Page 201 - Jurnal Kurikulum BPK 2020

In addition, the inconsistent results of either VB or VD contributing more to reading
comprehension has spurred the interest to determine whether VB or VD has more predictive
power in the MUET reading comprehension component. The inconsistency in the findings of
the various studies might have been caused by the different types of reading comprehension
tests employed. For instance, Akbarian and Alavi (2013) found that the Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL) reading subtest is more associated with VB than the International
English Language Testing System (IELTS) test. They reported that the explained variance of
VB was 0.27 in the IELTS reading comprehension test and 0.298 in the TOEFL reading
comprehension test and the overall results show that VB has predictive power in both reading
tests. However, they did not include VD as one of the predictors. Therefore, it would be
interesting to include VD into the study to determine the link between VB and VD and the
MUET reading comprehension component among Malaysian pre-university students.
Since the VB is also analysed in the present study, it would be noteworthy to explore
the VB needed for reading comprehension (referred to as vocabulary threshold for reading). To
date, only a few studies has explored the correlation between VB and MUET reading
comprehension component (e.g. Arifur Rahman, 2017; Sarimah Shamsudin & Nor Hazwani
Munirah Lateh Anie Attan, 2016; Tengku Shahraniza Tengku Abdul Jalal, Raeidah Ariff, Isma
Suhaila Ismail, & Al-Mansor Abu Said, 2015)

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF BREADTH AND DEPTH OF VOCABULARY
KNOWLEDGE

The dimensions of breadth and depth were initially mentioned by Anderson and
Freebody (1981) but VD was loosely described as knowing and understanding a word
sufficiently when encountering it through listening or reading. Meanwhile, Anderson and
Freebody (1981) state that VB means a learner would have at least some significant aspects of
meaning of the vocabulary. In the attempt to define aspects and components of vocabulary
knowledge, a number of prolific L2 researchers (e.g. Haastrup & Henriksen, 2000; Meara,
1996; Qian, 1998, 1999, 2002; Read, 1998, 2004; Wesche & Paribakht, 1996) recognize two
dimensions of it, namely breadth and depth.
Nation (1990, 2001) has proposed eight types of word knowledge which are word parts,
written form, spoken form, form and meaning, concepts and referents, grammar, collocation
and constraints on use. However, only form and meaning are considered as VB. On the other
hand, Qian (2002) developed a framework of vocabulary knowledge which comprises four
dimensions, i.e. vocabulary size, depth of vocabulary knowledge, lexical organization, and
automaticity of receptive–productive knowledge. Another framework which has breadth and
depth as lexical space has been proposed by Daller, Milton, and Treffers-Daller (2007). In
lexical space, a learner's vocabulary knowledge is described as a three-dimensional space,
where each dimension represents an aspect of knowing a word. Thus, in all the frameworks
mentioned, there is an obvious agreement that vocabulary knowledge should have at least two
dimensions which are breadth and depth.
Breadth of vocabulary knowledge is also known as vocabulary size (Tan & Goh, 2017)
and it is easier to measure compared to depth of vocabulary knowledge. As opposed to
vocabulary breadth, depth of vocabulary knowledge is the quality of lexical knowledge, or how
well a learner knows a word (Meara, 1996; Milton, 2009; Read, 1993, 2000).
There are various components in VD such as pronunciation, spelling, register, as well
as stylistic and morphological features (Richards, 1976; Nation, 1990; Meara, 1996; Haastrup
& Henriksen, 2000). It even extends to the knowledge of the word’s syntactic and semantic
relationship with other words in the language including collocational meanings and knowledge
of antonymy, synonymy, and hyponymy (Chapelle, 1994; Henriksen, 1999; Read, 2000). Of

192