作者簡(jiǎn)介：周祁林（1974—），男，布依族，貴州三都人，碩士，黔南民族師范學(xué)院外語(yǔ)系副教授，研究方向：第二語(yǔ)言習(xí)得。Abstract：There are some certain factors affecting L2（English）vocabulary acquisition such as L2（English）proficiency，readers purpose and the habit of reading，and the difficulty of target words and context，among which the first plays a key role.The paper，through a review of the relevant experimental researches，reaches a conclusion that L2（English）proficiency does influence much upon L2 vocabulary acquisition.

Key words：L2（English）proficiency；vocabulary acquisition；Factors

There exist various factors affecting L2（English）vocabulary acquisition including L2（English）proficiency，readers purpose and the habit of reading，as well as the difficulty of target words and context.The studies below will be focusing on the effect of L2 proficiency on ESL/EFL learners vocabulary acquisition and retention.The role of L2 proficiency in lexical inferencing has been addressed in a number of research studies（eg.，Bengeleil & Paribakht，1999；Chern，1993；Fraser，1999；Haastrup，1991；Haynes，1993；Morrison，1996，cited in Bengeleil&Paribakht，2004）.Haastrup（1991）（as cited in Kaivapanah and Alavi，2008）held that L2 proficiency is a decisive factor in lexical inferencing and there is threshold level of L2 proficiency that learners have to reach first before they are able to use effective inferencing.In order to investigate whether there exists a connection between EFL learners L2 proficiency and their lexical inferencing ability，Kaivanpanah and Alavi（2008）conducted an experimental study on 102 subjects consisting of 42 male and 60 female，who were Persian EFL undergraduates from different universities，majoring in different directions.The researchers firstly designed a test with 20 vocabulary，20grammar and 10 reading comprehension questions to judge these subjects level of L2 proficiency.According the test score，they were divided into three groups：low intermediate group，intermediate group and upper intermediate group.Two texts whose topics were familiar to the subjects were selected.The researchers asked other 15 university students of similar proficiency to read the two texts and marked the unfamiliar words which were used as a criterion for the researchers to select target words in the final test.Then the researchers modified the two texts in syntax into a complex text and a simple text according to ‘the basic principles suggested by Yong（1999），Oh（2001）and Yanoetal（1994）（as cited in Kaivanpanah and Alavi，2008）.After one week，the two modified text including 16 underlined target words（each：8）were presented to the subjects，who read the texts and selected the word which has the closest meaning to the underlined word from four items designed by the researchers.Employing the measurement instrument—ANOVA，the researchers examined through variables showed on ANOVA whether ‘the syntactic complexity of text（Kaivanpanah and Alavi，2008，p.179）affected the subjects lexical inferencing ability across L2 proficiency level.The statistical data indicated that ‘syntactic complexity influenced the ability to infer the target words and L2 proficiency level did affect lexical inferencing as well.The researchers believed their experimental result was consistent with the previous researches（Laufer and Sim，1985；Schouten Van Parreren，1992，cited in Kaivanpanah and Alavi，2008）.In other words，the more proficient the learners L2 level，the more capable he/she is of inferring the meanings of words.Kaivanpanah and Alavi attributed the disparity in the ability of inferring the meanings of unknown words to the application of the contextual clues.They maintained that proficient learners are more capable than limited proficient counterparts of using contextual cues to infer the meanings of unknown words due to the latter groups limited knowledge in L2.Through the experiment，Kaivanpanah and Alavi reached such a conclusion as ‘Advanced L2 learners tend to infer more since they know enough words and on the basis of the sufficient and clear context created by the known words they feel they can infer the meaning of unknown words（Kaivanpanah and Alavi，2008，p.178）. To the other，the higher the learners L2 proficiency，the more possible success for them to infer the meanings of unknown words from context.Because more words they know help creating a clear context.endprint

Being different from Kaivanpanah and Alavi（2008）study，Bengeleil and Paribakht，in their 2004 study，investigated the relationship between L2 proficiency and lexical inferencing from two aspects.On one hand，Bengeleil and Paribakht noticed no matter what L2 proficiency level learners were at，they acquired L2（English）vocabulary through context，particularly using almost the same knowledge sources and contextual cues to infer the meanings of the unknown words during reading.Thereupon，they reached a conclusion that ‘L2 reading proficiency did not significantly affect their lexical inferencing behavior（Bengeleil and Paribakht，2004，p.240）.They attributed the similarity in the two experimental groups inferrencing behavior to the commonality in L1 educational background and culture and the fact that they used the same text with the same target words.Nonetheless，the conclusion above only shows that L2 proficiency seems not to have a great effect on lexical inferencing behavior rather than lexical inferencing success.

Employing the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale（VKS），Bengeleil and Paribakht made an analysis of statistical data on the result of tests.It was，however，indicated that the advanced group made more correct inferences than the intermediate group.The researchers argued that it was because of less proficient learners lower level of text comprehension and vocabulary knowledge that led to the result above.In general，on one hand，the study insisted that learners L2（English）proficiency seemed to have little effect on their vocabulary inferencing behavior.On the other hand，the study maintained that though L2（English）proficiency did not influence much in the learners inferencing behavior（choice in inferencing ways），it played a vital part in the possibility of their success inference.Bengeleil and Paribakht held that their argument was consistent with Haynes（1993）and Morrisons（1996）studies.

In order to examine whether there exists the connection between the growth of active vocabulary and the L2 proficiency level of learners or not，Laufer（1991）divided his subjects（47Israeli EFL first-year university students）into two groups.Laufer evaluated their writing performance by an essay-writing task at the beginning of an academic year and did it again on this first group（22 subjects）at the end of first semester and on the second group（25 subjects）at the end of the second semester so as to observe the growth and richness of their vocabulary.On this pilot study，four variables（lexical variation，lexical density，lexical originality and lexical sophistication）（Laufer，1991）were adopted as measurements.The findings indicated that some advanced subjects made no progress or even regressed in lexical richness whereas those who made much progress were below the average L2 proficiency level of the class.In other words，learners had to make an effort to reach the average level of the class in vocabulary richness，which could be explained by the element-‘need emphasized in Laufer and Hulstijin（2001）theory：Motivational –Cognitive Involvement.The researchers explained the reason that some advanced subjects regressed in their active vocabulary was that they“adopted the strategy of ‘playing it safe and used a limited stock of words that was most familiar to them（Laufer 1991，p.444）.”To put in another way，these learners utilized most of words they knew well in their writing performance to avoid making mistakes.endprint

In a following pilot study，taking listening as the media，Vidal（2003）investigated the relationship between L2（English）proficiency and vocabulary acquisition.The experimental subjects 116 Spanish EFL first-year university students took a pre-test examining their knowledge of the target words.

The result also indicates that learners L2（English）Proficiency does influtence his Vocabulary acquisition.

The more English vocabulary an ESL/EFL school-aged learner acquires，the higher proficiency in English language he reaches.There are some possible factors influencing learners L2（English）vocabulary acquisition and retention，among which ‘L2（English）proficiency is a key factor.The present research，through an argument and analysis of two major L2（English）vocabulary acquisition strategies and a vital factor influencing learners L2（English）vocabulary acquisition and retention，indicates that it is quite important and critical for ESL/EFL school-aged learners to be aware of the key factor affecting their vocabulary acquisition.

Reference：

[1]Bengeleil，N.F.& Paribakht，T.S.L2 Reading Proficiency and Lexical Inferencing by University EFL Learners〖=J〗.Canadian Modern Language Review，2004，61（02）：225—249.

[2]Hunt，A.&Beglar，D.A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary〖=J〗.Reading in a Foreign Language，2005，17（01）：23—59.

[3]Hulstijin，J.& Laufer，B.Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition〖=J〗.Language Learning，2001，51（03）：539—558.

[4]Jarvis，S.Methodological Rigor in the Study of Transfer：Identifying L1 Influence in the Interlanguage Lexicon〖=J〗.Language Learning，2003，50（02）：245—309.

[5]Kaivapanah&Alavi.The role of linguistic knowledge in word-meaning inferencing〖=J〗.System，2008（36）：172—195.endprint