collected from the
first study. It expanded on the previous studies by analyzing a larger sample of upper
secondary students’ translations of Graeco-Latin cognates and exploring the
relationship between cognate translations and English proficiency. Associations
between upper secondary students’ proficiency, their extent of translations, and their
tendency to translate academic English vocabulary with Graeco-Latin cognates were
analyzed. Findings revealed that less proficient learners had more untranslated target
words than their more adept peers and used fewer cognates to translate the academic
English target words. Findings indicate that less proficient students could potentially
be unable to capitalize on the cognate status of many academic words and suggest
that most students could profit from in-class attention to academic vocabulary
acquisition. Also, findings suggest that teachers should be careful to expect most
vi
findings suggest the need for teachers to take a more principled approach to
expanding their students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary.
In Article II, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to elaborate upon
the previous study in several ways. The research provided a more in-depth
exploration of tertiary students’ receptive academic vocabulary knowledge, included
an investigation of Graeco-Latin cognate translations of academic vocabulary, and
assessed students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary as a construct. The VLT
academic levels test, a decontextualized L2 English to L1 Norwegian translation test,
and focus group discussions (FGD) provided data used for the investigations. Student
conceptions were operationalized through their expressed awareness of characteristics
commonly associated with academic lexis. Findings revealed that most of these
students had extensive written receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and that
they recognized many features of this lexis. However, despite achieving high scores
on the vocabulary tests, many students reported having difficulties translating the
Graeco-Latin test items, suggesting that they found the translations cognitively
demanding. Findings also showed that some students conceptualized Norwegian as
less formal than English. The results from this study suggest that L2 English students
proficient in English may also profit from support to increase their ability to navigate
between academic languages during tertiary studies.
Article III employed quantitative methods and revisited data collected from the
first study. It expanded on the previous studies by analyzing a larger sample of upper
secondary students’ translations of Graeco-Latin cognates and exploring the
relationship between cognate translations and English proficiency. Associations
between upper secondary students’ proficiency, their extent of translations, and their
tendency to translate academic English vocabulary with Graeco-Latin cognates were
analyzed. Findings revealed that less proficient learners had more untranslated target
words than their more adept peers and used fewer cognates to translate the academic
English target words. Findings indicate that less proficient students could potentially
be unable to capitalize on the cognate status of many academic words and suggest
that most students could profit from in-class attention to academic vocabulary
acquisition. Also, findings suggest that teachers should be careful to expect most
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
vii
students to benefit from Graeco-Latin cognates in academic English vocabulary
without direct instruction.
In light of findings from these studies, pedagogical implications and suggested
changes have been outlined. These include the need for educators to recognize the
lexical demands placed on their students and how language support may be provided
when necessary. It is suggested that the abundance of Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic discourse should be a point of focus as cognates may facilitate acquisition,
also for Norwegian-speaking students. Also, a broader focus on the need for
principled attention to vocabulary acquisition in teacher education is suggested.
viii
Abstract in Norwegian
Denne avhandlingen undersøker kunnskap og bevissthet om akademisk vokabular, altså en
kjerne av akademiske ord som er mer frekvent i akademiske tekster enn i hverdagsspråk
(e.g., Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014), hos norsktalende elever LYLGHUHJnHQGH
VNROHog universitetsstudenter. Studiene tok utgangspunkt i to eksisterende
forskningsretninger. Den første satte spørsmålstegn ved om formell opplæring i engelsk i
grunn- og videregående skole forbereder elever på å kunne lese og forstå de engelske
tekstene de vil møte i høyere utdanning. Den andre retningen omfattet forskningen som har
vist en korrelasjon mellom kunnskap om akademisk vokabular og leseforståelse av
akademiske tekster. Derfor var hovedmålet for denne avhandlingen å undersøke følgende to
spørsmål: I hvilken grad viser norsktalende elever i videregående skole og studenter i høyere
utdanning reseptiv kunnskap om akademiske ord i skriftspråket og om kognater med
opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin, og i hvilken grad er universitetsstudenter bevisste på hva
som kjennetegner et akademisk ordforråd? Dette er en artikkelbasert avhandling som
innbefatter tre publiserte artikler og en kappe. Det teoretiske grunnlaget for disse studiene er
nært tilknyttet usage-based tilnærminger til andrespråkslæring med hovedfokus på
begrepene frekvens og bevissthet. De metodologiske valgene var styrt av en tro på fordelene
ved å kombinere ulike forskningsparadigmer og metodologi. Mens hovedvekten ble lagt på
kvantitative metoder og analyser, har også kvalitative metoder og analyser blitt brukt. Alle
tre artiklene bygger på empiriske undersøkelser gjennomført i Norge.
Artikkel I undersøkte omfanget av norsktalende videregåendeelevers reseptive
akademiske vokabular i engelsk, og eventuell korrelasjon med deres karakterer i
engelskfaget. Funnene fra denne kvantitative studien viste at selv om mange studenter
mestret det akademiske vokabularet som ble testet, oppnådde flertallet likevel ikke
mestringsnivåene. I tillegg var det signifikante korrelasjoner mellom testresultatene fra
akademisk del av Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt et al., 2001) og elevenes første
terminkarakterer, med en moderat effektstørrelse. For deltagerne som oppnådde de anbefalte
mestringsnivåene, definert som en skår mellom 86,7% og 96,7%, var sannsynligheten for å
oppnå en høyere karakter mellom fire og ni ganger høyere sammenlignet med elever som
ikke mestret det akademiske vokabularet. Resultatene antyder et behov for at lærere
fokuserer på hvordan de bedre kan utvikle sine elevers kunnskap om akademiske ord.
I Artikkel II ble en blanding av kvantitative og kvalitative metoder brukt for å utvide
undersøkelsene gjort i den foregående studien på flere måter. Arbeidet med artikkel II
viii
viii
Abstract in Norwegian
Denne avhandlingen undersøker kunnskap og bevissthet om akademisk vokabular, altså en
kjerne av akademiske ord som er mer frekvent i akademiske tekster enn i hverdagsspråk
(e.g., Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014), hos norsktalende elever LYLGHUHJnHQGH
VNROHog universitetsstudenter. Studiene tok utgangspunkt i to eksisterende
forskningsretninger. Den første satte spørsmålstegn ved om formell opplæring i engelsk i
grunn- og videregående skole forbereder elever på å kunne lese og forstå de engelske
tekstene de vil møte i høyere utdanning. Den andre retningen omfattet forskningen som har
vist en korrelasjon mellom kunnskap om akademisk vokabular og leseforståelse av
akademiske tekster. Derfor var hovedmålet for denne avhandlingen å undersøke følgende to
spørsmål: I hvilken grad viser norsktalende elever i videregående skole og studenter i høyere
utdanning reseptiv kunnskap om akademiske ord i skriftspråket og om kognater med
opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin, og i hvilken grad er universitetsstudenter bevisste på hva
som kjennetegner et akademisk ordforråd? Dette er en artikkelbasert avhandling som
innbefatter tre publiserte artikler og en kappe. Det teoretiske grunnlaget for disse studiene er
nært tilknyttet usage-based tilnærminger til andrespråkslæring med hovedfokus på
begrepene frekvens og bevissthet. De metodologiske valgene var styrt av en tro på fordelene
ved å kombinere ulike forskningsparadigmer og metodologi. Mens hovedvekten ble lagt på
kvantitative metoder og analyser, har også kvalitative metoder og analyser blitt brukt. Alle
tre artiklene bygger på empiriske undersøkelser gjennomført i Norge.
Artikkel I undersøkte omfanget av norsktalende videregåendeelevers reseptive
akademiske vokabular i engelsk, og eventuell korrelasjon med deres karakterer i
engelskfaget. Funnene fra denne kvantitative studien viste at selv om mange studenter
mestret det akademiske vokabularet som ble testet, oppnådde flertallet likevel ikke
mestringsnivåene. I tillegg var det signifikante korrelasjoner mellom testresultatene fra
akademisk del av Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt et al., 2001) og elevenes første
terminkarakterer, med en moderat effektstørrelse. For deltagerne som oppnådde de anbefalte
mestringsnivåene, definert som en skår mellom 86,7% og 96,7%, var sannsynligheten for å
oppnå en høyere karakter mellom fire og ni ganger høyere sammenlignet med elever som
ikke mestret det akademiske vokabularet. Resultatene antyder et behov for at lærere
fokuserer på hvordan de bedre kan utvikle sine elevers kunnskap om akademiske ord.
I Artikkel II ble en blanding av kvantitative og kvalitative metoder brukt for å utvide
undersøkelsene gjort i den foregående studien på flere måter. Arbeidet med artikkel II
viii
Abstract in Norwegian
Denne avhandlingen undersøker kunnskap og bevissthet om akademisk vokabular, altså en
kjerne av akademiske ord som er mer frekvent i akademiske tekster enn i hverdagsspråk
(e.g., Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014), hos norsktalende elever LYLGHUHJnHQGH
VNROHog universitetsstudenter. Studiene tok utgangspunkt i to eksisterende
forskningsretninger. Den første satte spørsmålstegn ved om formell opplæring i engelsk i
grunn- og videregående skole forbereder elever på å kunne lese og forstå de engelske
tekstene de vil møte i høyere utdanning. Den andre retningen omfattet forskningen som har
vist en korrelasjon mellom kunnskap om akademisk vokabular og leseforståelse av
akademiske tekster. Derfor var hovedmålet for denne avhandlingen å undersøke følgende to
spørsmål: I hvilken grad viser norsktalende elever i videregående skole og studenter i høyere
utdanning reseptiv kunnskap om akademiske ord i skriftspråket og om kognater med
opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin, og i hvilken grad er universitetsstudenter bevisste på hva
som kjennetegner et akademisk ordforråd? Dette er en artikkelbasert avhandling som
innbefatter tre publiserte artikler og en kappe. Det teoretiske grunnlaget for disse studiene er
nært tilknyttet usage-based tilnærminger til andrespråkslæring med hovedfokus på
begrepene frekvens og bevissthet. De metodologiske valgene var styrt av en tro på fordelene
ved å kombinere ulike forskningsparadigmer og metodologi. Mens hovedvekten ble lagt på
kvantitative metoder og analyser, har også kvalitative metoder og analyser blitt brukt. Alle
tre artiklene bygger på empiriske undersøkelser gjennomført i Norge.
Artikkel I undersøkte omfanget av norsktalende videregåendeelevers reseptive
akademiske vokabular i engelsk, og eventuell korrelasjon med deres karakterer i
engelskfaget. Funnene fra denne kvantitative studien viste at selv om mange studenter
mestret det akademiske vokabularet som ble testet, oppnådde flertallet likevel ikke
mestringsnivåene. I tillegg var det signifikante korrelasjoner mellom testresultatene fra
akademisk del av Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt et al., 2001) og elevenes første
terminkarakterer, med en moderat effektstørrelse. For deltagerne som oppnådde de anbefalte
mestringsnivåene, definert som en skår mellom 86,7% og 96,7%, var sannsynligheten for å
oppnå en høyere karakter mellom fire og ni ganger høyere sammenlignet med elever som
ikke mestret det akademiske vokabularet. Resultatene antyder et behov for at lærere
fokuserer på hvordan de bedre kan utvikle sine elevers kunnskap om akademiske ord.
I Artikkel II ble en blanding av kvantitative og kvalitative metoder brukt for å utvide
undersøkelsene gjort i den foregående studien på flere måter. Arbeidet med artikkel II
viii
Abstract in Norwegian
Denne avhandlingen undersøker kunnskap og bevissthet om akademisk vokabular, altså en
kjerne av akademiske ord som er mer frekvent i akademiske tekster enn i hverdagsspråk
(e.g., Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014), hos norsktalende elever LYLGHUHJnHQGH
VNROHog universitetsstudenter. Studiene tok utgangspunkt i to eksisterende
forskningsretninger. Den første satte spørsmålstegn ved om formell opplæring i engelsk i
grunn- og videregående skole forbereder elever på å kunne lese og forstå de engelske
tekstene de vil møte i høyere utdanning. Den andre retningen omfattet forskningen som har
vist en korrelasjon mellom kunnskap om akademisk vokabular og leseforståelse av
akademiske tekster. Derfor var hovedmålet for denne avhandlingen å undersøke følgende to
spørsmål: I hvilken grad viser norsktalende elever i videregående skole og studenter i høyere
utdanning reseptiv kunnskap om akademiske ord i skriftspråket og om kognater med
opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin, og i hvilken grad er universitetsstudenter bevisste på hva
som kjennetegner et akademisk ordforråd? Dette er en artikkelbasert avhandling som
innbefatter tre publiserte artikler og en kappe. Det teoretiske grunnlaget for disse studiene er
nært tilknyttet usage-based tilnærminger til andrespråkslæring med hovedfokus på
begrepene frekvens og bevissthet. De metodologiske valgene var styrt av en tro på fordelene
ved å kombinere ulike forskningsparadigmer og metodologi. Mens hovedvekten ble lagt på
kvantitative metoder og analyser, har også kvalitative metoder og analyser blitt brukt. Alle
tre artiklene bygger på empiriske undersøkelser gjennomført i Norge.
Artikkel I undersøkte omfanget av norsktalende videregåendeelevers reseptive
akademiske vokabular i engelsk, og eventuell korrelasjon med deres karakterer i
engelskfaget. Funnene fra denne kvantitative studien viste at selv om mange studenter
mestret det akademiske vokabularet som ble testet, oppnådde flertallet likevel ikke
mestringsnivåene. I tillegg var det signifikante korrelasjoner mellom testresultatene fra
akademisk del av Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt et al., 2001) og elevenes første
terminkarakterer, med en moderat effektstørrelse. For deltagerne som oppnådde de anbefalte
mestringsnivåene, definert som en skår mellom 86,7% og 96,7%, var sannsynligheten for å
oppnå en høyere karakter mellom fire og ni ganger høyere sammenlignet med elever som
ikke mestret det akademiske vokabularet. Resultatene antyder et behov for at lærere
fokuserer på hvordan de bedre kan utvikle sine elevers kunnskap om akademiske ord.
I Artikkel II ble en blanding av kvantitative og kvalitative metoder brukt for å utvide
undersøkelsene gjort i den foregående studien på flere måter. Arbeidet med artikkel II
viii
viii
viii
Abstract in Norwegian
Denne avhandlingen undersøker kunnskap og bevissthet om akademisk vokabular, altså en
kjerne av akademiske ord som er mer frekvent i akademiske tekster enn i hverdagsspråk
(e.g., Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014), hos norsktalende elever LYLGHUHJnHQGH
VNROHog universitetsstudenter. Studiene tok utgangspunkt i to eksisterende
forskningsretninger. Den første satte spørsmålstegn ved om formell opplæring i engelsk i
grunn- og videregående skole forbereder elever på å kunne lese og forstå de engelske
tekstene de vil møte i høyere utdanning. Den andre retningen omfattet forskningen som har
vist en korrelasjon mellom kunnskap om akademisk vokabular og leseforståelse av
akademiske tekster. Derfor var hovedmålet for denne avhandlingen å undersøke følgende to
spørsmål: I hvilken grad viser norsktalende elever i videregående skole og studenter i høyere
utdanning reseptiv kunnskap om akademiske ord i skriftspråket og om kognater med
opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin, og i hvilken grad er universitetsstudenter bevisste på hva
som kjennetegner et akademisk ordforråd? Dette er en artikkelbasert avhandling som
innbefatter tre publiserte artikler og en kappe. Det teoretiske grunnlaget for disse studiene er
nært tilknyttet usage-based tilnærminger til andrespråkslæring med hovedfokus på
begrepene frekvens og bevissthet. De metodologiske valgene var styrt av en tro på fordelene
ved å kombinere ulike forskningsparadigmer og metodologi. Mens hovedvekten ble lagt på
kvantitative metoder og analyser, har også kvalitative metoder og analyser blitt brukt. Alle
tre artiklene bygger på empiriske undersøkelser gjennomført i Norge.
Artikkel I undersøkte omfanget av norsktalende videregåendeelevers reseptive
akademiske vokabular i engelsk, og eventuell korrelasjon med deres karakterer i
engelskfaget. Funnene fra denne kvantitative studien viste at selv om mange studenter
mestret det akademiske vokabularet som ble testet, oppnådde flertallet likevel ikke
mestringsnivåene. I tillegg var det signifikante korrelasjoner mellom testresultatene fra
akademisk del av Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt et al., 2001) og elevenes første
terminkarakterer, med en moderat effektstørrelse. For deltagerne som oppnådde de anbefalte
mestringsnivåene, definert som en skår mellom 86,7% og 96,7%, var sannsynligheten for å
oppnå en høyere karakter mellom fire og ni ganger høyere sammenlignet med elever som
ikke mestret det akademiske vokabularet. Resultatene antyder et behov for at lærere
fokuserer på hvordan de bedre kan utvikle sine elevers kunnskap om akademiske ord.
I Artikkel II ble en blanding av kvantitative og kvalitative metoder brukt for å utvide
undersøkelsene gjort i den foregående studien på flere måter. Arbeidet med artikkel II
viii
Abstract in Norwegian
Denne avhandlingen undersøker kunnskap og bevissthet om akademisk vokabular, altså en
kjerne av akademiske ord som er mer frekvent i akademiske tekster enn i hverdagsspråk
(e.g., Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014), hos norsktalende elever LYLGHUHJnHQGH
VNROHog universitetsstudenter. Studiene tok utgangspunkt i to eksisterende
forskningsretninger. Den første satte spørsmålstegn ved om formell opplæring i engelsk i
grunn- og videregående skole forbereder elever på å kunne lese og forstå de engelske
tekstene de vil møte i høyere utdanning. Den andre retningen omfattet forskningen som har
vist en korrelasjon mellom kunnskap om akademisk vokabular og leseforståelse av
akademiske tekster. Derfor var hovedmålet for denne avhandlingen å undersøke følgende to
spørsmål: I hvilken grad viser norsktalende elever i videregående skole og studenter i høyere
utdanning reseptiv kunnskap om akademiske ord i skriftspråket og om kognater med
opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin, og i hvilken grad er universitetsstudenter bevisste på hva
som kjennetegner et akademisk ordforråd? Dette er en artikkelbasert avhandling som
innbefatter tre publiserte artikler og en kappe. Det teoretiske grunnlaget for disse studiene er
nært tilknyttet usage-based tilnærminger til andrespråkslæring med hovedfokus på
begrepene frekvens og bevissthet. De metodologiske valgene var styrt av en tro på fordelene
ved å kombinere ulike forskningsparadigmer og metodologi. Mens hovedvekten ble lagt på
kvantitative metoder og analyser, har også kvalitative metoder og analyser blitt brukt. Alle
tre artiklene bygger på empiriske undersøkelser gjennomført i Norge.
Artikkel I undersøkte omfanget av norsktalende videregåendeelevers reseptive
akademiske vokabular i engelsk, og eventuell korrelasjon med deres karakterer i
engelskfaget. Funnene fra denne kvantitative studien viste at selv om mange studenter
mestret det akademiske vokabularet som ble testet, oppnådde flertallet likevel ikke
mestringsnivåene. I tillegg var det signifikante korrelasjoner mellom testresultatene fra
akademisk del av Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Schmitt et al., 2001) og elevenes første
terminkarakterer, med en moderat effektstørrelse. For deltagerne som oppnådde de anbefalte
mestringsnivåene, definert som en skår mellom 86,7% og 96,7%, var sannsynligheten for å
oppnå en høyere karakter mellom fire og ni ganger høyere sammenlignet med elever som
ikke mestret det akademiske vokabularet. Resultatene antyder et behov for at lærere
fokuserer på hvordan de bedre kan utvikle sine elevers kunnskap om akademiske ord.
I Artikkel II ble en blanding av kvantitative og kvalitative metoder brukt for å utvide
undersøkelsene gjort i den foregående studien på flere måter. Arbeidet med artikkel II
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
ix
innebar en mer inngående undersøkelse av universitetsstudenters reseptive kunnskap om
akademisk vokabular, inkludert en undersøkelse av hvordan studentene oversatte kognater
med opprinnelse fra gresk eller latin. I tillegg ble studentenes bevissthet om akademisk
vokabular som et konstrukt undersøkt. En VLT-test for akademisk ordforråd, en
dekontekstualisert oversettelsestest fra L2 engelsk til L1 norsk og fokusgruppediskusjoner
utgjorde datagrunnlaget for undersøkelsene. Studentenes forståelse av akademisk vokabular
ble operasjonalisert som deres uttrykte gjenkjennelse av karakteristiske trekk ved
akademiske ord. Funnene viste at flertallet av studentene hadde omfattende reseptiv
kunnskap om akademisk vokabular, og at de kjente igjen mange trekk ved dette leksikonet.
Til tross for høye skårer på vokabulartestene ga mange studenter uttrykk for at de fant det
vanskelig å oversette kognatene i testen, et tegn på at de opplevde oversettelsen som
kognitivt utfordrende. Funnene viste også at noen studenter opplevde norsk som et mindre
formelt språk enn engelsk. Resultatene fra studien antyder at også studenter som er kyndig i
engelsk som andrespråk vil kunne ha fordel av støtte til å forbedre sin evne til å navigere
mellom akademiske språk.
Artikkel III anvendte kvantitative metoder og gjenbrukte data innsamlet i forbindelse
med den første studien. Det utvidet undersøkelsene fra de to tidligere studiene ved å
analysere en større gruppe videregåendeelevers oversettelser av kognater med gresk eller
latinsk opphav og ved å se nærmere på forholdet mellom kognatoversettelser og elevers
ferdigheter i engelsk. Korrelasjoner mellom elevers engelskferdigheter, grad av
testgjennomføring, og tendens til å oversette akademiske engelske ord med kognater, ble
analysert. Funnene viste at elever som hadde svakere ferdigheter i engelsk hadde flere
uoversatte ord enn medelever med bedre engelskferdigheter, og brukte kognater i mindre
grad for sine oversettelser. Funnene indikerte at elever med lavere ferdighetsnivå kanskje
ikke utnyttet den kognatstatusen mange akademiske ord har, og antyder at et flertall av
elever LYLGHUHJnHQGHVNROHvil kunne ha nytte av å bli gjort oppmerksom på hvordan de kan
lære akademisk vokabular. I tillegg antyder funnene at lærere ikke burde forvente at elever
flest vil kunne dra nytte av kognater med gresk eller latinsk opphav uten at de er gjenstand
for undervisning.
Pedagogiske implikasjoner og foreslåtte endringer i L2-pedagogikk er skissert i lys
av funnene fra de tre studiene beskrevet her. Disse inkluderer behovet for at pedagoger
erkjenner de leksikalske utfordringene elevene og studentene deres møter og hvordan
språkstøtte kan gis når det er nødvendig. Det store omfanget av kognater med opprinnelse fra
gresk eller latin i akademisk diskurs burde være i fokus, da disse kan fasilitere tilegnelse av
x
et akademisk ordforråd, også blant norsktalende studenter. Større oppmerksomhet rundt
innlæring av vokabular i lærerutdanningen er et annet forslag formulert på bakgrunn av
funnene som blir presentert i denne avhandlingen.
x
x
et akademisk ordforråd, også blant norsktalende studenter. Større oppmerksomhet rundt
innlæring av vokabular i lærerutdanningen er et annet forslag formulert på bakgrunn av
funnene som blir presentert i denne avhandlingen.
x
et akademisk ordforråd, også blant norsktalende studenter. Større oppmerksomhet rundt
innlæring av vokabular i lærerutdanningen er et annet forslag formulert på bakgrunn av
funnene som blir presentert i denne avhandlingen.
x
et akademisk ordforråd, også blant norsktalende studenter. Større oppmerksomhet rundt
innlæring av vokabular i lærerutdanningen er et annet forslag formulert på bakgrunn av
funnene som blir presentert i denne avhandlingen.
x
x
x
et akademisk ordforråd, også blant norsktalende studenter. Større oppmerksomhet rundt
innlæring av vokabular i lærerutdanningen er et annet forslag formulert på bakgrunn av
funnene som blir presentert i denne avhandlingen.
x
et akademisk ordforråd, også blant norsktalende studenter. Større oppmerksomhet rundt
innlæring av vokabular i lærerutdanningen er et annet forslag formulert på bakgrunn av
funnene som blir presentert i denne avhandlingen.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xi
List of Publications
Article I
Skjelde, K. & Coxhead, A. (2020). Mind the gap: Academic vocabulary knowledge
as a predictor of English grades. Acta Didactica Norden,14(3), 1-20.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.7975
Article II
Skjelde, K. (2022). Exploring L2 English students’ knowledge and conceptions of
academic vocabulary. Acta Didactica Norden,16(3), 1-33.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.9238
Article III
Skjelde, K. (2023). Exploring L2 English proficiency and translation of academic
English vocabulary. Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 140-
164. https://doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i2.1057
The published papers are reprinted with permission from Acta Didactica Norden and
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. All rights reserved.
xii
Table of Contents
Scientific Environment
Acknowledgments
Abstract in English
Abstract in Norwegian
List of Publications
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
ϭϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭ
ϭϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚϭ
ϭϮϭDŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐϭ
ϭϮϮ^ŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϯ
ϭϯŝŵƐĂŶĚKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϰ
ϭϰdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶƚĞdžƚϱ
ϭϰϭhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϱ
ϭϰϮdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϲ
ϭϱƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ĂƉƐϴ
ϭϲ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƐĞƌƚĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
ϮϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭϭ
ϮϮĞĨŝŶŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϭ
ϮϯŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽ^>ϭϮ
ϮϰŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐϭϮ
Ϯϰϭ'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌtƌŝƚƚĞŶŶŐůŝƐŚϭϮ
ϮϰϮĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐϭϱ
ϮϰϯdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ;<Ϳ>ŝƐƚϭϳ
xii
xii
Table of Contents
Scientific Environment
Acknowledgments
Abstract in English
Abstract in Norwegian
List of Publications
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
ϭϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭ
ϭϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚϭ
ϭϮϭDŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐϭ
ϭϮϮ^ŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϯ
ϭϯŝŵƐĂŶĚKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϰ
ϭϰdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶƚĞdžƚϱ
ϭϰϭhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϱ
ϭϰϮdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϲ
ϭϱƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ĂƉƐϴ
ϭϲ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƐĞƌƚĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
ϮϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭϭ
ϮϮĞĨŝŶŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϭ
ϮϯŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽ^>ϭϮ
ϮϰŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐϭϮ
Ϯϰϭ'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌtƌŝƚƚĞŶŶŐůŝƐŚϭϮ
ϮϰϮĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐϭϱ
ϮϰϯdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ;<Ϳ>ŝƐƚϭϳ
xii
Table of Contents
Scientific Environment
Acknowledgments
Abstract in English
Abstract in Norwegian
List of Publications
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
ϭϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭ
ϭϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚϭ
ϭϮϭDŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐϭ
ϭϮϮ^ŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϯ
ϭϯŝŵƐĂŶĚKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϰ
ϭϰdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶƚĞdžƚϱ
ϭϰϭhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϱ
ϭϰϮdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϲ
ϭϱƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ĂƉƐϴ
ϭϲ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƐĞƌƚĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
ϮϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭϭ
ϮϮĞĨŝŶŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϭ
ϮϯŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽ^>ϭϮ
ϮϰŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐϭϮ
Ϯϰϭ'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌtƌŝƚƚĞŶŶŐůŝƐŚϭϮ
ϮϰϮĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐϭϱ
ϮϰϯdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ;<Ϳ>ŝƐƚϭϳ
xii
Table of Contents
Scientific Environment
Acknowledgments
Abstract in English
Abstract in Norwegian
List of Publications
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
ϭϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭ
ϭϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚϭ
ϭϮϭDŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐϭ
ϭϮϮ^ŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϯ
ϭϯŝŵƐĂŶĚKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϰ
ϭϰdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶƚĞdžƚϱ
ϭϰϭhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϱ
ϭϰϮdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϲ
ϭϱƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ĂƉƐϴ
ϭϲ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƐĞƌƚĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
ϮϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭϭ
ϮϮĞĨŝŶŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϭ
ϮϯŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽ^>ϭϮ
ϮϰŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐϭϮ
Ϯϰϭ'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌtƌŝƚƚĞŶŶŐůŝƐŚϭϮ
ϮϰϮĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐϭϱ
ϮϰϯdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ;<Ϳ>ŝƐƚϭϳ
xii
xii
xii
Table of Contents
Scientific Environment
Acknowledgments
Abstract in English
Abstract in Norwegian
List of Publications
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
ϭϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭ
ϭϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚϭ
ϭϮϭDŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐϭ
ϭϮϮ^ŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϯ
ϭϯŝŵƐĂŶĚKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϰ
ϭϰdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶƚĞdžƚϱ
ϭϰϭhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϱ
ϭϰϮdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϲ
ϭϱƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ĂƉƐϴ
ϭϲ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƐĞƌƚĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
ϮϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭϭ
ϮϮĞĨŝŶŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϭ
ϮϯŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽ^>ϭϮ
ϮϰŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐϭϮ
Ϯϰϭ'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌtƌŝƚƚĞŶŶŐůŝƐŚϭϮ
ϮϰϮĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐϭϱ
ϮϰϯdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ;<Ϳ>ŝƐƚϭϳ
xii
Table of Contents
Scientific Environment
Acknowledgments
Abstract in English
Abstract in Norwegian
List of Publications
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations
1. Introduction
ϭϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭ
ϭϮĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚϭ
ϭϮϭDŽƚŝǀĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐϭ
ϭϮϮ^ŝƚƵĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϯ
ϭϯŝŵƐĂŶĚKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϰ
ϭϰdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂůŽŶƚĞdžƚϱ
ϭϰϭhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϱ
ϭϰϮdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJĚƵĐĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ>ϮŶŐůŝƐŚϲ
ϭϱƐƚĂďůŝƐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ'ĂƉƐϴ
ϭϲ^ƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞŝƐƐĞƌƚĂƚŝŽŶϭϬ
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
ϮϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϭϭ
ϮϮĞĨŝŶŝŶŐĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϭ
ϮϯŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽ^>ϭϮ
ϮϰŽƌƉƵƐ>ŝŶŐƵŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĚƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐϭϮ
Ϯϰϭ'ĞŶĞƌĂůĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌtƌŝƚƚĞŶŶŐůŝƐŚϭϮ
ϮϰϮĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚ>ŝƐƚƐĨŽƌ^ĐĂŶĚŝŶĂǀŝĂŶ>ĂŶŐƵĂŐĞƐϭϱ
ϮϰϯdŚĞEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ;<Ϳ>ŝƐƚϭϳ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiii
Ϯϰϰ/ƐƚŚĞƌĞĂĐŽƌĞĂĐĂĚĞŵŝĐǀŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϴ
ϮϱdŚĞEĂƚƵƌĞŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϭϵ
ϮϱϭŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϭϵ
ϮϱϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶKƌŝŐŝŶƐϮϬ
Ϯϱϯ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJŽĨĐĂĚĞŵŝĐtŽƌĚƐŝŶŶŐůŝƐŚϮϮ
ϮϱϰWŽůLJƐĞŵLJϮϯ
Ϯϲ>ĞĂƌŶŝŶŐƵƌĚĞŶĂŶĚŽŐŶĂƚĞǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϮϯ
ϮϳEĂƚŝŽŶĂůĂŶĚ/ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂůsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJĂŶĚZĞĂĚŝŶŐZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϮϰ
ϮϳϭsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚ>ϮZĞĂĚŝŶŐϮϰ
ϮϳϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJdĞƐƚŝŶŐϮϳ
Ϯϳϯ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐ>ĞdžŝƐϮϴ
ϮϳϰEŽƌǁĞŐŝĂŶsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ^ƚƵĚŝĞƐϮϵ
3. Vocabulary Knowledge: A Theoretical Discussion
ϯϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϯϭ
ϯϮsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂŶĚhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐŝŶ^>ϯϭ
ϯϮϭhƐĂŐĞͲďĂƐĞĚƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞƐϯϭ
ϯϮϮ&ƌĞƋƵĞŶĐLJϯϮ
ϯϮϯǁĂƌĞŶĞƐƐϯϰ
ϯϯtŚĂƚĚŽĞƐŝƚŵĞĂŶƚŽŬŶŽǁĂǁŽƌĚϯϳ
ϯϯϭtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞĂƐĂŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚϯϳ
ϯϯϮƌĞĂĚƚŚĂŶĚĞƉƚŚŽĨtŽƌĚ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϯϵ
ϯϯϯZĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞĂŶĚWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝǀĞ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϬ
ϯϰdĞƐƚŝŶŐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ<ŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϭ
ϯϰϭtŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚƐĂƐĂǁŽƌĚϰϭ
ϯϰϮtŚLJƚĞƐƚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶƌĞĐĞƉƚŝǀĞǁŽƌĚŬŶŽǁůĞĚŐĞϰϮ
4. Methods
ϰϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϰϱ
ϰϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƉƉƌŽĂĐŚϰϱ
ϰϯDŝdžĞĚDĞƚŚŽĚƐϰϲ
ϰϯϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁϰϳ
ϰϰĞƐŝŐŶϰϴ
ϰϱWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
ϰϱϭdĞƌƚŝĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϰϵ
xiv
ϰϱϮhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲϭ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϭdŚĞsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ>ĞǀĞůƐdĞƐƚ;s>dͿϱϬ
ϰϲϮ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϮdŚĞdƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚϱϭ
ϰϲϯ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϯ'ƌŽƵƉŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶdĂƐŬƐϱϰ
ϰϲϰ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϰdŚĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞƐϱϳ
ϰϳWŚĂƐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWƌŽĐĞƐƐϱϴ
ϰϳϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨWŚĂƐĞƐϱϴ
ϰϳϮWŝůŽƚŝŶŐϱϵ
ϰϳϯĂƚĂŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶϲϬ
ϰϳϰŶĂůLJƐĞƐϲϮ
ϰϴZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĂůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϭZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϮsĂůŝĚŝƚLJϲϲ
ϰϵƚŚŝĐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐϲϵ
ϰϭϬ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶDĞƚŚŽĚƐϳϭ
 
ϱϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϳϯ
ϱϮ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞƌƚŝĐůĞƐϳϰ
ϱϮϭƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϳϰ
ϱϮϮƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϳϲ
ϱϮϯƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϳϴ
ϱϯŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϭŵƉŝƌŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϯdŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϭ
ϱϰ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ>ϮWĞĚĂŐŽŐLJϴϮ
ϱϰϭZĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ>ĞdžŝĐĂůĞŵĂŶĚƐϴϮ
ϱϰϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϴϱ
ϱϱ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ&ƵƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϴϳ
ϱϲŽŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐZĞŵĂƌŬƐϴϴ
References
xiv
xiv
ϰϱϮhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲϭ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϭdŚĞsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ>ĞǀĞůƐdĞƐƚ;s>dͿϱϬ
ϰϲϮ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϮdŚĞdƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚϱϭ
ϰϲϯ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϯ'ƌŽƵƉŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶdĂƐŬƐϱϰ
ϰϲϰ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϰdŚĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞƐϱϳ
ϰϳWŚĂƐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWƌŽĐĞƐƐϱϴ
ϰϳϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨWŚĂƐĞƐϱϴ
ϰϳϮWŝůŽƚŝŶŐϱϵ
ϰϳϯĂƚĂŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶϲϬ
ϰϳϰŶĂůLJƐĞƐϲϮ
ϰϴZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĂůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϭZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϮsĂůŝĚŝƚLJϲϲ
ϰϵƚŚŝĐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐϲϵ
ϰϭϬ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶDĞƚŚŽĚƐϳϭ
 
ϱϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϳϯ
ϱϮ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞƌƚŝĐůĞƐϳϰ
ϱϮϭƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϳϰ
ϱϮϮƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϳϲ
ϱϮϯƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϳϴ
ϱϯŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϭŵƉŝƌŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϯdŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϭ
ϱϰ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ>ϮWĞĚĂŐŽŐLJϴϮ
ϱϰϭZĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ>ĞdžŝĐĂůĞŵĂŶĚƐϴϮ
ϱϰϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϴϱ
ϱϱ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ&ƵƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϴϳ
ϱϲŽŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐZĞŵĂƌŬƐϴϴ
References
xiv
ϰϱϮhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲϭ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϭdŚĞsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ>ĞǀĞůƐdĞƐƚ;s>dͿϱϬ
ϰϲϮ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϮdŚĞdƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚϱϭ
ϰϲϯ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϯ'ƌŽƵƉŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶdĂƐŬƐϱϰ
ϰϲϰ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϰdŚĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞƐϱϳ
ϰϳWŚĂƐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWƌŽĐĞƐƐϱϴ
ϰϳϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨWŚĂƐĞƐϱϴ
ϰϳϮWŝůŽƚŝŶŐϱϵ
ϰϳϯĂƚĂŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶϲϬ
ϰϳϰŶĂůLJƐĞƐϲϮ
ϰϴZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĂůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϭZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϮsĂůŝĚŝƚLJϲϲ
ϰϵƚŚŝĐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐϲϵ
ϰϭϬ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶDĞƚŚŽĚƐϳϭ
 
ϱϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϳϯ
ϱϮ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞƌƚŝĐůĞƐϳϰ
ϱϮϭƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϳϰ
ϱϮϮƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϳϲ
ϱϮϯƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϳϴ
ϱϯŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϭŵƉŝƌŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϯdŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϭ
ϱϰ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ>ϮWĞĚĂŐŽŐLJϴϮ
ϱϰϭZĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ>ĞdžŝĐĂůĞŵĂŶĚƐϴϮ
ϱϰϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϴϱ
ϱϱ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ&ƵƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϴϳ
ϱϲŽŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐZĞŵĂƌŬƐϴϴ
References
xiv
ϰϱϮhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲϭ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϭdŚĞsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ>ĞǀĞůƐdĞƐƚ;s>dͿϱϬ
ϰϲϮ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϮdŚĞdƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚϱϭ
ϰϲϯ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϯ'ƌŽƵƉŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶdĂƐŬƐϱϰ
ϰϲϰ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϰdŚĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞƐϱϳ
ϰϳWŚĂƐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWƌŽĐĞƐƐϱϴ
ϰϳϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨWŚĂƐĞƐϱϴ
ϰϳϮWŝůŽƚŝŶŐϱϵ
ϰϳϯĂƚĂŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶϲϬ
ϰϳϰŶĂůLJƐĞƐϲϮ
ϰϴZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĂůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϭZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϮsĂůŝĚŝƚLJϲϲ
ϰϵƚŚŝĐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐϲϵ
ϰϭϬ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶDĞƚŚŽĚƐϳϭ
 
ϱϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϳϯ
ϱϮ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞƌƚŝĐůĞƐϳϰ
ϱϮϭƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϳϰ
ϱϮϮƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϳϲ
ϱϮϯƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϳϴ
ϱϯŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϭŵƉŝƌŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϯdŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϭ
ϱϰ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ>ϮWĞĚĂŐŽŐLJϴϮ
ϱϰϭZĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ>ĞdžŝĐĂůĞŵĂŶĚƐϴϮ
ϱϰϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϴϱ
ϱϱ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ&ƵƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϴϳ
ϱϲŽŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐZĞŵĂƌŬƐϴϴ
References
xiv
xiv
xiv
ϰϱϮhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲϭ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϭdŚĞsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ>ĞǀĞůƐdĞƐƚ;s>dͿϱϬ
ϰϲϮ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϮdŚĞdƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚϱϭ
ϰϲϯ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϯ'ƌŽƵƉŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶdĂƐŬƐϱϰ
ϰϲϰ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϰdŚĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞƐϱϳ
ϰϳWŚĂƐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWƌŽĐĞƐƐϱϴ
ϰϳϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨWŚĂƐĞƐϱϴ
ϰϳϮWŝůŽƚŝŶŐϱϵ
ϰϳϯĂƚĂŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶϲϬ
ϰϳϰŶĂůLJƐĞƐϲϮ
ϰϴZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĂůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϭZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϮsĂůŝĚŝƚLJϲϲ
ϰϵƚŚŝĐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐϲϵ
ϰϭϬ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶDĞƚŚŽĚƐϳϭ
 
ϱϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϳϯ
ϱϮ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞƌƚŝĐůĞƐϳϰ
ϱϮϭƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϳϰ
ϱϮϮƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϳϲ
ϱϮϯƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϳϴ
ϱϯŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϭŵƉŝƌŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϯdŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϭ
ϱϰ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ>ϮWĞĚĂŐŽŐLJϴϮ
ϱϰϭZĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ>ĞdžŝĐĂůĞŵĂŶĚƐϴϮ
ϱϰϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϴϱ
ϱϱ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ&ƵƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϴϳ
ϱϲŽŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐZĞŵĂƌŬƐϴϴ
References
xiv
ϰϱϮhƉƉĞƌ^ĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJWĂƌƚŝĐŝƉĂŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚƐϱϬ
ϰϲϭ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϭdŚĞsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJ>ĞǀĞůƐdĞƐƚ;s>dͿϱϬ
ϰϲϮ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϮdŚĞdƌĂŶƐůĂƚŝŽŶdĞƐƚϱϭ
ϰϲϯ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϯ'ƌŽƵƉŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶdĂƐŬƐϱϰ
ϰϲϰ/ŶƐƚƌƵŵĞŶƚϰdŚĞYƵĞƐƚŝŽŶŶĂŝƌĞƐϱϳ
ϰϳWŚĂƐĞƐŽĨƚŚĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚWƌŽĐĞƐƐϱϴ
ϰϳϭKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁŽĨWŚĂƐĞƐϱϴ
ϰϳϮWŝůŽƚŝŶŐϱϵ
ϰϳϯĂƚĂŽůůĞĐƚŝŽŶϲϬ
ϰϳϰŶĂůLJƐĞƐϲϮ
ϰϴZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚYƵĂůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϭZĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJϲϱ
ϰϴϮsĂůŝĚŝƚLJϲϲ
ϰϵƚŚŝĐĂůŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐϲϵ
ϰϭϬ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐŝŶDĞƚŚŽĚƐϳϭ
 
ϱϭŚĂƉƚĞƌ/ŶƚƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶϳϯ
ϱϮ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJŽĨƚŚĞƌƚŝĐůĞƐϳϰ
ϱϮϭƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϳϰ
ϱϮϮƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϳϲ
ϱϮϯƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϳϴ
ϱϯŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϭŵƉŝƌŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϮDĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϬ
ϱϯϯdŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůŽŶƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶƐϴϭ
ϱϰ/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ>ϮWĞĚĂŐŽŐLJϴϮ
ϱϰϭZĞĐŽŐŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨ>ĞdžŝĐĂůĞŵĂŶĚƐϴϮ
ϱϰϮ'ƌĂĞĐŽͲ>ĂƚŝŶŽŐŶĂƚĞƐŝŶĐĂĚĞŵŝĐsŽĐĂďƵůĂƌLJϴϱ
ϱϱ>ŝŵŝƚĂƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚ&ƵƚƵƌĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚϴϳ
ϱϲŽŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐZĞŵĂƌŬƐϴϴ
References
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xv
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Publications
ƌƚŝĐůĞ///ϭϵϱ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ//ϭϱϵ
ƌƚŝĐůĞ/ϭϯϳ
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1 Overview of Corpus Features for Scandinavian Academic Word Lists
Table 2 AWL and AVL Word-family Lists Compared to BNC/COCA 2nd and 3rd
1,000 Levels
Table 3 Examples of Word Knowledge Aspects from Nation’s (2001) Taxonomy
Table 4 Overview of the Research
xvi
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1 Overview of Corpus Features for Scandinavian Academic Word Lists
Table 2 AWL and AVL Word-family Lists Compared to BNC/COCA 2nd and 3rd
1,000 Levels
Table 3 Examples of Word Knowledge Aspects from Nation’s (2001) Taxonomy
Table 4 Overview of the Research
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1 Overview of Corpus Features for Scandinavian Academic Word Lists
Table 2 AWL and AVL Word-family Lists Compared to BNC/COCA 2nd and 3rd
1,000 Levels
Table 3 Examples of Word Knowledge Aspects from Nation’s (2001) Taxonomy
Table 4 Overview of the Research
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1 Overview of Corpus Features for Scandinavian Academic Word Lists
Table 2 AWL and AVL Word-family Lists Compared to BNC/COCA 2nd and 3rd
1,000 Levels
Table 3 Examples of Word Knowledge Aspects from Nation’s (2001) Taxonomy
Table 4 Overview of the Research
xvi
xvi
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1 Overview of Corpus Features for Scandinavian Academic Word Lists
Table 2 AWL and AVL Word-family Lists Compared to BNC/COCA 2nd and 3rd
1,000 Levels
Table 3 Examples of Word Knowledge Aspects from Nation’s (2001) Taxonomy
Table 4 Overview of the Research
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1 Overview of Corpus Features for Scandinavian Academic Word Lists
Table 2 AWL and AVL Word-family Lists Compared to BNC/COCA 2nd and 3rd
1,000 Levels
Table 3 Examples of Word Knowledge Aspects from Nation’s (2001) Taxonomy
Table 4 Overview of the Research
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xvii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Online Format of the VLT Academic Levels
Figure 2 Example of Translation Test Items
Figure 3 Task 1 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 4 Task 2 from the Focus Group Discussions
Figure 5 Example of Questionnaire Item Differences
Figure 6 Research Process Overview
xviii
List of Abbreviations
AVL The Academic Vocabulary List
AVT The Academic Vocabulary Test
AWL The Academic Word List
BNC The British National Corpus
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English
EAP English for Academic Purposes
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GPA Grade Point Average
ILH Involvement Load Hypothesis
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
VLT Vocabulary Levels Test
xviii
xviii
List of Abbreviations
AVL The Academic Vocabulary List
AVT The Academic Vocabulary Test
AWL The Academic Word List
BNC The British National Corpus
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English
EAP English for Academic Purposes
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GPA Grade Point Average
ILH Involvement Load Hypothesis
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
VLT Vocabulary Levels Test
xviii
List of Abbreviations
AVL The Academic Vocabulary List
AVT The Academic Vocabulary Test
AWL The Academic Word List
BNC The British National Corpus
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English
EAP English for Academic Purposes
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GPA Grade Point Average
ILH Involvement Load Hypothesis
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
VLT Vocabulary Levels Test
xviii
List of Abbreviations
AVL The Academic Vocabulary List
AVT The Academic Vocabulary Test
AWL The Academic Word List
BNC The British National Corpus
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English
EAP English for Academic Purposes
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GPA Grade Point Average
ILH Involvement Load Hypothesis
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
VLT Vocabulary Levels Test
xviii
xviii
xviii
List of Abbreviations
AVL The Academic Vocabulary List
AVT The Academic Vocabulary Test
AWL The Academic Word List
BNC The British National Corpus
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English
EAP English for Academic Purposes
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GPA Grade Point Average
ILH Involvement Load Hypothesis
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
VLT Vocabulary Levels Test
xviii
List of Abbreviations
AVL The Academic Vocabulary List
AVT The Academic Vocabulary Test
AWL The Academic Word List
BNC The British National Corpus
COCA The Corpus of Contemporary American English
EAP English for Academic Purposes
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GPA Grade Point Average
ILH Involvement Load Hypothesis
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
VLT Vocabulary Levels Test
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Chapter Introduction
This introductory chapter provides background information, an overview of the
studies included in the dissertation, and a discussion of Norwegian educational
contexts. The final two sections present research gaps and the structure of the
dissertation.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 Motivation and Research Questions
The motivation for the current research was grounded in lexical demands placed on
upper secondary and tertiary students in the Norwegian educational context and
personal teaching experiences. The primary rationale was based on the fact that these
students must both comprehend and produce academic language to meet curricular
goals for the English subject (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019),
and cope with English language lectures and course materials which are increasingly
common in university studies (see section 1.4).
Academic language is often defined through a recognition of common
characteristics, such as information density, abstractness, and the presence of
vocabulary of Greek or Latin origin (Nagy et al., 2012). An essential part of
understanding academic language is knowledge of the academic words prevalent in
this discourse. Researchers have established the existence of a general academic
vocabulary in English that occurs across disciplines and is less common in general
English (e.g., Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This
core academic vocabulary is distinct from lexis1 defined as technical or subject-
specific academic vocabulary that carries a particular meaning within a given
academic discipline (Nagy et al., 2012; Nation, 2022) (see also Chapter 2).
1Due to the focus on single-word items in the current research, the terms vocabulary, words, and lexis have been used
interchangeably. This focus has led to a simplification of the term lexis, here understood as “the total word-stock of a
language” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023). Vocabulary refers to “the body or range of words used in a
particular language; lexicon” (Oxford University Press, Definition 2.a., 2023).
2
International research has shown that knowledge of general academic
vocabulary correlates with academic achievement, indicating the importance of this
lexical knowledge for students (e.g., Masrai & Milton, 2021; Townsend et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, previous research has revealed that many upper secondary learners in
Nordic countries lack receptive knowledge of general academic lexis (Edgarsson,
2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015). Also, researchers have questioned whether
upper secondary English courses properly prepare tertiary students for the English
language demands they face during their studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018b; Hellekjær,
2005, 2008, 2009; Henriksen et al., 2019) (see section 1.4). These findings were also
something I had experienced in my own teaching.
As a second language (L2) English teacher in upper secondary education, I
became interested in vocabulary acquisition because many students had difficulties
producing formal language for written exam tasks, an experience my colleagues also
voiced. Curricular aims placed high demands on students’ lexical knowledge both for
reading comprehension and text production (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2006/2013, 2019). However, vocabulary learning goals were seldom set,
and the concept of academic vocabulary was unknown to us. We were also largely
unaware of empirical evidence related to vocabulary acquisition and researchers’
convictions that “it can no longer be assumed that an adequate lexis will simply be
‘picked up’ from exposure to language tasks focusing either on other linguistic
aspects … or on communication alone (e.g., communicative language teaching)”
(Schmitt, 2010, p. 8). We were also unfamiliar with the concept of a principled
approach to vocabulary acquisition in which explicit teaching and extensive reading
are essential components (Nation, 2022; Schmitt, 2010; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020).
On further examination of previous research, I found that one principled
approach to academic vocabulary acquisition could be raising students’ awareness of
Graeco-Latin cognates, which were abundant in academic English lexis (Corson,
1995; Coxhead, 2000). Previous research had indicated Graeco-Latin cognate
advantages for speakers of Romance languages (e.g., Cobb, 2000). However, for
speakers of Scandinavian languages, few studies had exclusively explored academic
vocabulary knowledge among L2 English learners in Norway, and no studies in
2
2
International research has shown that knowledge of general academic
vocabulary correlates with academic achievement, indicating the importance of this
lexical knowledge for students (e.g., Masrai & Milton, 2021; Townsend et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, previous research has revealed that many upper secondary learners in
Nordic countries lack receptive knowledge of general academic lexis (Edgarsson,
2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015). Also, researchers have questioned whether
upper secondary English courses properly prepare tertiary students for the English
language demands they face during their studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018b; Hellekjær,
2005, 2008, 2009; Henriksen et al., 2019) (see section 1.4). These findings were also
something I had experienced in my own teaching.
As a second language (L2) English teacher in upper secondary education, I
became interested in vocabulary acquisition because many students had difficulties
producing formal language for written exam tasks, an experience my colleagues also
voiced. Curricular aims placed high demands on students’ lexical knowledge both for
reading comprehension and text production (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2006/2013, 2019). However, vocabulary learning goals were seldom set,
and the concept of academic vocabulary was unknown to us. We were also largely
unaware of empirical evidence related to vocabulary acquisition and researchers’
convictions that “it can no longer be assumed that an adequate lexis will simply be
‘picked up’ from exposure to language tasks focusing either on other linguistic
aspects … or on communication alone (e.g., communicative language teaching)”
(Schmitt, 2010, p. 8). We were also unfamiliar with the concept of a principled
approach to vocabulary acquisition in which explicit teaching and extensive reading
are essential components (Nation, 2022; Schmitt, 2010; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020).
On further examination of previous research, I found that one principled
approach to academic vocabulary acquisition could be raising students’ awareness of
Graeco-Latin cognates, which were abundant in academic English lexis (Corson,
1995; Coxhead, 2000). Previous research had indicated Graeco-Latin cognate
advantages for speakers of Romance languages (e.g., Cobb, 2000). However, for
speakers of Scandinavian languages, few studies had exclusively explored academic
vocabulary knowledge among L2 English learners in Norway, and no studies in
2
International research has shown that knowledge of general academic
vocabulary correlates with academic achievement, indicating the importance of this
lexical knowledge for students (e.g., Masrai & Milton, 2021; Townsend et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, previous research has revealed that many upper secondary learners in
Nordic countries lack receptive knowledge of general academic lexis (Edgarsson,
2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015). Also, researchers have questioned whether
upper secondary English courses properly prepare tertiary students for the English
language demands they face during their studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018b; Hellekjær,
2005, 2008, 2009; Henriksen et al., 2019) (see section 1.4). These findings were also
something I had experienced in my own teaching.
As a second language (L2) English teacher in upper secondary education, I
became interested in vocabulary acquisition because many students had difficulties
producing formal language for written exam tasks, an experience my colleagues also
voiced. Curricular aims placed high demands on students’ lexical knowledge both for
reading comprehension and text production (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2006/2013, 2019). However, vocabulary learning goals were seldom set,
and the concept of academic vocabulary was unknown to us. We were also largely
unaware of empirical evidence related to vocabulary acquisition and researchers’
convictions that “it can no longer be assumed that an adequate lexis will simply be
‘picked up’ from exposure to language tasks focusing either on other linguistic
aspects … or on communication alone (e.g., communicative language teaching)”
(Schmitt, 2010, p. 8). We were also unfamiliar with the concept of a principled
approach to vocabulary acquisition in which explicit teaching and extensive reading
are essential components (Nation, 2022; Schmitt, 2010; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020).
On further examination of previous research, I found that one principled
approach to academic vocabulary acquisition could be raising students’ awareness of
Graeco-Latin cognates, which were abundant in academic English lexis (Corson,
1995; Coxhead, 2000). Previous research had indicated Graeco-Latin cognate
advantages for speakers of Romance languages (e.g., Cobb, 2000). However, for
speakers of Scandinavian languages, few studies had exclusively explored academic
vocabulary knowledge among L2 English learners in Norway, and no studies in
2
International research has shown that knowledge of general academic
vocabulary correlates with academic achievement, indicating the importance of this
lexical knowledge for students (e.g., Masrai & Milton, 2021; Townsend et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, previous research has revealed that many upper secondary learners in
Nordic countries lack receptive knowledge of general academic lexis (Edgarsson,
2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015). Also, researchers have questioned whether
upper secondary English courses properly prepare tertiary students for the English
language demands they face during their studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018b; Hellekjær,
2005, 2008, 2009; Henriksen et al., 2019) (see section 1.4). These findings were also
something I had experienced in my own teaching.
As a second language (L2) English teacher in upper secondary education, I
became interested in vocabulary acquisition because many students had difficulties
producing formal language for written exam tasks, an experience my colleagues also
voiced. Curricular aims placed high demands on students’ lexical knowledge both for
reading comprehension and text production (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2006/2013, 2019). However, vocabulary learning goals were seldom set,
and the concept of academic vocabulary was unknown to us. We were also largely
unaware of empirical evidence related to vocabulary acquisition and researchers’
convictions that “it can no longer be assumed that an adequate lexis will simply be
‘picked up’ from exposure to language tasks focusing either on other linguistic
aspects … or on communication alone (e.g., communicative language teaching)”
(Schmitt, 2010, p. 8). We were also unfamiliar with the concept of a principled
approach to vocabulary acquisition in which explicit teaching and extensive reading
are essential components (Nation, 2022; Schmitt, 2010; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020).
On further examination of previous research, I found that one principled
approach to academic vocabulary acquisition could be raising students’ awareness of
Graeco-Latin cognates, which were abundant in academic English lexis (Corson,
1995; Coxhead, 2000). Previous research had indicated Graeco-Latin cognate
advantages for speakers of Romance languages (e.g., Cobb, 2000). However, for
speakers of Scandinavian languages, few studies had exclusively explored academic
vocabulary knowledge among L2 English learners in Norway, and no studies in
2
2
2
International research has shown that knowledge of general academic
vocabulary correlates with academic achievement, indicating the importance of this
lexical knowledge for students (e.g., Masrai & Milton, 2021; Townsend et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, previous research has revealed that many upper secondary learners in
Nordic countries lack receptive knowledge of general academic lexis (Edgarsson,
2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015). Also, researchers have questioned whether
upper secondary English courses properly prepare tertiary students for the English
language demands they face during their studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018b; Hellekjær,
2005, 2008, 2009; Henriksen et al., 2019) (see section 1.4). These findings were also
something I had experienced in my own teaching.
As a second language (L2) English teacher in upper secondary education, I
became interested in vocabulary acquisition because many students had difficulties
producing formal language for written exam tasks, an experience my colleagues also
voiced. Curricular aims placed high demands on students’ lexical knowledge both for
reading comprehension and text production (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2006/2013, 2019). However, vocabulary learning goals were seldom set,
and the concept of academic vocabulary was unknown to us. We were also largely
unaware of empirical evidence related to vocabulary acquisition and researchers’
convictions that “it can no longer be assumed that an adequate lexis will simply be
‘picked up’ from exposure to language tasks focusing either on other linguistic
aspects … or on communication alone (e.g., communicative language teaching)”
(Schmitt, 2010, p. 8). We were also unfamiliar with the concept of a principled
approach to vocabulary acquisition in which explicit teaching and extensive reading
are essential components (Nation, 2022; Schmitt, 2010; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020).
On further examination of previous research, I found that one principled
approach to academic vocabulary acquisition could be raising students’ awareness of
Graeco-Latin cognates, which were abundant in academic English lexis (Corson,
1995; Coxhead, 2000). Previous research had indicated Graeco-Latin cognate
advantages for speakers of Romance languages (e.g., Cobb, 2000). However, for
speakers of Scandinavian languages, few studies had exclusively explored academic
vocabulary knowledge among L2 English learners in Norway, and no studies in
2
International research has shown that knowledge of general academic
vocabulary correlates with academic achievement, indicating the importance of this
lexical knowledge for students (e.g., Masrai & Milton, 2021; Townsend et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, previous research has revealed that many upper secondary learners in
Nordic countries lack receptive knowledge of general academic lexis (Edgarsson,
2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015). Also, researchers have questioned whether
upper secondary English courses properly prepare tertiary students for the English
language demands they face during their studies (Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018b; Hellekjær,
2005, 2008, 2009; Henriksen et al., 2019) (see section 1.4). These findings were also
something I had experienced in my own teaching.
As a second language (L2) English teacher in upper secondary education, I
became interested in vocabulary acquisition because many students had difficulties
producing formal language for written exam tasks, an experience my colleagues also
voiced. Curricular aims placed high demands on students’ lexical knowledge both for
reading comprehension and text production (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2006/2013, 2019). However, vocabulary learning goals were seldom set,
and the concept of academic vocabulary was unknown to us. We were also largely
unaware of empirical evidence related to vocabulary acquisition and researchers’
convictions that “it can no longer be assumed that an adequate lexis will simply be
‘picked up’ from exposure to language tasks focusing either on other linguistic
aspects … or on communication alone (e.g., communicative language teaching)”
(Schmitt, 2010, p. 8). We were also unfamiliar with the concept of a principled
approach to vocabulary acquisition in which explicit teaching and extensive reading
are essential components (Nation, 2022; Schmitt, 2010; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2020).
On further examination of previous research, I found that one principled
approach to academic vocabulary acquisition could be raising students’ awareness of
Graeco-Latin cognates, which were abundant in academic English lexis (Corson,
1995; Coxhead, 2000). Previous research had indicated Graeco-Latin cognate
advantages for speakers of Romance languages (e.g., Cobb, 2000). However, for
speakers of Scandinavian languages, few studies had exclusively explored academic
vocabulary knowledge among L2 English learners in Norway, and no studies in
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
3
Nordic countries had explored students’ awareness and conception2 of Graeco-Latin
cognates. Therefore, the following overarching research questions guided the current
dissertation:
1. To what extent do Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students
demonstrate written receptive knowledge of academic English vocabulary and
awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates prevalent in this lexis?
2. In what ways do Norwegian-speaking tertiary students express awareness of
features common to academic vocabulary?
It should be noted that cognates have been defined following de Groot (2011)
and Otwinowska (2016) as translations present in two or more languages with a
common genealogy and shared semantic, orthographic, and phonological traits.
Researchers often expand their working definition of cognates by excluding
etymological considerations (e.g., Laufer & McLean, 2016). However, for the current
research, etymology was considered due to the focus on Graeco-Latin cognates in
academic vocabulary.
1.2.2 Situating the Research
The current research is situated within the fields of applied linguistics and L2
pedagogy. The connections to applied linguistics stem from a focus on challenges
exposed within L2 English education and the placement of the studies within
educational contexts in Norway. Applied research was defined as research “driven by
current problems in education” (Johnson & Christensen, 2017, p. 10) with a focus on
“bridging of the potential gap between research and practice” (Nation, 2018, p. 138).
The research aligned with the view that “research is most valuable when it is applied
to practice. Practice is most likely to be effective if it is research-based” (Nation,
2018, p. 138). One of the main goals of the current project has been to conduct
research that may bridge this gap by investigating Norwegian-speaking students’
2 Awareness broadly refers to “conscious registration of the occurrence of some event” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 29). Section
3.2.3 thoroughly discusses the concept. Conception has been defined as “a way of making sense of something— a way of
conceptualizing” (Taber, 2017, p. 122) (see also Article II).
4
academic vocabulary in a manner that provides findings directly applicable to
teaching practices.
The term L2 pedagogy and not English didactics has been applied in this
dissertation to reflect the explicit focus on language education. The term is used in a
broad sense as “any form of educational activity designed to promote the
internalization of and control over the language that learners study” (van
Compernolle & Williams, 2013, p. 279). I also recognize that much of the research
presented in this dissertation explores language in relation to a narrower definition of
L2 pedagogy as “teaching directed at developing the linguistic knowledge learners
need to communicate in an L2” (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 325). Nonetheless, it
has been necessary to understand L2 pedagogy in this broader sense to accommodate
the exploration of students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary (Article II).
I also acknowledge that while researchers often disagree as to how or if
language pedagogy should be related to SLA (R. Ellis, 2010; R. Ellis & Shintani,
2014), they also argue for the importance of L2 pedagogy and SLA research to
inform one another as a step to providing more effective L2 teaching approaches.
1.3 Aims and Overview of Studies
As mentioned previously, the overarching aim of the research was to explore L2
English students’ knowledge, conception, and awareness of academic vocabulary.
Findings could provide insights into Norwegian students’ extent of written receptive
knowledge of academic words and their awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates
abundant in Norwegian. Another goal was that these findings should be directly
applicable to educators using English language course materials and developing
students’ L2 English skills. For this dissertation, written receptive word knowledge
was defined as understanding the written form of a word and recalling the correct
meaning (Nation, 2022, p. 52) (see section 3.3.3).
The three studies comprising this dissertation examined data gathered from
152 upper secondary (Studies 1 and 2) and 13 tertiary students (Study 3) in Norway.
Study 1 (Article I) was a quantitative study that explored Norwegian-speaking upper
secondary students’ extent of receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English
4
4
academic vocabulary in a manner that provides findings directly applicable to
teaching practices.
The term L2 pedagogy and not English didactics has been applied in this
dissertation to reflect the explicit focus on language education. The term is used in a
broad sense as “any form of educational activity designed to promote the
internalization of and control over the language that learners study” (van
Compernolle & Williams, 2013, p. 279). I also recognize that much of the research
presented in this dissertation explores language in relation to a narrower definition of
L2 pedagogy as “teaching directed at developing the linguistic knowledge learners
need to communicate in an L2” (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 325). Nonetheless, it
has been necessary to understand L2 pedagogy in this broader sense to accommodate
the exploration of students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary (Article II).
I also acknowledge that while researchers often disagree as to how or if
language pedagogy should be related to SLA (R. Ellis, 2010; R. Ellis & Shintani,
2014), they also argue for the importance of L2 pedagogy and SLA research to
inform one another as a step to providing more effective L2 teaching approaches.
1.3 Aims and Overview of Studies
As mentioned previously, the overarching aim of the research was to explore L2
English students’ knowledge, conception, and awareness of academic vocabulary.
Findings could provide insights into Norwegian students’ extent of written receptive
knowledge of academic words and their awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates
abundant in Norwegian. Another goal was that these findings should be directly
applicable to educators using English language course materials and developing
students’ L2 English skills. For this dissertation, written receptive word knowledge
was defined as understanding the written form of a word and recalling the correct
meaning (Nation, 2022, p. 52) (see section 3.3.3).
The three studies comprising this dissertation examined data gathered from
152 upper secondary (Studies 1 and 2) and 13 tertiary students (Study 3) in Norway.
Study 1 (Article I) was a quantitative study that explored Norwegian-speaking upper
secondary students’ extent of receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English
4
academic vocabulary in a manner that provides findings directly applicable to
teaching practices.
The term L2 pedagogy and not English didactics has been applied in this
dissertation to reflect the explicit focus on language education. The term is used in a
broad sense as “any form of educational activity designed to promote the
internalization of and control over the language that learners study” (van
Compernolle & Williams, 2013, p. 279). I also recognize that much of the research
presented in this dissertation explores language in relation to a narrower definition of
L2 pedagogy as “teaching directed at developing the linguistic knowledge learners
need to communicate in an L2” (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 325). Nonetheless, it
has been necessary to understand L2 pedagogy in this broader sense to accommodate
the exploration of students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary (Article II).
I also acknowledge that while researchers often disagree as to how or if
language pedagogy should be related to SLA (R. Ellis, 2010; R. Ellis & Shintani,
2014), they also argue for the importance of L2 pedagogy and SLA research to
inform one another as a step to providing more effective L2 teaching approaches.
1.3 Aims and Overview of Studies
As mentioned previously, the overarching aim of the research was to explore L2
English students’ knowledge, conception, and awareness of academic vocabulary.
Findings could provide insights into Norwegian students’ extent of written receptive
knowledge of academic words and their awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates
abundant in Norwegian. Another goal was that these findings should be directly
applicable to educators using English language course materials and developing
students’ L2 English skills. For this dissertation, written receptive word knowledge
was defined as understanding the written form of a word and recalling the correct
meaning (Nation, 2022, p. 52) (see section 3.3.3).
The three studies comprising this dissertation examined data gathered from
152 upper secondary (Studies 1 and 2) and 13 tertiary students (Study 3) in Norway.
Study 1 (Article I) was a quantitative study that explored Norwegian-speaking upper
secondary students’ extent of receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English
4
academic vocabulary in a manner that provides findings directly applicable to
teaching practices.
The term L2 pedagogy and not English didactics has been applied in this
dissertation to reflect the explicit focus on language education. The term is used in a
broad sense as “any form of educational activity designed to promote the
internalization of and control over the language that learners study” (van
Compernolle & Williams, 2013, p. 279). I also recognize that much of the research
presented in this dissertation explores language in relation to a narrower definition of
L2 pedagogy as “teaching directed at developing the linguistic knowledge learners
need to communicate in an L2” (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 325). Nonetheless, it
has been necessary to understand L2 pedagogy in this broader sense to accommodate
the exploration of students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary (Article II).
I also acknowledge that while researchers often disagree as to how or if
language pedagogy should be related to SLA (R. Ellis, 2010; R. Ellis & Shintani,
2014), they also argue for the importance of L2 pedagogy and SLA research to
inform one another as a step to providing more effective L2 teaching approaches.
1.3 Aims and Overview of Studies
As mentioned previously, the overarching aim of the research was to explore L2
English students’ knowledge, conception, and awareness of academic vocabulary.
Findings could provide insights into Norwegian students’ extent of written receptive
knowledge of academic words and their awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates
abundant in Norwegian. Another goal was that these findings should be directly
applicable to educators using English language course materials and developing
students’ L2 English skills. For this dissertation, written receptive word knowledge
was defined as understanding the written form of a word and recalling the correct
meaning (Nation, 2022, p. 52) (see section 3.3.3).
The three studies comprising this dissertation examined data gathered from
152 upper secondary (Studies 1 and 2) and 13 tertiary students (Study 3) in Norway.
Study 1 (Article I) was a quantitative study that explored Norwegian-speaking upper
secondary students’ extent of receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English
4
4
4
academic vocabulary in a manner that provides findings directly applicable to
teaching practices.
The term L2 pedagogy and not English didactics has been applied in this
dissertation to reflect the explicit focus on language education. The term is used in a
broad sense as “any form of educational activity designed to promote the
internalization of and control over the language that learners study” (van
Compernolle & Williams, 2013, p. 279). I also recognize that much of the research
presented in this dissertation explores language in relation to a narrower definition of
L2 pedagogy as “teaching directed at developing the linguistic knowledge learners
need to communicate in an L2” (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 325). Nonetheless, it
has been necessary to understand L2 pedagogy in this broader sense to accommodate
the exploration of students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary (Article II).
I also acknowledge that while researchers often disagree as to how or if
language pedagogy should be related to SLA (R. Ellis, 2010; R. Ellis & Shintani,
2014), they also argue for the importance of L2 pedagogy and SLA research to
inform one another as a step to providing more effective L2 teaching approaches.
1.3 Aims and Overview of Studies
As mentioned previously, the overarching aim of the research was to explore L2
English students’ knowledge, conception, and awareness of academic vocabulary.
Findings could provide insights into Norwegian students’ extent of written receptive
knowledge of academic words and their awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates
abundant in Norwegian. Another goal was that these findings should be directly
applicable to educators using English language course materials and developing
students’ L2 English skills. For this dissertation, written receptive word knowledge
was defined as understanding the written form of a word and recalling the correct
meaning (Nation, 2022, p. 52) (see section 3.3.3).
The three studies comprising this dissertation examined data gathered from
152 upper secondary (Studies 1 and 2) and 13 tertiary students (Study 3) in Norway.
Study 1 (Article I) was a quantitative study that explored Norwegian-speaking upper
secondary students’ extent of receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English
4
academic vocabulary in a manner that provides findings directly applicable to
teaching practices.
The term L2 pedagogy and not English didactics has been applied in this
dissertation to reflect the explicit focus on language education. The term is used in a
broad sense as “any form of educational activity designed to promote the
internalization of and control over the language that learners study” (van
Compernolle & Williams, 2013, p. 279). I also recognize that much of the research
presented in this dissertation explores language in relation to a narrower definition of
L2 pedagogy as “teaching directed at developing the linguistic knowledge learners
need to communicate in an L2” (R. Ellis & Shintani, 2014, p. 325). Nonetheless, it
has been necessary to understand L2 pedagogy in this broader sense to accommodate
the exploration of students’ conceptions of academic vocabulary (Article II).
I also acknowledge that while researchers often disagree as to how or if
language pedagogy should be related to SLA (R. Ellis, 2010; R. Ellis & Shintani,
2014), they also argue for the importance of L2 pedagogy and SLA research to
inform one another as a step to providing more effective L2 teaching approaches.
1.3 Aims and Overview of Studies
As mentioned previously, the overarching aim of the research was to explore L2
English students’ knowledge, conception, and awareness of academic vocabulary.
Findings could provide insights into Norwegian students’ extent of written receptive
knowledge of academic words and their awareness of Graeco-Latin cognates
abundant in Norwegian. Another goal was that these findings should be directly
applicable to educators using English language course materials and developing
students’ L2 English skills. For this dissertation, written receptive word knowledge
was defined as understanding the written form of a word and recalling the correct
meaning (Nation, 2022, p. 52) (see section 3.3.3).
The three studies comprising this dissertation examined data gathered from
152 upper secondary (Studies 1 and 2) and 13 tertiary students (Study 3) in Norway.
Study 1 (Article I) was a quantitative study that explored Norwegian-speaking upper
secondary students’ extent of receptive academic vocabulary knowledge in English
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
5
and associations with their course grades. Study 2 (Article II) expanded on the first
study by examining academic vocabulary knowledge among tertiary students. This
two-part study employed mixed methods to investigate tertiary students’ receptive
academic word knowledge and their conception of academic vocabulary as a
construct. The third study (Article III) further developed the findings from Study 2 by
investigating academic vocabulary translations for a larger group of upper secondary
students and assessing possible associations with English proficiency. The study
assessed students’ cognate translations of academic English vocabulary and
associations with English proficiency.
1.4 The Norwegian Educational Context
1.4.1 Upper Secondary Education and L2 English
In Norway, English is defined as one of the three primary school subjects, alongside
Norwegian and mathematics. It is taught throughout students’ formal education and
comprises 588 hours of instruction from 1st to 10th grades (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2023, p. 18). The final year of obligatory instruction in
English (140 hours) occurs in the first year of upper secondary education (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2023, p. 29). Successful completion of this
course automatically qualifies students for the expected English language
requirements for tertiary studies. It is, therefore, inferred that formal L2 English
education will ensure students acquire a minimum B2 level of English proficiency as
defined in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
(Council of Europe, 2020).
English language instruction for upper secondary students has a two-fold
purpose: it is meant to “prepare the pupils for an education and societal and working
life that requires English-language competences in reading, writing and oral
communication” and to promote students’ development of “cultural understanding,
communication, all-around education, and identity development” (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 2). Students are meant to gain
knowledge about the English language as well as culture and society “by reflecting
on, interpreting and critically assessing different types of texts in English”
6
(Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Thus, after completing
their formal education, Norwegian students’ proficiency in English should allow for
comprehension and production of English language texts concerning a broad range of
advanced topics.
For lexical development, the subject curriculum explicitly calls for “learning
vocabulary” and “identifying connections between English and other languages the
pupils know” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Further,
students must learn to adapt their language use “to the purpose, the receiver, and the
situation” (p. 4). This includes being able to “listen to, understand and use academic
language in working on own oral and written texts” (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2019, p. 12)
3
. However, academic vocabulary, an essential
part of academic language, is left undefined, which can be of concern because if
teachers are unaware of characteristics common to this lexis, they are less likely to
make principled choices related to vocabulary acquisition of academic words in their
classroom practices. Classroom attention to academic vocabulary acquisition is
particularly important in an educational context where upper secondary studies
provide the necessary English language qualifications for tertiary study.
1.4.2 Tertiary Education and L2 English
Tertiary education in Nordic countries follows a language policy of parallel language
use for higher education. The concept has been defined as “the concurrent use of
several languages within one or more areas. None of the languages abolishes or
replaces the other; they are used in parallel” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2018, p.
9). In practical terms, this often results in the use of English language course
materials, while lectures and other course activities are conducted in a majority
language. These circumstances require most Norwegian tertiary students to traverse
between academic English and Norwegian throughout their studies. They also require
high levels of English language proficiency and extensive knowledge of academic
English vocabulary. Though parallel language use is a policy that also aims to
3 The term academic language first appeared in the 2020 English subject curriculum (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2019). However, academic vocabulary was used in the English translation of the 2013 subject curriculum
revisions (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006/2013).
6
3
6
(Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Thus, after completing
their formal education, Norwegian students’ proficiency in English should allow for
comprehension and production of English language texts concerning a broad range of
advanced topics.
For lexical development, the subject curriculum explicitly calls for “learning
vocabulary” and “identifying connections between English and other languages the
pupils know” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Further,
students must learn to adapt their language use “to the purpose, the receiver, and the
situation” (p. 4). This includes being able to “listen to, understand and use academic
language in working on own oral and written texts” (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2019, p. 12)
3
. However, academic vocabulary, an essential
part of academic language, is left undefined, which can be of concern because if
teachers are unaware of characteristics common to this lexis, they are less likely to
make principled choices related to vocabulary acquisition of academic words in their
classroom practices. Classroom attention to academic vocabulary acquisition is
particularly important in an educational context where upper secondary studies
provide the necessary English language qualifications for tertiary study.
1.4.2 Tertiary Education and L2 English
Tertiary education in Nordic countries follows a language policy of parallel language
use for higher education. The concept has been defined as “the concurrent use of
several languages within one or more areas. None of the languages abolishes or
replaces the other; they are used in parallel” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2018, p.
9). In practical terms, this often results in the use of English language course
materials, while lectures and other course activities are conducted in a majority
language. These circumstances require most Norwegian tertiary students to traverse
between academic English and Norwegian throughout their studies. They also require
high levels of English language proficiency and extensive knowledge of academic
English vocabulary. Though parallel language use is a policy that also aims to
3 The term academic language first appeared in the 2020 English subject curriculum (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2019). However, academic vocabulary was used in the English translation of the 2013 subject curriculum
revisions (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006/2013).
6
(Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Thus, after completing
their formal education, Norwegian students’ proficiency in English should allow for
comprehension and production of English language texts concerning a broad range of
advanced topics.
For lexical development, the subject curriculum explicitly calls for “learning
vocabulary” and “identifying connections between English and other languages the
pupils know” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Further,
students must learn to adapt their language use “to the purpose, the receiver, and the
situation” (p. 4). This includes being able to “listen to, understand and use academic
language in working on own oral and written texts” (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2019, p. 12)
3
. However, academic vocabulary, an essential
part of academic language, is left undefined, which can be of concern because if
teachers are unaware of characteristics common to this lexis, they are less likely to
make principled choices related to vocabulary acquisition of academic words in their
classroom practices. Classroom attention to academic vocabulary acquisition is
particularly important in an educational context where upper secondary studies
provide the necessary English language qualifications for tertiary study.
1.4.2 Tertiary Education and L2 English
Tertiary education in Nordic countries follows a language policy of parallel language
use for higher education. The concept has been defined as “the concurrent use of
several languages within one or more areas. None of the languages abolishes or
replaces the other; they are used in parallel” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2018, p.
9). In practical terms, this often results in the use of English language course
materials, while lectures and other course activities are conducted in a majority
language. These circumstances require most Norwegian tertiary students to traverse
between academic English and Norwegian throughout their studies. They also require
high levels of English language proficiency and extensive knowledge of academic
English vocabulary. Though parallel language use is a policy that also aims to
3 The term academic language first appeared in the 2020 English subject curriculum (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2019). However, academic vocabulary was used in the English translation of the 2013 subject curriculum
revisions (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006/2013).
6
(Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Thus, after completing
their formal education, Norwegian students’ proficiency in English should allow for
comprehension and production of English language texts concerning a broad range of
advanced topics.
For lexical development, the subject curriculum explicitly calls for “learning
vocabulary” and “identifying connections between English and other languages the
pupils know” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Further,
students must learn to adapt their language use “to the purpose, the receiver, and the
situation” (p. 4). This includes being able to “listen to, understand and use academic
language in working on own oral and written texts” (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2019, p. 12)
3
. However, academic vocabulary, an essential
part of academic language, is left undefined, which can be of concern because if
teachers are unaware of characteristics common to this lexis, they are less likely to
make principled choices related to vocabulary acquisition of academic words in their
classroom practices. Classroom attention to academic vocabulary acquisition is
particularly important in an educational context where upper secondary studies
provide the necessary English language qualifications for tertiary study.
1.4.2 Tertiary Education and L2 English
Tertiary education in Nordic countries follows a language policy of parallel language
use for higher education. The concept has been defined as “the concurrent use of
several languages within one or more areas. None of the languages abolishes or
replaces the other; they are used in parallel” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2018, p.
9). In practical terms, this often results in the use of English language course
materials, while lectures and other course activities are conducted in a majority
language. These circumstances require most Norwegian tertiary students to traverse
between academic English and Norwegian throughout their studies. They also require
high levels of English language proficiency and extensive knowledge of academic
English vocabulary. Though parallel language use is a policy that also aims to
3 The term academic language first appeared in the 2020 English subject curriculum (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2019). However, academic vocabulary was used in the English translation of the 2013 subject curriculum
revisions (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006/2013).
6
3
6
3
6
(Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Thus, after completing
their formal education, Norwegian students’ proficiency in English should allow for
comprehension and production of English language texts concerning a broad range of
advanced topics.
For lexical development, the subject curriculum explicitly calls for “learning
vocabulary” and “identifying connections between English and other languages the
pupils know” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Further,
students must learn to adapt their language use “to the purpose, the receiver, and the
situation” (p. 4). This includes being able to “listen to, understand and use academic
language in working on own oral and written texts” (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2019, p. 12)
3
. However, academic vocabulary, an essential
part of academic language, is left undefined, which can be of concern because if
teachers are unaware of characteristics common to this lexis, they are less likely to
make principled choices related to vocabulary acquisition of academic words in their
classroom practices. Classroom attention to academic vocabulary acquisition is
particularly important in an educational context where upper secondary studies
provide the necessary English language qualifications for tertiary study.
1.4.2 Tertiary Education and L2 English
Tertiary education in Nordic countries follows a language policy of parallel language
use for higher education. The concept has been defined as “the concurrent use of
several languages within one or more areas. None of the languages abolishes or
replaces the other; they are used in parallel” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2018, p.
9). In practical terms, this often results in the use of English language course
materials, while lectures and other course activities are conducted in a majority
language. These circumstances require most Norwegian tertiary students to traverse
between academic English and Norwegian throughout their studies. They also require
high levels of English language proficiency and extensive knowledge of academic
English vocabulary. Though parallel language use is a policy that also aims to
3 The term academic language first appeared in the 2020 English subject curriculum (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2019). However, academic vocabulary was used in the English translation of the 2013 subject curriculum
revisions (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006/2013).
6
(Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Thus, after completing
their formal education, Norwegian students’ proficiency in English should allow for
comprehension and production of English language texts concerning a broad range of
advanced topics.
For lexical development, the subject curriculum explicitly calls for “learning
vocabulary” and “identifying connections between English and other languages the
pupils know” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2019, p. 3). Further,
students must learn to adapt their language use “to the purpose, the receiver, and the
situation” (p. 4). This includes being able to “listen to, understand and use academic
language in working on own oral and written texts” (Norwegian Ministry of
Education and Research, 2019, p. 12)
3
. However, academic vocabulary, an essential
part of academic language, is left undefined, which can be of concern because if
teachers are unaware of characteristics common to this lexis, they are less likely to
make principled choices related to vocabulary acquisition of academic words in their
classroom practices. Classroom attention to academic vocabulary acquisition is
particularly important in an educational context where upper secondary studies
provide the necessary English language qualifications for tertiary study.
1.4.2 Tertiary Education and L2 English
Tertiary education in Nordic countries follows a language policy of parallel language
use for higher education. The concept has been defined as “the concurrent use of
several languages within one or more areas. None of the languages abolishes or
replaces the other; they are used in parallel” (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2018, p.
9). In practical terms, this often results in the use of English language course
materials, while lectures and other course activities are conducted in a majority
language. These circumstances require most Norwegian tertiary students to traverse
between academic English and Norwegian throughout their studies. They also require
high levels of English language proficiency and extensive knowledge of academic
English vocabulary. Though parallel language use is a policy that also aims to
3 The term academic language first appeared in the 2020 English subject curriculum (Norwegian Ministry of Education and
Research, 2019). However, academic vocabulary was used in the English translation of the 2013 subject curriculum
revisions (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2006/2013).
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
7
encourage the continued use of Scandinavian languages across national borders, it
specifically addresses the issue of English. The Declaration on a Nordic Language
Policy (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007) argues that “Nordic residents, who …
have good English skills, have especially favorable conditions for developing skills in
the parallel use of English and one or more of the languages of the Nordic countries”
(pp. 93-94). Two examples of how the policy can promote the parallel use of
languages are:
instruction in scientific technical language … be given in both English and the
languages of the Nordic countries … Universities, colleges, and other
scientific institutions can develop long-range strategies for the choice of
language, the parallel use of languages. (Nordic Council of Ministers, 2007, p.
94)
It is common to have English language course materials for tertiary studies,
often due to the expense of producing academic literature for small populations
(Henriksen et al., 2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022). There is also an increase in
the use of English for course instruction to accommodate educational opportunities
for international students and researchers (Gregersen et al., 2014; Henriksen et al.,
2019; Malmström & Pecorari, 2022).
Tertiary institutions in Norway are responsible for maintaining and developing
both written forms of Norwegian, bokmål and nynorsk4 (The Language Act 2022:
§3). Concerns have also been raised that the extensive use of English can make it
more difficult to promote Nynorsk, a language written by a minority of the population
(Røyneland et al., 2018, p. 51). Nonetheless, the need for internationalization of
higher education and, thus, the continued use of English is recognized (Norwegian
Ministry of Education and Research, 2020, p. 10). This presupposes the need for high
levels of English language proficiency among Norwegian students. As mentioned
earlier, there is an assumption that upper secondary education provides adequate
English language development for tertiary studies, and there is an official expectation
that researchers and administrative employees can function in English and Norwegian
4 Norwegian, unlike other Scandinavian languages, has two official written forms, bokmål and nynorsk. Both are obligatory
subjects during formal education (Education Act, 2019, § 2.5) and are actively used in public institutions.
8
(Gregersen et al., 2014, p. 91). These factors reiterate the need for tertiary students to
gain extensive knowledge of academic English and to possess the ability to navigate
between academic discourse in English and Norwegian. Doing so without English
language support from tertiary educational institutions can be especially challenging
in parallel language contexts (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018a, 2020; Henriksen et al.,
2019).
1.5 Establishing the Research Gaps
As shown above, academic vocabulary knowledge is necessary to meet curricular
aims and ensure Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’ text
comprehension. Though there are few vocabulary studies previously conducted in
Norway, studies among upper secondary students in other Nordic countries have
revealed low levels of receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary in English
(Edgarsson, 2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015; Warnby, 2023). In his quantitative
study of 417 upper secondary students in Iceland, Edgarsson (2018) found that “the
majority of participants did not reach the minimum passing score” on the academic
level of the VLT (Schmitt et al., 2001) version B (p. 105). This is concerning because
international research has revealed positive correlations between L2 English students’
receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and academic achievement (Masrai &
Milton, 2018, 2021). In their quantitative study of tertiary students with Arabic as
their L1, Masrai and Milton (2021) found correlations between general and academic
English vocabulary knowledge and academic success, as measured through students’
grade point average (GPA). They concluded that for these L2 English students,
“knowledge of [academic] words, specifically, can make a distinct and measurable
additional contribution to academic success over and above that of general
vocabulary knowledge” (p. 292). Positive correlations have also been shown between
knowledge of academic vocabulary and comprehension of academic reading
materials (Birch & Fulop, 2021; Edgarsson, 2018; Shaw & McMillion, 2011).
Within the Norwegian context, studies indicate that Norwegian upper
secondary and tertiary students’ lack of English vocabulary knowledge is a
significant obstacle to their understanding of academic texts (Hellekjær, 2005, 2008,
8
8
(Gregersen et al., 2014, p. 91). These factors reiterate the need for tertiary students to
gain extensive knowledge of academic English and to possess the ability to navigate
between academic discourse in English and Norwegian. Doing so without English
language support from tertiary educational institutions can be especially challenging
in parallel language contexts (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018a, 2020; Henriksen et al.,
2019).
1.5 Establishing the Research Gaps
As shown above, academic vocabulary knowledge is necessary to meet curricular
aims and ensure Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’ text
comprehension. Though there are few vocabulary studies previously conducted in
Norway, studies among upper secondary students in other Nordic countries have
revealed low levels of receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary in English
(Edgarsson, 2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015; Warnby, 2023). In his quantitative
study of 417 upper secondary students in Iceland, Edgarsson (2018) found that “the
majority of participants did not reach the minimum passing score” on the academic
level of the VLT (Schmitt et al., 2001) version B (p. 105). This is concerning because
international research has revealed positive correlations between L2 English students’
receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and academic achievement (Masrai &
Milton, 2018, 2021). In their quantitative study of tertiary students with Arabic as
their L1, Masrai and Milton (2021) found correlations between general and academic
English vocabulary knowledge and academic success, as measured through students’
grade point average (GPA). They concluded that for these L2 English students,
“knowledge of [academic] words, specifically, can make a distinct and measurable
additional contribution to academic success over and above that of general
vocabulary knowledge” (p. 292). Positive correlations have also been shown between
knowledge of academic vocabulary and comprehension of academic reading
materials (Birch & Fulop, 2021; Edgarsson, 2018; Shaw & McMillion, 2011).
Within the Norwegian context, studies indicate that Norwegian upper
secondary and tertiary students’ lack of English vocabulary knowledge is a
significant obstacle to their understanding of academic texts (Hellekjær, 2005, 2008,
8
(Gregersen et al., 2014, p. 91). These factors reiterate the need for tertiary students to
gain extensive knowledge of academic English and to possess the ability to navigate
between academic discourse in English and Norwegian. Doing so without English
language support from tertiary educational institutions can be especially challenging
in parallel language contexts (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018a, 2020; Henriksen et al.,
2019).
1.5 Establishing the Research Gaps
As shown above, academic vocabulary knowledge is necessary to meet curricular
aims and ensure Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’ text
comprehension. Though there are few vocabulary studies previously conducted in
Norway, studies among upper secondary students in other Nordic countries have
revealed low levels of receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary in English
(Edgarsson, 2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015; Warnby, 2023). In his quantitative
study of 417 upper secondary students in Iceland, Edgarsson (2018) found that “the
majority of participants did not reach the minimum passing score” on the academic
level of the VLT (Schmitt et al., 2001) version B (p. 105). This is concerning because
international research has revealed positive correlations between L2 English students’
receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and academic achievement (Masrai &
Milton, 2018, 2021). In their quantitative study of tertiary students with Arabic as
their L1, Masrai and Milton (2021) found correlations between general and academic
English vocabulary knowledge and academic success, as measured through students’
grade point average (GPA). They concluded that for these L2 English students,
“knowledge of [academic] words, specifically, can make a distinct and measurable
additional contribution to academic success over and above that of general
vocabulary knowledge” (p. 292). Positive correlations have also been shown between
knowledge of academic vocabulary and comprehension of academic reading
materials (Birch & Fulop, 2021; Edgarsson, 2018; Shaw & McMillion, 2011).
Within the Norwegian context, studies indicate that Norwegian upper
secondary and tertiary students’ lack of English vocabulary knowledge is a
significant obstacle to their understanding of academic texts (Hellekjær, 2005, 2008,
8
(Gregersen et al., 2014, p. 91). These factors reiterate the need for tertiary students to
gain extensive knowledge of academic English and to possess the ability to navigate
between academic discourse in English and Norwegian. Doing so without English
language support from tertiary educational institutions can be especially challenging
in parallel language contexts (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018a, 2020; Henriksen et al.,
2019).
1.5 Establishing the Research Gaps
As shown above, academic vocabulary knowledge is necessary to meet curricular
aims and ensure Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’ text
comprehension. Though there are few vocabulary studies previously conducted in
Norway, studies among upper secondary students in other Nordic countries have
revealed low levels of receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary in English
(Edgarsson, 2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015; Warnby, 2023). In his quantitative
study of 417 upper secondary students in Iceland, Edgarsson (2018) found that “the
majority of participants did not reach the minimum passing score” on the academic
level of the VLT (Schmitt et al., 2001) version B (p. 105). This is concerning because
international research has revealed positive correlations between L2 English students’
receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and academic achievement (Masrai &
Milton, 2018, 2021). In their quantitative study of tertiary students with Arabic as
their L1, Masrai and Milton (2021) found correlations between general and academic
English vocabulary knowledge and academic success, as measured through students’
grade point average (GPA). They concluded that for these L2 English students,
“knowledge of [academic] words, specifically, can make a distinct and measurable
additional contribution to academic success over and above that of general
vocabulary knowledge” (p. 292). Positive correlations have also been shown between
knowledge of academic vocabulary and comprehension of academic reading
materials (Birch & Fulop, 2021; Edgarsson, 2018; Shaw & McMillion, 2011).
Within the Norwegian context, studies indicate that Norwegian upper
secondary and tertiary students’ lack of English vocabulary knowledge is a
significant obstacle to their understanding of academic texts (Hellekjær, 2005, 2008,
8
8
8
(Gregersen et al., 2014, p. 91). These factors reiterate the need for tertiary students to
gain extensive knowledge of academic English and to possess the ability to navigate
between academic discourse in English and Norwegian. Doing so without English
language support from tertiary educational institutions can be especially challenging
in parallel language contexts (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018a, 2020; Henriksen et al.,
2019).
1.5 Establishing the Research Gaps
As shown above, academic vocabulary knowledge is necessary to meet curricular
aims and ensure Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’ text
comprehension. Though there are few vocabulary studies previously conducted in
Norway, studies among upper secondary students in other Nordic countries have
revealed low levels of receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary in English
(Edgarsson, 2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015; Warnby, 2023). In his quantitative
study of 417 upper secondary students in Iceland, Edgarsson (2018) found that “the
majority of participants did not reach the minimum passing score” on the academic
level of the VLT (Schmitt et al., 2001) version B (p. 105). This is concerning because
international research has revealed positive correlations between L2 English students’
receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and academic achievement (Masrai &
Milton, 2018, 2021). In their quantitative study of tertiary students with Arabic as
their L1, Masrai and Milton (2021) found correlations between general and academic
English vocabulary knowledge and academic success, as measured through students’
grade point average (GPA). They concluded that for these L2 English students,
“knowledge of [academic] words, specifically, can make a distinct and measurable
additional contribution to academic success over and above that of general
vocabulary knowledge” (p. 292). Positive correlations have also been shown between
knowledge of academic vocabulary and comprehension of academic reading
materials (Birch & Fulop, 2021; Edgarsson, 2018; Shaw & McMillion, 2011).
Within the Norwegian context, studies indicate that Norwegian upper
secondary and tertiary students’ lack of English vocabulary knowledge is a
significant obstacle to their understanding of academic texts (Hellekjær, 2005, 2008,
8
(Gregersen et al., 2014, p. 91). These factors reiterate the need for tertiary students to
gain extensive knowledge of academic English and to possess the ability to navigate
between academic discourse in English and Norwegian. Doing so without English
language support from tertiary educational institutions can be especially challenging
in parallel language contexts (e.g., Arnbjörnsdóttir, 2018a, 2020; Henriksen et al.,
2019).
1.5 Establishing the Research Gaps
As shown above, academic vocabulary knowledge is necessary to meet curricular
aims and ensure Norwegian-speaking upper secondary and tertiary students’ text
comprehension. Though there are few vocabulary studies previously conducted in
Norway, studies among upper secondary students in other Nordic countries have
revealed low levels of receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary in English
(Edgarsson, 2018; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015; Warnby, 2023). In his quantitative
study of 417 upper secondary students in Iceland, Edgarsson (2018) found that “the
majority of participants did not reach the minimum passing score” on the academic
level of the VLT (Schmitt et al., 2001) version B (p. 105). This is concerning because
international research has revealed positive correlations between L2 English students’
receptive knowledge of academic vocabulary and academic achievement (Masrai &
Milton, 2018, 2021). In their quantitative study of tertiary students with Arabic as
their L1, Masrai and Milton (2021) found correlations between general and academic
English vocabulary knowledge and academic success, as measured through students’
grade point average (GPA). They concluded that for these L2 English students,
“knowledge of [academic] words, specifically, can make a distinct and measurable
additional contribution to academic success over and above that of general
vocabulary knowledge” (p. 292). Positive correlations have also been shown between
knowledge of academic vocabulary and comprehension of academic reading
materials (Birch & Fulop, 2021; Edgarsson, 2018; Shaw & McMillion, 2011).
Within the Norwegian context, studies indicate that Norwegian upper
secondary and tertiary students’ lack of English vocabulary knowledge is a
significant obstacle to their understanding of academic texts (Hellekjær, 2005, 2008,
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
9
2009, 2012) and lectures in L2 English (Hellekjær, 2010). Lehmann’s (1999)
qualitative research, in which she interviewed British instructors and their Norwegian
students pursuing tertiary studies in the UK, showed that instructors and students
experienced a lack of vocabulary knowledge as the main problem affecting
Norwegian students’ education. One student participant remarked, “We have never
learned the grown-up words. The words we know are of little use here” (Lehmann,
1999, p. 205). Over 20 years later, research among Norwegian students still reveals
similar findings. Bukve (2021) conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of open-
ended questionnaire responses for L2 tertiary students from Iceland, Finland, and
Norway. Her results showed that even the students who were secure in their
knowledge of English questioned how language use is treated and expressed
difficulties with their knowledge of academic English, including vocabulary. One
Norwegian student commented, “it is assumed everyone is proficient in English; this
is not the case … Why don’t we ever get an offer for a course …?” (Bukve, 2021, p.
51).
Busby (2021) analyzed Norwegian-speaking students’ variation in English
vocabulary knowledge and their field of study. Even among first-year students, those
with more required reading in English had better L2 English vocabulary test scores.
She asked if students may choose their education depending on the amount of English
language used in a course, which could seriously limit their options for academic
study and future career plans (Busby, 2021). Despite these research findings, there
remain few studies of academic vocabulary knowledge among Norwegian-speaking
students, suggesting a need for further exploration of the topic. Such research could
test aspects of word knowledge, including features “other than form-meaning
connection” due to the many “challenges that learners face when using language”
(Webb, 2021a, p. 29). The research connected to the current dissertation has tested
receptive form-meaning knowledge and has included investigations of tertiary
students’ conception of academic vocabulary and Graeco-Latin cognate translations.
There is an abundance of cognates with Graeco-Latin origins between
academic English and other European languages. Coxhead (2000) found that over
80% of the Academic Word List (AWL) items were of Graeco-Latin origin. The
10
presence of cognates has been shown to lessen the learning burden5 of these words
for L1 speakers of Romance languages (Cobb, 2000; Petrescu et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, this area of vocabulary research is yet to be explored for speakers of
Scandinavian languages and was an avenue I wished to pursue. The exploration of
Graeco-Latin cognate translations was included as an initial step to discern proficient
L2 English users’ awareness of these cognates because such knowledge may assist
students when navigating between academic languages (see section 2.5.2).
1.6 Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation consists of two main parts: the extended abstract and the published
articles. The current chapter has established the premises, research questions, and
aims for the research, placed the research within the Norwegian educational system,
and outlined research gaps central to the studies presented. It is followed by two
theoretical chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, that situate the research within SLA
and vocabulary acquisition theory. Next, a presentation of the methods and
methodological underpinnings of the research are provided in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
concludes the extended abstract with a summary of the articles and discussions of the
research findings, research contributions, and concluding remarks. The final section
of this dissertation contains the three articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
5 Learning burden is defined as “the amount of effort required to learn” a word (Nation, 2022, p. 49) (see section 2.6).
10
10
presence of cognates has been shown to lessen the learning burden5 of these words
for L1 speakers of Romance languages (Cobb, 2000; Petrescu et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, this area of vocabulary research is yet to be explored for speakers of
Scandinavian languages and was an avenue I wished to pursue. The exploration of
Graeco-Latin cognate translations was included as an initial step to discern proficient
L2 English users’ awareness of these cognates because such knowledge may assist
students when navigating between academic languages (see section 2.5.2).
1.6 Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation consists of two main parts: the extended abstract and the published
articles. The current chapter has established the premises, research questions, and
aims for the research, placed the research within the Norwegian educational system,
and outlined research gaps central to the studies presented. It is followed by two
theoretical chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, that situate the research within SLA
and vocabulary acquisition theory. Next, a presentation of the methods and
methodological underpinnings of the research are provided in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
concludes the extended abstract with a summary of the articles and discussions of the
research findings, research contributions, and concluding remarks. The final section
of this dissertation contains the three articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
5 Learning burden is defined as “the amount of effort required to learn” a word (Nation, 2022, p. 49) (see section 2.6).
10
presence of cognates has been shown to lessen the learning burden5 of these words
for L1 speakers of Romance languages (Cobb, 2000; Petrescu et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, this area of vocabulary research is yet to be explored for speakers of
Scandinavian languages and was an avenue I wished to pursue. The exploration of
Graeco-Latin cognate translations was included as an initial step to discern proficient
L2 English users’ awareness of these cognates because such knowledge may assist
students when navigating between academic languages (see section 2.5.2).
1.6 Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation consists of two main parts: the extended abstract and the published
articles. The current chapter has established the premises, research questions, and
aims for the research, placed the research within the Norwegian educational system,
and outlined research gaps central to the studies presented. It is followed by two
theoretical chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, that situate the research within SLA
and vocabulary acquisition theory. Next, a presentation of the methods and
methodological underpinnings of the research are provided in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
concludes the extended abstract with a summary of the articles and discussions of the
research findings, research contributions, and concluding remarks. The final section
of this dissertation contains the three articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
5 Learning burden is defined as “the amount of effort required to learn” a word (Nation, 2022, p. 49) (see section 2.6).
10
presence of cognates has been shown to lessen the learning burden5 of these words
for L1 speakers of Romance languages (Cobb, 2000; Petrescu et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, this area of vocabulary research is yet to be explored for speakers of
Scandinavian languages and was an avenue I wished to pursue. The exploration of
Graeco-Latin cognate translations was included as an initial step to discern proficient
L2 English users’ awareness of these cognates because such knowledge may assist
students when navigating between academic languages (see section 2.5.2).
1.6 Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation consists of two main parts: the extended abstract and the published
articles. The current chapter has established the premises, research questions, and
aims for the research, placed the research within the Norwegian educational system,
and outlined research gaps central to the studies presented. It is followed by two
theoretical chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, that situate the research within SLA
and vocabulary acquisition theory. Next, a presentation of the methods and
methodological underpinnings of the research are provided in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
concludes the extended abstract with a summary of the articles and discussions of the
research findings, research contributions, and concluding remarks. The final section
of this dissertation contains the three articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
5 Learning burden is defined as “the amount of effort required to learn” a word (Nation, 2022, p. 49) (see section 2.6).
10
10
10
presence of cognates has been shown to lessen the learning burden5 of these words
for L1 speakers of Romance languages (Cobb, 2000; Petrescu et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, this area of vocabulary research is yet to be explored for speakers of
Scandinavian languages and was an avenue I wished to pursue. The exploration of
Graeco-Latin cognate translations was included as an initial step to discern proficient
L2 English users’ awareness of these cognates because such knowledge may assist
students when navigating between academic languages (see section 2.5.2).
1.6 Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation consists of two main parts: the extended abstract and the published
articles. The current chapter has established the premises, research questions, and
aims for the research, placed the research within the Norwegian educational system,
and outlined research gaps central to the studies presented. It is followed by two
theoretical chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, that situate the research within SLA
and vocabulary acquisition theory. Next, a presentation of the methods and
methodological underpinnings of the research are provided in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
concludes the extended abstract with a summary of the articles and discussions of the
research findings, research contributions, and concluding remarks. The final section
of this dissertation contains the three articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
5 Learning burden is defined as “the amount of effort required to learn” a word (Nation, 2022, p. 49) (see section 2.6).
10
presence of cognates has been shown to lessen the learning burden5 of these words
for L1 speakers of Romance languages (Cobb, 2000; Petrescu et al., 2017).
Nonetheless, this area of vocabulary research is yet to be explored for speakers of
Scandinavian languages and was an avenue I wished to pursue. The exploration of
Graeco-Latin cognate translations was included as an initial step to discern proficient
L2 English users’ awareness of these cognates because such knowledge may assist
students when navigating between academic languages (see section 2.5.2).
1.6 Structure of the Dissertation
This dissertation consists of two main parts: the extended abstract and the published
articles. The current chapter has established the premises, research questions, and
aims for the research, placed the research within the Norwegian educational system,
and outlined research gaps central to the studies presented. It is followed by two
theoretical chapters, Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, that situate the research within SLA
and vocabulary acquisition theory. Next, a presentation of the methods and
methodological underpinnings of the research are provided in Chapter 4. Chapter 5
concludes the extended abstract with a summary of the articles and discussions of the
research findings, research contributions, and concluding remarks. The final section
of this dissertation contains the three articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
5 Learning burden is defined as “the amount of effort required to learn” a word (Nation, 2022, p. 49) (see section 2.6).
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
11
2. Academic Vocabulary: A Theoretical Discussion
2.1 Chapter Introduction
The following chapter initiates a discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the
current research, which are closely linked to SLA theory, the conceptualization and
development of general academic vocabulary as a construct, and conceptualizations
of vocabulary knowledge. Academic vocabulary is first defined and followed by an
examination of the link between corpus linguistics within usage-based SLA theory
and the nature of academic vocabulary. The ways in which the construct can be
linked to learning burden are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of
relevant national and international vocabulary and reading research as an extension of
the discussion of research presented in section 1.5. Because the educational contexts
in the other Nordic countries are very similar to those in Norway, the international
research referred to is largely from this region.
2.2 Defining Academic Vocabulary
For this research, the terms academic vocabulary, general purpose academic
vocabulary, and core academic vocabulary have been used synonymously. As defined
earlier, the terms refer to lexis that occurs more frequently in academic texts than in
general English discourse, independent of academic subject or field of study (Charles
& Pecorari, 2016; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014). This definition is
closely linked to corpus linguistics and the development of academic word lists,
which will be discussed further in the following sections of this chapter.
Academic vocabulary is often described as a category of words falling
between general and technical lexis (Coxhead, 2020; Nation, 2022). Some words are
polysemous and can carry more general and subject-specific meanings but share a
common base meaning. The verb to derive, present on Coxhead’s (2000) Academic
Word List (AWL) and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) Academic Vocabulary List
(AVL), has very subject-specific meanings in chemistry, such as “to obtain (a
compound) from another, as by partial replacement,” but also more general meanings,
for example “to obtain by some process of reasoning, inference or deduction …”
12
(Oxford University Press, 2024, Definitions 1.6.e., 1.7). Nonetheless, many subject-
specific words occur only within a particular field of study, such as abaxial in botany
referring to “the surface of an organ, esp. a leaf, which during development initially
faces away from the main axis or stem” (Oxford University Press, 2023, Definition
1). Corpus linguistic studies have helped define technical (e.g., Chung & Nation,
2004; Mukundan & Jin, 2012) and general academic vocabularies (e.g., Coxhead,
2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014).
2.3 Corpus Linguistics and Usage-based Approaches to SLA
From a theoretical perspective, corpus-linguistic studies are placed within usage-
based approaches to SLA because they explore authentic texts and, thus, allow for the
study of language in use. Corpora is here defined as collections of “authentic
language, either written or spoken, which has been compiled for a particular purpose”
(Flowerdew, 2012, p. 3). Dolgova and Tyler (2019) argue that while SLA theories
such as cognitive linguistics have a comprehensive theory of language that “acts as a
lens” to view language, “corpus-based approaches allow for consulting and finding
‘answers’ in authentic usage to inform subsequent decisions that have to do with
language teaching, learning, and use” (p. 14). Therefore, there is value in pairing
cognitive theory, such as usage-based approaches, with corpus linguistic studies of
naturally occurring vocabulary patterns, as each can support the other. An example is
reflected in the relationship between exemplar-based language acquisition and
frequency. Focus on word frequency to set language learning goals also shows
recognition of how vocabulary knowledge can be expanded through meeting differing
exemplars of words in use (see section 3.2.1). Also, observations of naturally
occurring patterns in academic discourse have provided indications of a core
academic vocabulary and have led to the development of academic word lists.
2.4 Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Academic Word Lists
2.4.1 General Academic Word Lists for Written English
Technological advancements within corpora compilation and analysis have resulted
in the growth of corpus linguistic studies in SLA research in general (Tracy-Ventura
12
12
(Oxford University Press, 2024, Definitions 1.6.e., 1.7). Nonetheless, many subject-
specific words occur only within a particular field of study, such as abaxial in botany
referring to “the surface of an organ, esp. a leaf, which during development initially
faces away from the main axis or stem” (Oxford University Press, 2023, Definition
1). Corpus linguistic studies have helped define technical (e.g., Chung & Nation,
2004; Mukundan & Jin, 2012) and general academic vocabularies (e.g., Coxhead,
2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014).
2.3 Corpus Linguistics and Usage-based Approaches to SLA
From a theoretical perspective, corpus-linguistic studies are placed within usage-
based approaches to SLA because they explore authentic texts and, thus, allow for the
study of language in use. Corpora is here defined as collections of “authentic
language, either written or spoken, which has been compiled for a particular purpose”
(Flowerdew, 2012, p. 3). Dolgova and Tyler (2019) argue that while SLA theories
such as cognitive linguistics have a comprehensive theory of language that “acts as a
lens” to view language, “corpus-based approaches allow for consulting and finding
‘answers’ in authentic usage to inform subsequent decisions that have to do with
language teaching, learning, and use” (p. 14). Therefore, there is value in pairing
cognitive theory, such as usage-based approaches, with corpus linguistic studies of
naturally occurring vocabulary patterns, as each can support the other. An example is
reflected in the relationship between exemplar-based language acquisition and
frequency. Focus on word frequency to set language learning goals also shows
recognition of how vocabulary knowledge can be expanded through meeting differing
exemplars of words in use (see section 3.2.1). Also, observations of naturally
occurring patterns in academic discourse have provided indications of a core
academic vocabulary and have led to the development of academic word lists.
2.4 Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Academic Word Lists
2.4.1 General Academic Word Lists for Written English
Technological advancements within corpora compilation and analysis have resulted
in the growth of corpus linguistic studies in SLA research in general (Tracy-Ventura
12
(Oxford University Press, 2024, Definitions 1.6.e., 1.7). Nonetheless, many subject-
specific words occur only within a particular field of study, such as abaxial in botany
referring to “the surface of an organ, esp. a leaf, which during development initially
faces away from the main axis or stem” (Oxford University Press, 2023, Definition
1). Corpus linguistic studies have helped define technical (e.g., Chung & Nation,
2004; Mukundan & Jin, 2012) and general academic vocabularies (e.g., Coxhead,
2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014).
2.3 Corpus Linguistics and Usage-based Approaches to SLA
From a theoretical perspective, corpus-linguistic studies are placed within usage-
based approaches to SLA because they explore authentic texts and, thus, allow for the
study of language in use. Corpora is here defined as collections of “authentic
language, either written or spoken, which has been compiled for a particular purpose”
(Flowerdew, 2012, p. 3). Dolgova and Tyler (2019) argue that while SLA theories
such as cognitive linguistics have a comprehensive theory of language that “acts as a
lens” to view language, “corpus-based approaches allow for consulting and finding
‘answers’ in authentic usage to inform subsequent decisions that have to do with
language teaching, learning, and use” (p. 14). Therefore, there is value in pairing
cognitive theory, such as usage-based approaches, with corpus linguistic studies of
naturally occurring vocabulary patterns, as each can support the other. An example is
reflected in the relationship between exemplar-based language acquisition and
frequency. Focus on word frequency to set language learning goals also shows
recognition of how vocabulary knowledge can be expanded through meeting differing
exemplars of words in use (see section 3.2.1). Also, observations of naturally
occurring patterns in academic discourse have provided indications of a core
academic vocabulary and have led to the development of academic word lists.
2.4 Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Academic Word Lists
2.4.1 General Academic Word Lists for Written English
Technological advancements within corpora compilation and analysis have resulted
in the growth of corpus linguistic studies in SLA research in general (Tracy-Ventura
12
(Oxford University Press, 2024, Definitions 1.6.e., 1.7). Nonetheless, many subject-
specific words occur only within a particular field of study, such as abaxial in botany
referring to “the surface of an organ, esp. a leaf, which during development initially
faces away from the main axis or stem” (Oxford University Press, 2023, Definition
1). Corpus linguistic studies have helped define technical (e.g., Chung & Nation,
2004; Mukundan & Jin, 2012) and general academic vocabularies (e.g., Coxhead,
2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014).
2.3 Corpus Linguistics and Usage-based Approaches to SLA
From a theoretical perspective, corpus-linguistic studies are placed within usage-
based approaches to SLA because they explore authentic texts and, thus, allow for the
study of language in use. Corpora is here defined as collections of “authentic
language, either written or spoken, which has been compiled for a particular purpose”
(Flowerdew, 2012, p. 3). Dolgova and Tyler (2019) argue that while SLA theories
such as cognitive linguistics have a comprehensive theory of language that “acts as a
lens” to view language, “corpus-based approaches allow for consulting and finding
‘answers’ in authentic usage to inform subsequent decisions that have to do with
language teaching, learning, and use” (p. 14). Therefore, there is value in pairing
cognitive theory, such as usage-based approaches, with corpus linguistic studies of
naturally occurring vocabulary patterns, as each can support the other. An example is
reflected in the relationship between exemplar-based language acquisition and
frequency. Focus on word frequency to set language learning goals also shows
recognition of how vocabulary knowledge can be expanded through meeting differing
exemplars of words in use (see section 3.2.1). Also, observations of naturally
occurring patterns in academic discourse have provided indications of a core
academic vocabulary and have led to the development of academic word lists.
2.4 Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Academic Word Lists
2.4.1 General Academic Word Lists for Written English
Technological advancements within corpora compilation and analysis have resulted
in the growth of corpus linguistic studies in SLA research in general (Tracy-Ventura
12
12
12
(Oxford University Press, 2024, Definitions 1.6.e., 1.7). Nonetheless, many subject-
specific words occur only within a particular field of study, such as abaxial in botany
referring to “the surface of an organ, esp. a leaf, which during development initially
faces away from the main axis or stem” (Oxford University Press, 2023, Definition
1). Corpus linguistic studies have helped define technical (e.g., Chung & Nation,
2004; Mukundan & Jin, 2012) and general academic vocabularies (e.g., Coxhead,
2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014).
2.3 Corpus Linguistics and Usage-based Approaches to SLA
From a theoretical perspective, corpus-linguistic studies are placed within usage-
based approaches to SLA because they explore authentic texts and, thus, allow for the
study of language in use. Corpora is here defined as collections of “authentic
language, either written or spoken, which has been compiled for a particular purpose”
(Flowerdew, 2012, p. 3). Dolgova and Tyler (2019) argue that while SLA theories
such as cognitive linguistics have a comprehensive theory of language that “acts as a
lens” to view language, “corpus-based approaches allow for consulting and finding
‘answers’ in authentic usage to inform subsequent decisions that have to do with
language teaching, learning, and use” (p. 14). Therefore, there is value in pairing
cognitive theory, such as usage-based approaches, with corpus linguistic studies of
naturally occurring vocabulary patterns, as each can support the other. An example is
reflected in the relationship between exemplar-based language acquisition and
frequency. Focus on word frequency to set language learning goals also shows
recognition of how vocabulary knowledge can be expanded through meeting differing
exemplars of words in use (see section 3.2.1). Also, observations of naturally
occurring patterns in academic discourse have provided indications of a core
academic vocabulary and have led to the development of academic word lists.
2.4 Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Academic Word Lists
2.4.1 General Academic Word Lists for Written English
Technological advancements within corpora compilation and analysis have resulted
in the growth of corpus linguistic studies in SLA research in general (Tracy-Ventura
12
(Oxford University Press, 2024, Definitions 1.6.e., 1.7). Nonetheless, many subject-
specific words occur only within a particular field of study, such as abaxial in botany
referring to “the surface of an organ, esp. a leaf, which during development initially
faces away from the main axis or stem” (Oxford University Press, 2023, Definition
1). Corpus linguistic studies have helped define technical (e.g., Chung & Nation,
2004; Mukundan & Jin, 2012) and general academic vocabularies (e.g., Coxhead,
2000; Gardner & Davies, 2014).
2.3 Corpus Linguistics and Usage-based Approaches to SLA
From a theoretical perspective, corpus-linguistic studies are placed within usage-
based approaches to SLA because they explore authentic texts and, thus, allow for the
study of language in use. Corpora is here defined as collections of “authentic
language, either written or spoken, which has been compiled for a particular purpose”
(Flowerdew, 2012, p. 3). Dolgova and Tyler (2019) argue that while SLA theories
such as cognitive linguistics have a comprehensive theory of language that “acts as a
lens” to view language, “corpus-based approaches allow for consulting and finding
‘answers’ in authentic usage to inform subsequent decisions that have to do with
language teaching, learning, and use” (p. 14). Therefore, there is value in pairing
cognitive theory, such as usage-based approaches, with corpus linguistic studies of
naturally occurring vocabulary patterns, as each can support the other. An example is
reflected in the relationship between exemplar-based language acquisition and
frequency. Focus on word frequency to set language learning goals also shows
recognition of how vocabulary knowledge can be expanded through meeting differing
exemplars of words in use (see section 3.2.1). Also, observations of naturally
occurring patterns in academic discourse have provided indications of a core
academic vocabulary and have led to the development of academic word lists.
2.4 Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Academic Word Lists
2.4.1 General Academic Word Lists for Written English
Technological advancements within corpora compilation and analysis have resulted
in the growth of corpus linguistic studies in SLA research in general (Tracy-Ventura
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
13
& Paquot, 2021) and the increased development of vocabulary lists in particular
(Anthony, 2020). Using current computer technology, corpus linguistics researchers
can compile vast databases of naturally occurring spoken and written text for their
studies, including academic texts. Analyses of large corpora containing academic
discourse in English have revealed tendencies for some words to occur across
academic subjects more frequently than in general language. From this research,
academic word lists have been developed to assist L2 English students focus their
vocabulary learning efforts (Browne et al., 2013; Coxhead, 2000; Gardner & Davies,
2014; Paquot, 2010). The two most widely used lists for general academic English
vocabulary are Coxhead’s (2000) AWL and Gardner and Davies’ (2014) AVL, which
have also been employed for the studies reported here. Consequently, a brief
discussion of the construction and uses of these academic word lists is necessary.
It is important to note that the academic word lists discussed here apply to
written English and single-word items only. The AWL and AVL were constructed
using corpora of authentic academic texts from several academic disciplines to
identify lexis that occurred more frequently in the academic corpora than in corpora
of general English. The corpus gathered for Coxhead’s (2000) AWL included 3.5
million tokens of written academic texts within the disciplines of the Arts, Science,
Law, and Commerce. The texts originated from a variety of countries, including New
Zealand, the UK, and the US. The corpus Gardner and Davies (2014) used to
construct the AVL was much larger than that used by Coxhead (2000), due in part to
technological advancements over the 10-year period that separated the development
of the two lists. The academic sections of the Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA) consisted of 120 million words of written academic materials from
nine academic disciplines, all published in the US (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 313).
Another similarity between the AWL and AVL is that list items were sourced
by analyses of range and frequency of occurrence and compared to corpora of general
English. Frequency expresses the overall occurrence of a word, lemma, or word
family6 in a given corpus, and range analyses assess the number of texts in a corpus
6 A word family refers to a grouping of words with a headword and its inflected and derived forms. Lemma and word family
distinctions will be discussed in detail below.
14
in which the item is found. For the AWL, inclusion criteria for range included word
list items occurring “at least 10 times in each of the four main sections … and in 15
or more of the 28 subject areas” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Regarding the word
frequency criterion, “a word family had to occur at least 100 times in the Academic
Corpus” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Word selection for the AVL regarding range was
determined using the criteria that a lemma must occur for “at least 20% of the
expected frequency in at least seven of the nine academic disciplines” (Gardner &
Davies, 2014, p. 315). In addition, Gardner and Davies applied a dispersion criterion
of 0.80, which allowed them to assess further “how ‘evenly’ a word is spread across
the corpus” (p. 316), and a discipline measure to lessen the possibility of selecting
discipline-specific and technical words. For the discipline measure, “a word [could
not] occur more than three times the expected frequency (per million words) in any of
the nine disciplines” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 316). For frequency distribution,
“the word (lemma) must be at least 50% higher in [the] academic corpus than in the
non-academic portion of COCA (per million words)” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p.
313).
There are also important differences between the two academic vocabulary
lists. For the AWL, the 2000 most frequent word families, as defined on the General
Service List (GSL) (West, 1953), were extracted from Coxhead’s corpus. In contrast
to Coxhead (2000), Gardner and Davies (2014) did not extract high-frequency words
from their corpus. Within vocabulary research, high-frequency vocabulary most often
refers to the most frequent 1st and 2nd 1,000 word families in a language (Nation,
2022) (see also section 3.2.2). As a result of these item selection differences, more
high-frequency items have been found to occur on the AVL. When comparing the
AVL word family list to the AWL, Nation (2022) found they had approximately 200
word families in common and that the AVL items occurred within the first 3000
BNC/COCA levels, while 96 word families of the AWL were at the 4th 1,000 levels
or beyond (p. 278) (see section 2.5.3). Nation (2017) constructed word family
frequency lists for English with increments of 1,000 word families at each level,
using the British National Corpus (BNC) and the COCA. The present BNC/COCA
list contains 25 lists constructed using frequency and range analyses (Nation, 2017).
14
14
in which the item is found. For the AWL, inclusion criteria for range included word
list items occurring “at least 10 times in each of the four main sections … and in 15
or more of the 28 subject areas” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Regarding the word
frequency criterion, “a word family had to occur at least 100 times in the Academic
Corpus” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Word selection for the AVL regarding range was
determined using the criteria that a lemma must occur for “at least 20% of the
expected frequency in at least seven of the nine academic disciplines” (Gardner &
Davies, 2014, p. 315). In addition, Gardner and Davies applied a dispersion criterion
of 0.80, which allowed them to assess further “how ‘evenly’ a word is spread across
the corpus” (p. 316), and a discipline measure to lessen the possibility of selecting
discipline-specific and technical words. For the discipline measure, “a word [could
not] occur more than three times the expected frequency (per million words) in any of
the nine disciplines” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 316). For frequency distribution,
“the word (lemma) must be at least 50% higher in [the] academic corpus than in the
non-academic portion of COCA (per million words)” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p.
313).
There are also important differences between the two academic vocabulary
lists. For the AWL, the 2000 most frequent word families, as defined on the General
Service List (GSL) (West, 1953), were extracted from Coxhead’s corpus. In contrast
to Coxhead (2000), Gardner and Davies (2014) did not extract high-frequency words
from their corpus. Within vocabulary research, high-frequency vocabulary most often
refers to the most frequent 1st and 2nd 1,000 word families in a language (Nation,
2022) (see also section 3.2.2). As a result of these item selection differences, more
high-frequency items have been found to occur on the AVL. When comparing the
AVL word family list to the AWL, Nation (2022) found they had approximately 200
word families in common and that the AVL items occurred within the first 3000
BNC/COCA levels, while 96 word families of the AWL were at the 4th 1,000 levels
or beyond (p. 278) (see section 2.5.3). Nation (2017) constructed word family
frequency lists for English with increments of 1,000 word families at each level,
using the British National Corpus (BNC) and the COCA. The present BNC/COCA
list contains 25 lists constructed using frequency and range analyses (Nation, 2017).
14
in which the item is found. For the AWL, inclusion criteria for range included word
list items occurring “at least 10 times in each of the four main sections … and in 15
or more of the 28 subject areas” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Regarding the word
frequency criterion, “a word family had to occur at least 100 times in the Academic
Corpus” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Word selection for the AVL regarding range was
determined using the criteria that a lemma must occur for “at least 20% of the
expected frequency in at least seven of the nine academic disciplines” (Gardner &
Davies, 2014, p. 315). In addition, Gardner and Davies applied a dispersion criterion
of 0.80, which allowed them to assess further “how ‘evenly’ a word is spread across
the corpus” (p. 316), and a discipline measure to lessen the possibility of selecting
discipline-specific and technical words. For the discipline measure, “a word [could
not] occur more than three times the expected frequency (per million words) in any of
the nine disciplines” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 316). For frequency distribution,
“the word (lemma) must be at least 50% higher in [the] academic corpus than in the
non-academic portion of COCA (per million words)” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p.
313).
There are also important differences between the two academic vocabulary
lists. For the AWL, the 2000 most frequent word families, as defined on the General
Service List (GSL) (West, 1953), were extracted from Coxhead’s corpus. In contrast
to Coxhead (2000), Gardner and Davies (2014) did not extract high-frequency words
from their corpus. Within vocabulary research, high-frequency vocabulary most often
refers to the most frequent 1st and 2nd 1,000 word families in a language (Nation,
2022) (see also section 3.2.2). As a result of these item selection differences, more
high-frequency items have been found to occur on the AVL. When comparing the
AVL word family list to the AWL, Nation (2022) found they had approximately 200
word families in common and that the AVL items occurred within the first 3000
BNC/COCA levels, while 96 word families of the AWL were at the 4th 1,000 levels
or beyond (p. 278) (see section 2.5.3). Nation (2017) constructed word family
frequency lists for English with increments of 1,000 word families at each level,
using the British National Corpus (BNC) and the COCA. The present BNC/COCA
list contains 25 lists constructed using frequency and range analyses (Nation, 2017).
14
in which the item is found. For the AWL, inclusion criteria for range included word
list items occurring “at least 10 times in each of the four main sections … and in 15
or more of the 28 subject areas” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Regarding the word
frequency criterion, “a word family had to occur at least 100 times in the Academic
Corpus” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Word selection for the AVL regarding range was
determined using the criteria that a lemma must occur for “at least 20% of the
expected frequency in at least seven of the nine academic disciplines” (Gardner &
Davies, 2014, p. 315). In addition, Gardner and Davies applied a dispersion criterion
of 0.80, which allowed them to assess further “how ‘evenly’ a word is spread across
the corpus” (p. 316), and a discipline measure to lessen the possibility of selecting
discipline-specific and technical words. For the discipline measure, “a word [could
not] occur more than three times the expected frequency (per million words) in any of
the nine disciplines” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 316). For frequency distribution,
“the word (lemma) must be at least 50% higher in [the] academic corpus than in the
non-academic portion of COCA (per million words)” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p.
313).
There are also important differences between the two academic vocabulary
lists. For the AWL, the 2000 most frequent word families, as defined on the General
Service List (GSL) (West, 1953), were extracted from Coxhead’s corpus. In contrast
to Coxhead (2000), Gardner and Davies (2014) did not extract high-frequency words
from their corpus. Within vocabulary research, high-frequency vocabulary most often
refers to the most frequent 1st and 2nd 1,000 word families in a language (Nation,
2022) (see also section 3.2.2). As a result of these item selection differences, more
high-frequency items have been found to occur on the AVL. When comparing the
AVL word family list to the AWL, Nation (2022) found they had approximately 200
word families in common and that the AVL items occurred within the first 3000
BNC/COCA levels, while 96 word families of the AWL were at the 4th 1,000 levels
or beyond (p. 278) (see section 2.5.3). Nation (2017) constructed word family
frequency lists for English with increments of 1,000 word families at each level,
using the British National Corpus (BNC) and the COCA. The present BNC/COCA
list contains 25 lists constructed using frequency and range analyses (Nation, 2017).
14
14
14
in which the item is found. For the AWL, inclusion criteria for range included word
list items occurring “at least 10 times in each of the four main sections … and in 15
or more of the 28 subject areas” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Regarding the word
frequency criterion, “a word family had to occur at least 100 times in the Academic
Corpus” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Word selection for the AVL regarding range was
determined using the criteria that a lemma must occur for “at least 20% of the
expected frequency in at least seven of the nine academic disciplines” (Gardner &
Davies, 2014, p. 315). In addition, Gardner and Davies applied a dispersion criterion
of 0.80, which allowed them to assess further “how ‘evenly’ a word is spread across
the corpus” (p. 316), and a discipline measure to lessen the possibility of selecting
discipline-specific and technical words. For the discipline measure, “a word [could
not] occur more than three times the expected frequency (per million words) in any of
the nine disciplines” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 316). For frequency distribution,
“the word (lemma) must be at least 50% higher in [the] academic corpus than in the
non-academic portion of COCA (per million words)” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p.
313).
There are also important differences between the two academic vocabulary
lists. For the AWL, the 2000 most frequent word families, as defined on the General
Service List (GSL) (West, 1953), were extracted from Coxhead’s corpus. In contrast
to Coxhead (2000), Gardner and Davies (2014) did not extract high-frequency words
from their corpus. Within vocabulary research, high-frequency vocabulary most often
refers to the most frequent 1st and 2nd 1,000 word families in a language (Nation,
2022) (see also section 3.2.2). As a result of these item selection differences, more
high-frequency items have been found to occur on the AVL. When comparing the
AVL word family list to the AWL, Nation (2022) found they had approximately 200
word families in common and that the AVL items occurred within the first 3000
BNC/COCA levels, while 96 word families of the AWL were at the 4th 1,000 levels
or beyond (p. 278) (see section 2.5.3). Nation (2017) constructed word family
frequency lists for English with increments of 1,000 word families at each level,
using the British National Corpus (BNC) and the COCA. The present BNC/COCA
list contains 25 lists constructed using frequency and range analyses (Nation, 2017).
14
in which the item is found. For the AWL, inclusion criteria for range included word
list items occurring “at least 10 times in each of the four main sections … and in 15
or more of the 28 subject areas” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Regarding the word
frequency criterion, “a word family had to occur at least 100 times in the Academic
Corpus” (Coxhead, 2000, p. 221). Word selection for the AVL regarding range was
determined using the criteria that a lemma must occur for “at least 20% of the
expected frequency in at least seven of the nine academic disciplines” (Gardner &
Davies, 2014, p. 315). In addition, Gardner and Davies applied a dispersion criterion
of 0.80, which allowed them to assess further “how ‘evenly’ a word is spread across
the corpus” (p. 316), and a discipline measure to lessen the possibility of selecting
discipline-specific and technical words. For the discipline measure, “a word [could
not] occur more than three times the expected frequency (per million words) in any of
the nine disciplines” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p. 316). For frequency distribution,
“the word (lemma) must be at least 50% higher in [the] academic corpus than in the
non-academic portion of COCA (per million words)” (Gardner & Davies, 2014, p.
313).
There are also important differences between the two academic vocabulary
lists. For the AWL, the 2000 most frequent word families, as defined on the General
Service List (GSL) (West, 1953), were extracted from Coxhead’s corpus. In contrast
to Coxhead (2000), Gardner and Davies (2014) did not extract high-frequency words
from their corpus. Within vocabulary research, high-frequency vocabulary most often
refers to the most frequent 1st and 2nd 1,000 word families in a language (Nation,
2022) (see also section 3.2.2). As a result of these item selection differences, more
high-frequency items have been found to occur on the AVL. When comparing the
AVL word family list to the AWL, Nation (2022) found they had approximately 200
word families in common and that the AVL items occurred within the first 3000
BNC/COCA levels, while 96 word families of the AWL were at the 4th 1,000 levels
or beyond (p. 278) (see section 2.5.3). Nation (2017) constructed word family
frequency lists for English with increments of 1,000 word families at each level,
using the British National Corpus (BNC) and the COCA. The present BNC/COCA
list contains 25 lists constructed using frequency and range analyses (Nation, 2017).
15
Another noteworthy difference is how words are counted. There are many
ways to count words, and defining word-counting units is imperative to the
construction of word lists and vocabulary tests (Nation, 2016) (see section 3.4 for
more on tests). The most common word-counting units are lemma and word families.
A lemma includes a headword (e.g., function) and its inflected forms within the same
part of speech (functioned, functioning for the verb form). The noun form, including
function/functions, is counted as a new lemma. The larger unit, word family, contains
a headword (function), inflected forms (functioned, functions), and derived forms
(functional, functionally) (see Nation, 2022 for a detailed description). Coxhead
(2000) used word families when developing her AWL, arguing, with support from
Bauer and Nation (1993), that “comprehending regularly inflected or derived
members of a family does not require much more effort by learners if they know the
base word and if they have control of basic word-building processes” (p. 218).
Gardner and Davies (2014), however, chose to use lemma to separate grammatical
parts of speech because some research has indicated that “knowledge of derivational
word relationships comes much later than knowledge of inflectional word
relationships” (p. 308). However, they also developed a word family list to aid
comparisons between the AVL and AWL (Gardner & Davies, n.d.). Their word
family list was applied to the research in this dissertation.
There is an ongoing discussion within vocabulary research regarding which
word-counting units are most appropriate; this will be discussed further in section
3.4.1. Here, it will suffice to point out that the use of lemma versus word families
resulted in a greater number of items occurring in the AVL, a list of 3000 lemma, in
contrast to the 570 word families occurring in the AWL.
2.4.2 Academic Word Lists for Scandinavian Languages
Academic word lists have also been constructed for languages other than English,
demonstrating researchers’ broad acceptance of the usefulness of defining a general
academic vocabulary. Such lists also provide further evidence of a core academic
vocabulary. Though the Norwegian word list (Fjeld & Saidi, 2016; Hagen et al.,
2015) is the only list for Scandinavian languages used in this research, I have
included a brief presentation of word lists constructed for Swedish (Jansson et al.,
15
Another noteworthy difference is how words are counted. There are many
ways to count words, and defining word-counting units is imperative to the
construction of word lists and vocabulary tests (Nation, 2016) (see section 3.4 for
more on tests). The most common word-counting units are lemma and word families.
A lemma includes a headword (e.g., function) and its inflected forms within the same
part of speech (functioned, functioning for the verb form). The noun form, including
function/functions, is counted as a new lemma. The larger unit, word family, contains
a headword (function), inflected forms (functioned, functions), and derived forms
(functional, functionally) (see Nation, 2022 for a detailed description). Coxhead
(2000) used word families when developing her AWL, arguing, with support from
Bauer and Nation (1993), that “comprehending regularly inflected or derived
members of a family does not require much more effort by learners if they know the
base word and if they have control of basic word-building processes” (p. 218).
Gardner and Davies (2014), however, chose to use lemma to separate grammatical
parts of speech because some research has indicated that “knowledge of derivational
word relationships comes much later than knowledge of inflectional word
relationships” (p. 308). However, they also developed a word family list to aid
comparisons between the AVL and AWL (Gardner & Davies, n.d.). Their word
family list was applied to the research in this dissertation.
There is an ongoing discussion within vocabulary research regarding which
word-counting units are most appropriate; this will be discussed further in section
3.4.1. Here, it will suffice to point out that the use of lemma versus word families
resulted in a greater number of items occurring in the AVL, a list of 3000 lemma, in
contrast to the 570 word families occurring in the AWL.
2.4.2 Academic Word Lists for Scandinavian Languages
Academic word lists have also been constructed for languages other than English,
demonstrating researchers’ broad acceptance of the usefulness of defining a general
academic vocabulary. Such lists also provide further evidence of a core academic
vocabulary. Though the Norwegian word list (Fjeld & Saidi, 2016; Hagen et al.,
2015) is the only list for Scandinavian languages used in this research, I have
included a brief presentation of word lists constructed for Swedish (Jansson et al.,
15
Another noteworthy difference is how words are counted. There are many
ways to count words, and defining word-counting units is imperative to the
construction of word lists and vocabulary tests (Nation, 2016) (see section 3.4 for
more on tests). The most common word-counting units are lemma and word families.
A lemma includes a headword (e.g., function) and its inflected forms within the same
part of speech (functioned, functioning for the verb form). The noun form, including
function/functions, is counted as a new lemma. The larger unit, word family, contains
a headword (function), inflected forms (functioned, functions), and derived forms
(functional, functionally) (see Nation, 2022 for a detailed description). Coxhead
(2000) used word families when developing her AWL, arguing, with support from
Bauer and Nation (1993), that “comprehending regularly inflected or derived
members of a family does not require much more effort by learners if they know the
base word and if they have control of basic word-building processes” (p. 218).
Gardner and Davies (2014), however, chose to use lemma to separate grammatical
parts of speech because some research has indicated that “knowledge of derivational
word relationships comes much later than knowledge of inflectional word
relationships” (p. 308). However, they also developed a word family list to aid
comparisons between the AVL and AWL (Gardner & Davies, n.d.). Their word
family list was applied to the research in this dissertation.
There is an ongoing discussion within vocabulary research regarding which
word-counting units are most appropriate; this will be discussed further in section
3.4.1. Here, it will suffice to point out that the use of lemma versus word families
resulted in a greater number of items occurring in the AVL, a list of 3000 lemma, in
contrast to the 570 word families occurring in the AWL.
2.4.2 Academic Word Lists for Scandinavian Languages
Academic word lists have also been constructed for languages other than English,
demonstrating researchers’ broad acceptance of the usefulness of defining a general
academic vocabulary. Such lists also provide further evidence of a core academic
vocabulary. Though the Norwegian word list (Fjeld & Saidi, 2016; Hagen et al.,
2015) is the only list for Scandinavian languages used in this research, I have
included a brief presentation of word lists constructed for Swedish (Jansson et al.,
15
Another noteworthy difference is how words are counted. There are many
ways to count words, and defining word-counting units is imperative to the
construction of word lists and vocabulary tests (Nation, 2016) (see section 3.4 for
more on tests). The most common word-counting units are lemma and word families.
A lemma includes a headword (e.g., function) and its inflected forms within the same
part of speech (functioned, functioning for the verb form). The noun form, including
function/functions, is counted as a new lemma. The larger unit, word family, contains
a headword (function), inflected forms (functioned, functions), and derived forms
(functional, functionally) (see Nation, 2022 for a detailed description). Coxhead
(2000) used word families when developing her AWL, arguing, with support from
Bauer and Nation (1993), that “comprehending regularly inflected or derived
members of a family does not require much more effort by learners if they know the
base word and if they have control of basic word-building processes” (p. 218).
Gardner and Davies (2014), however, chose to use