YOSH OLIMLAR
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/yo
112
THE ROLE OF VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE IN LISTENING COMPREHENSION
Teshaboyeva Nafisa Zubaydulla qizi
Jizzakh Branch of the NationalUniversity of
Uzbekistan named after Mirzo Ulug'bek
The faculty of Psychology, department of Foreign languages
Phylology and foreign languages
Davlatboyeva Ozoda
Student of group 102-23
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14436651
Annotation.
In current era, regardless of age categories, most people are engrossed in
learning a new language. In this article, there is given adequate information about the
importance vocabulary knowledge in listening comprehension.
Key words:
listening comprehension, audios, vocabulary, lexis, communication.
Аннотация
. В настоящее время, независимо от возрастных категорий,
большинство людей поглощены изучением нового языка. В этой статье дана
достаточная информация о важности знания словарного запаса для понимания на слух.
Ключевые слова:
понимание на слух, аудио, словарный запас, лексика,
коммуникация.
INTRODUCTION
The majority of linguists acknowledge that research on second language acquisition is
contingent upon having a sufficient vocabulary. Vocabulary knowledge is crucial for effective
reading comprehension in EFL. However, there has not been much research done on the
relationship between lexical knowledge and listening comprehension, especially EFL listening
comprehension. For this reason, teachers and students have long been perplexed about the
precise role that vocabulary knowledge plays in L2 listening comprehension. Qian (1998) and
Read (1993) have noted that vocabulary often consists of two dimensions: depth and breadth.
Nonetheless, the impact of vocabulary breadth has received more attention in the scant
research on vocabulary and hearing. A growing number of academic studies agree that
language depth plays a crucial role in listening. However, a great deal of empirical research
has been done to determine the precise functions of vocabulary depth and breadth in EFL
listening comprehension.
MAIN BODY
It is generally acknowledged that understanding aural text is an inferential process in
which the listener actively constructs meaning through the employment of two major
knowledge sources: linguistic (e.g., phonological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic
knowledge) and nonlinguistic (e.g., knowledge of the context, topic, or general knowledge of
the world). To make sense of spoken input, the listener applies a variety of the different types
of knowledge through top-down and bottom-up processes, and it is assumed that successful
listening comprehension is the result of a complex interaction between top-level and bottom-
level cues.Besides all, there are several researches done by some researches related to
vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension. For example, Bonk ( 2000 ) similarly
investigated the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension in
EFL but attempted to determine a lexical coverage threshold below which it would be
YOSH OLIMLAR
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/yo
113
impossible for learners to achieve good listening comprehension. Fifty-nine Japanese learners
of English listened to four text passages of increasing lexical difficulty, and Bonk examined the
relationship between the amount of familiar lexis in the listening texts (through dictation) and
gist comprehension (through recall protocols) of the texts. The recall protocols were rated on
a holistic scale from 1 (inferior comprehension) to 4 (good comprehension), the latter being
assigned to participants who “clearly had a complete understanding of the entire story,
mentioning the important main idea and several correct details”. A definite minimum
vocabulary threshold for listening comprehension was not found, but the study showed that
participants who recognized fewer than 80% of the different lexical words (nouns, verbs,
adjective, and adverbs) in the input texts were unlikely to achieve high comprehension scores.
Additionally, the data revealed that 60% of the participants who knew more than 90% of the
lexical word types achieved good comprehension. According to Schmitt ( 2008 ), these fi gures
suggest that 95% of the running words (i.e., word tokens) in the texts had to be known to
enable most of the participants to obtain good comprehension scores. In general, high
dictation scores were associated with better comprehension, although the data only produced
a modest, but signifi cant, Kendall’s tau correlation of .45 between dictation scores and
comprehension scores. The reason for this modest correlation was the fact that some
participants were able to achieve good comprehension on the basis of recognizing less than
75% of the lexical word types in a text. In contrast, there were several examples of
participants who recognized more than 90% of lexical words but did not achieve good
comprehension. These results indicate that the relationship between vocabulary knowledge
and listening comprehension is complex and by no means an unequivocal one and that further
investigation into thresholds of lexical coverage and vocabulary size for adequate listening
comprehension is necessary.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, vocabulary knowledge is considered to be crucially vital element of
developing listening comprehension. As it is suggested language acquisition requires learners
to master vocabulary in that language. For the reason, it is critical to understand most part of
the words spoken in that audial input. Actually, as stated above, listening has different
purposes, such as, listening to practise, listening to communicate, listening to relax and so on.
All of those purposes completed through lexical competence ( vocabulary knowledge).
Therefore, every student planning to master a new language recommended and required to
learn simple words by heart. One by one soon after their level gets increased they begin
learning more advanced vocabulary, since they practice more advanced tests, it is necessary
to be aware of some words related to such topics. These all mean that, no word no
communication, no listening, no reading and no writing at all.
References:
1.
Adolphs , S. , & Schmitt , N . ( 2003 ). Lexical coverage of spoken discourse . Applied
Linguistics , 24 , 425 –438.
2.
Adolphs , S. , & Schmitt , N . ( 2004 ). Vocabulary coverage according to spoken discourse
context . In P. Bogaards & B . Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp. 39 –49).
Amsterdam : Benjamins .
YOSH OLIMLAR
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/yo
114
3.
Anderson , R. C. , & Freediv , P . ( 1981 ). Vocabulary knowledge . In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.),
Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77 –117). Newark, DE : International
Reading Associationю
4.
Bejar, I. , Douglas , D. , Jamieson , J. , Nissan , S. , & Turner , J . ( 2000 ). TOEFL 2000
listening Framework (TOEFL monograph series, MS-19) . Princeton, NJ : Educational Testing
Service.
5.
Bonk , W . ( 2000 ). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension .
International Journal of Listening , 14 , 14 –31.
6.
Boroughs , R. ( 2003 ). The change process at the paper level: Paper 4. Listening . In C. J.
Weir & M. Milanovic (Eds.), Studies in language testing 15: Continuity and innovation—
Revising the Cambridge profi ciency in English examination 1913–2002 (pp. 315 –366). New
York : Cambridge University Press .
7.
Buck , G . ( 1992 ). Listening comprehension: Construct validity and trait characteristics .
Language Learning , 42 , 313 –357.
8.
Buck , G . ( 2001 ). Assessing listening . New York : Cambridge University Press .
9.
Chamot , A. U . ( 2005 ). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and
research . Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 25 , 98 –111.
10.
Chujo , K. , &Utiyama,M . ( 2005 ). Understanding the role of text length, sample size and
vocabulary size in determining text coverage . Reading in a Foreign Language, 17, 1 –22.
11.
Clarke , M. A . ( 1980 ). The ‘short circuit’ hypothesis of ESL reading—or when language
competence interferes with reading performance . Modern Language Journal, 64, 203 –209.
12.
Cobb , T . ( 2000 ). The compleat lexical tutor [Web site]. Retrieved September 21, 2007 ,
from www . lextutor . ca .
13.
Conrad , L . ( 1985 ). Semantic versus syntactic cues in listening comprehension . Studies
in Second Language Acquisition , 7 , 59 –72.
14.
Nafisa, T., & Marina, S. (2023). TEACHING AND LEARNING OF ENGLISH VOCABULARY IN
TESL AND TEFL CLASSROOMS. International Journal of Contemporary Scientific and
Technical Research, 465-469.
15.
Teshaboyeva, N., & Rayimberdiyev, S. (2023, May). THE IMPORTANCE OF USING
MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING ENGLISH CLASSES. In Academic International
Conference on Multi-Disciplinary Studies and Education (Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 149-153).
16.
Nafisa, T., & Marina, S. (2023). TEACHING AND LEARNING OF ENGLISH VOCABULARY IN
TESL AND TEFL CLASSROOMS. International Journal of Contemporary Scientific and
Technical Research, 465-469.
17.
Ibrohimovna, X. M. (2023). The Importance of Methods in Language Teaching Process.
Web of Scholars: Multidimensional Research Journal, 2(1), 20-23.
18.
Тешабоева, Н. (2023). Teaching writing as a major part of productive skills in mixed
ability classes . Информатика и инженерные технологии, 1(2), 652–656. извлечено от
https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/computer-engineering/article/view/25759
19.
Musayeva, S. I. (2024). ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF INTERACTIVE
METHODS INTRODUCING THE СLT (СOMMUNIСATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING)
APPROACH. World Scientific Research Journal, 32(1), 217-219.
20.
Musayeva, S. I., & Mengliyeva, S. S. (2022). Kursantlarning madaniyatlararo
rivojlantirish.
YOSH OLIMLAR
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/yo
115
21.
Teshaboyeva Nafisa Zubaydulla kizi, & Akramov Ibrohimjon. (2023). WORD
FORMATION. COMPOUNDING. "XXI ASRDA INNOVATSION TEXNOLOGIYALAR, FAN VA
TAʼLIM TARAQQIYOTIDAGI DOLZARB MUAMMOLAR" Nomli Respublika Ilmiy-Amaliy
Konferensiyasi, 1(12),
109–113.
Retrieved
from
https://universalpublishings.com/index.php/itfttdm/article/view/3187
