CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 206Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningReading and Literacy Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Second Language Lexical Knowledge and Listening Comprehension

Bonk, William J.·2000·International Journal of Listening
DOI 10.1080/10904018.2000.10499033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study investigates the interaction between lexical knowledge and listening comprehension in a second language. Fifty-nine Japanese university students of low-intermediate to advanced English ability were tested using first-language recall protocols as comprehension measures, and dictation as measures of lexical familiarity on four texts of increasing amounts of low-frequency lexical words. Comprehension correlated with text-lexis familiarity at .45; acceptable comprehension levels were significantly associated with higher text-lexis familiarity; good comprehension seldom occurred with text-lexis familiarity levels lower than 75 percent, but occurred frequently at 90+ percent levels. This pattern was observed equally for learners of high, middle, or low second-language listening proficiency. It is concluded that efficient listening strategies may make comprehending lexically complex texts possible, but most learners seem to need very high lexical familiarity for good comprehension.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10904018.2000.10499033

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bonk W., 1996, Lexical knowledge and listening: What percentage of text-lexis must be known to ensure comprehension?
  2. Bossers B., 1991, AILA Review 8, 45
  3. Hayashi T., 1991, IRAL, 29, 151
  4. Haycock K., 1993, Statview 4.01 [Computer software]
  5. Laufer B., 1989, Special Language, 316
  6. Watson K. W., 1987, Watson-Barker listening test: Facilitation guide, Form A and Form B, video version

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 206

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bonk, W. J.
Affiliations
Kanda University of International Studies (JP)
Corresponding author
Bonk, William J.
Venue
International Journal of Listening
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
14-31
ISSN
  • 1090-4018 (ISSN-L)
  • 1932-586X
DOI
10.1080/10904018.2000.10499033
OpenAlex
W1968246618
Cited by
206
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
International Journal of Listening (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
second language listening comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, word familiarity, low-frequency vocabulary, Japanese learners of English, listening strategies, dictation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review