What Is Vocabulary | Lexical Competence — What It Means to Know and Use Vocabulary

LEXICAL COMPETENCE · VOCABULARY KNOWLEDGE · WORD USE · RECEPTIVE VOCABULARY · PRODUCTIVE VOCABULARY · COLLOCATION · REGISTER · RETRIEVAL · ACCURACY · APPROPRIATENESS

Lexical competence is the knowledge of, and ability to use, the vocabulary of a language. The Common European Framework of Reference describes lexical competence as including both lexical elements and grammatical elements. In practical learning terms, lexical competence means more than recognising many words: it means knowing enough about their form, meaning, grammar, collocation, register, frequency and use to understand them accurately and retrieve them when needed.

A learner can have a large vocabulary yet weak lexical competence if many words are only vaguely recognised, mispronounced, used with unnatural collocations or unavailable under time pressure. Another learner can know fewer words but control them deeply. This is why vocabulary size, vocabulary depth, lexical access, lexical accuracy and lexical appropriateness should be treated as related dimensions rather than one score.

This guide explains lexical competence, lexical knowledge, lexical elements, fixed expressions, grammatical elements, receptive and productive vocabulary, word form, word meaning, collocation, grammatical behaviour, register, frequency, automaticity, retrieval, transfer and lexical range. It also shows how to diagnose which part of lexical competence is limiting reading, writing, listening or speaking.

Lexical competence is not how many words sit in memory. It is how reliably those words do useful work.

This is a new umbrella article. Existing eduKateSG owners for Word Knowledge, Vocabulary Size, Breadth/Depth, Lexical Access, Vocabulary Assessment, Receptive Vocabulary and Expressive Vocabulary remain untouched.

1. Lexical competence in one table

Dimension	Core question	Evidence of competence	Common failure
Form	Can I recognise and produce the spoken/written form?	Accurate pronunciation, spelling and word recognition	I know the meaning but cannot identify or spell the word
Meaning	Do I understand the relevant sense and boundaries?	Accurate interpretation and contrast with neighbours	I know a rough synonym but choose the wrong sense
Grammar	Do I know how the word behaves in sentences?	Correct word class, patterns, countability, complementation	Definition is right but sentence is ungrammatical
Collocation	Do I know natural word partnerships?	Strong evidence, make progress, take responsibility	Meaning is understandable but phrase sounds wrong
Register	Do I know where the word fits socially and rhetorically?	Appropriate formal/informal/technical use	Correct word sounds rude, pompous or too casual
Retrieval	Can I reach the word when needed?	Fast recall in speaking/writing	Tip-of-the-tongue or avoidance
Range	Do I have enough lexical alternatives for the task?	Varied but controlled expression	Repetition and vague placeholders
Transfer	Can I use the word in a new context?	Accurate use across topics and genres	Knowledge works only in memorised examples

2. The CEFR definition matters

The CEFR defines lexical competence as knowledge of, and ability to use, the vocabulary of a language. This matters because competence combines knowledge with use.

The CEFR also includes fixed expressions among lexical elements, which means lexical competence extends beyond isolated single words.

A learner therefore needs control of words and conventional multiword units such as phrasal idioms, formulae and other learned wholes.

This broader view aligns with modern vocabulary research: lexical knowledge is multidimensional and performance depends on access as well as storage.

3. Form knowledge

Form knowledge includes spoken form, written form and recognisability across normal variation.

A learner may know the written word subtle yet mispronounce it, or know a spoken word but fail to recognise its spelling.

Orthographic and phonological representations become stronger through repeated accurate exposure.

Form errors can block access before meaning is even considered.

4. Meaning knowledge

Meaning knowledge includes a core sense, sense boundaries, polysemy, connotation and relations to other concepts.

Knowing that mitigate roughly means reduce is useful but incomplete if the learner thinks it means eliminate.

Deep competence supports contrast among near-synonyms and interpretation across contexts.

Meaning quality is therefore relational, not just definitional.

5. Grammatical knowledge

Words belong to classes and constructions. A verb can require particular complements; a noun can be countable or uncountable; an adjective can prefer certain prepositions.

Lexical grammar is part of knowing the word because incorrect grammatical frames can make otherwise accurate vocabulary unusable.

Learners often underestimate this dimension when vocabulary notebooks store only translation and definition.

A complete entry should show how the word enters a sentence.

6. Collocational knowledge

Collocations are conventional partnerships such as strong evidence, heavy rain and reach a conclusion.

Collocational competence reduces unnatural combinations and speeds production because familiar partners can be retrieved together.

A word can be semantically correct but collocationally wrong.

This is why lexical competence is phrase-aware, not merely word-aware.

7. Register and appropriateness

Words differ in formality, technicality, intimacy, politeness and social force.

A learner may understand commence and start yet still need to know why one is more formal.

Appropriateness depends on audience, genre and purpose.

Lexical competence therefore includes choosing a word that fits the situation, not simply a word that can express the proposition.

8. Receptive competence

Receptive lexical competence is what the learner can understand in reading and listening.

Recognition is cue-supported: the word is present, so the learner identifies form and accesses meaning.

Receptive competence is usually broader than productive competence.

However, weak receptive knowledge can still create false familiarity when a word looks known but its meaning is vague.

9. Productive competence

Productive competence is the ability to retrieve and use vocabulary independently in speaking and writing.

Production requires stronger access because the learner must move from intended meaning to lexical form.

Productive use also exposes grammar, collocation, spelling and register more clearly than recognition tasks.

The receptive–productive gap is normal but should shrink for high-value vocabulary.

10. Automaticity

A word may be known but too slow to retrieve under real-time conditions.

Automaticity develops through repeated successful access, especially productive retrieval.

Listening and speaking are particularly sensitive to speed because language disappears as it unfolds.

Competence under pressure therefore depends on response time as well as accuracy.

11. Lexical range

Range describes the breadth of vocabulary available for different meanings, topics and communicative functions.

A learner with narrow range overuses general words such as thing, good, bad, do.

Range expands expressive options, but variety without control can create errors.

Competence balances range with depth and appropriateness.

12. Fixed and formulaic expressions

Lexical competence includes expressions learned and used as wholes, such as greetings, common formulas and idioms.

These units reduce processing load because the speaker does not construct every phrase from scratch.

Fixedness exists on a continuum: some expressions are fully fixed, others contain slots.

A phrase can therefore be part of lexical competence even when it contains several written words.

13. Frequency knowledge

Competent speakers develop expectations about how common a word or phrase is and in which contexts it typically appears.

Frequency affects recognition speed, register judgments and naturalness.

A rare word may be known precisely but still be a poor default choice in ordinary conversation.

Frequency awareness helps learners allocate study effort and choose language naturally.

14. Transfer

Competence is stronger when a word survives movement into new contexts, topics, genres and modes.

Memorising one example sentence can create context-bound knowledge that disappears when the wording changes.

Varied examples and delayed productive retrieval help build flexible transfer.

A word is more fully owned when the learner can adapt it without distorting its meaning.

15. Lexical metacognition

Learners need to judge whether they truly know a word or merely recognise it.

Overconfidence leads to misuse; excessive caution leads to avoidance.

Self-explanation, contrast and production tests reveal hidden gaps.

Lexical competence grows faster when learners can diagnose which dimension is missing.

16. Assessing lexical competence

No single vocabulary test can measure the entire construct.

Recognition tests are efficient for breadth; definitions and associations probe depth; sentence use and speaking probe productive control.

Timed tasks can reveal access and automaticity.

A balanced assessment samples several dimensions instead of treating one score as the whole lexicon.

17. Lexical competence across the four skills

Reading relies heavily on receptive print vocabulary and sense resolution.

Listening adds fast phonological recognition.

Writing exposes productive precision, spelling, grammar and collocation.

Speaking exposes oral retrieval, pronunciation, speed and interpersonal appropriateness.

18. How lexical competence develops

New words often begin as partial knowledge: familiar form, rough meaning, uncertain use.

Repeated encounters enrich the representation with morphology, collocation, register and additional senses.

Productive practice strengthens access and integration.

Development is therefore gradual and multidimensional rather than a switch from unknown to known.

19. Teaching for competence rather than list completion

A curriculum should decide which words need only recognition and which deserve deep productive control.

High-utility vocabulary benefits from rich examples, collocations, word families and retrieval practice.

Low-value one-off words may need only a quick gloss.

Instruction becomes efficient when depth investment matches future reuse.

20. Lexical competence in the age of AI

AI can supply definitions, alternatives and rewrites instantly.

This external abundance can hide internal weakness if learners never retrieve or choose words independently.

AI is most useful when it helps compare options after an attempt rather than replacing the attempt.

Lexical competence remains an internal capacity to understand, retrieve, judge and use language.

21. Lexical competence diagnostic casebook

1. Recognises a word but cannot define it

Primary competence gap: receptive familiarity. First move: strengthen meaning boundary. Why: Recognition is not enough evidence of semantic competence.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

2. Defines a word but mispronounces it

Primary competence gap: phonological form. First move: add sound-to-meaning practice. Why: Form knowledge is incomplete even though semantics are available.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

3. Pronounces it but cannot spell it

Primary competence gap: orthographic form. First move: bind spelling to sound and meaning. Why: Written competence requires a stable orthographic representation.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

4. Knows one sense only

Primary competence gap: polysemy depth. First move: compare several contexts. Why: A familiar form can still create comprehension errors when another sense is active.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

5. Uses a synonym with the wrong strength

Primary competence gap: semantic precision. First move: contrast intensity and connotation. Why: Near-synonym knowledge is a depth problem.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

6. Uses a formal word in casual conversation

Primary competence gap: register. First move: compare audience contexts. Why: Correct denotation does not guarantee social appropriateness.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

7. Uses slang in formal writing

Primary competence gap: register transfer. First move: rewrite across genres. Why: Mode and audience determine lexical fit.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

8. Uses the right noun with the wrong verb

Primary competence gap: collocation. First move: learn phrase-level partners. Why: Natural vocabulary is partly combinational.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

9. Uses an adjective with the wrong preposition

Primary competence gap: lexical grammar. First move: store grammatical pattern. Why: Vocabulary entries need syntax as well as meaning.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

10. Treats an uncountable noun as countable

Primary competence gap: lexical grammar. First move: learn noun behaviour. Why: Countability is word-specific grammatical knowledge.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

11. Knows the word in reading but not listening

Primary competence gap: aural access. First move: map print to pronunciation. Why: Mode-specific form knowledge can diverge.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

12. Knows the word in listening but not print

Primary competence gap: orthographic access. First move: map sound to spelling. Why: Oral vocabulary can precede print vocabulary.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

13. Understands but never uses the word

Primary competence gap: receptive–productive gap. First move: meaning-to-word retrieval. Why: Production requires stronger access than recognition.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

14. Uses the word only in one memorised sentence

Primary competence gap: transfer gap. First move: vary contexts and grammar. Why: Context-bound knowledge is not flexible competence.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

15. Retrieves the word too slowly in conversation

Primary competence gap: automaticity. First move: timed retrieval after accuracy. Why: Knowledge must be accessible within task time.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

16. Writes the word but avoids saying it

Primary competence gap: oral productive gap. First move: pronunciation plus spoken retrieval. Why: Productive competence can be mode-specific.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

17. Says the word but avoids writing it

Primary competence gap: written productive gap. First move: spelling plus sentence production. Why: Oral access does not guarantee orthographic control.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

18. Uses rare words to sound advanced

Primary competence gap: appropriateness. First move: prefer precise natural vocabulary. Why: Sophistication is not frequency minimisation.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

19. Repeats vague words constantly

Primary competence gap: range. First move: build high-utility alternatives. Why: Limited lexical range constrains expression.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

20. Uses varied words inaccurately

Primary competence gap: depth/range imbalance. First move: reduce range and deepen control. Why: Breadth without precision can damage clarity.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

21. Knows many nouns but few verbs

Primary competence gap: class imbalance. First move: expand relational/action vocabulary. Why: Competence requires more than object labels.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

22. Knows technical terms but not concepts

Primary competence gap: label-without-concept. First move: explain term without using term. Why: Terminology is not competence unless conceptual knowledge is present.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

23. Can match definitions but not generate examples

Primary competence gap: shallow semantic knowledge. First move: example/non-example practice. Why: Generative evidence is stronger than recognition.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

24. Can use a word but not explain it

Primary competence gap: procedural > declarative gap. First move: self-explanation. Why: Useful performance can coexist with weak explicit knowledge.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

25. Explains a word but cannot use it naturally

Primary competence gap: declarative > procedural gap. First move: authentic production. Why: Metalinguistic knowledge does not guarantee fluent use.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

26. Confuses related word-family forms

Primary competence gap: morphological competence. First move: contrast word class and derivation. Why: Family knowledge needs grammatical differentiation.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

27. Overgeneralises a prefix or suffix

Primary competence gap: morphological conventionality. First move: verify real usage. Why: Productive patterns do not license every imaginable word.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

28. Chooses a technically correct but unnatural phrase

Primary competence gap: collocational competence. First move: corpus/dictionary phrase check. Why: Lexical selection happens at phrase level too.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

29. Cannot paraphrase when retrieval fails

Primary competence gap: network flexibility. First move: train hypernyms and circumlocution. Why: Competent lexicons have alternate routes.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

30. Cannot infer a new word from context

Primary competence gap: inferencing competence. First move: combine context, morphology and syntax. Why: Lexical competence supports learning as well as use.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

31. Misreads connotation

Primary competence gap: evaluative meaning. First move: compare neutral/positive/negative alternatives. Why: Meaning includes social and emotional colouring.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

32. Misses academic command words

Primary competence gap: academic lexical competence. First move: teach operation behind term. Why: School success depends on understanding recurring instructional vocabulary.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

33. Knows everyday meaning but misses technical sense

Primary competence gap: domain polysemy. First move: contrast general and specialist use. Why: The same form can belong to several domain networks.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

34. Translates word-for-word from another language

Primary competence gap: cross-linguistic mapping. First move: check target-language collocation/register. Why: Conceptual equivalence does not ensure lexical equivalence.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

35. Uses correct vocabulary but wrong tone

Primary competence gap: pragmatic lexical competence. First move: analyse stance and audience. Why: Word choice contributes to interpersonal meaning.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

36. Forgets recently studied vocabulary

Primary competence gap: retention. First move: spacing and delayed retrieval. Why: Short-term performance is not stable competence.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

37. Recognises flashcard answer but fails in text

Primary competence gap: cue dependency. First move: weaken prompt dependence. Why: Competence should survive reduced support.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

38. Understands a word only after rereading

Primary competence gap: processing efficiency. First move: increase repeated contextual exposure. Why: Slow access can disrupt real comprehension.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

39. Cannot select among several plausible words

Primary competence gap: lexical selection. First move: contrast semantic boundaries. Why: Strong competence includes rejection of near-misses.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

40. Uses one word for many broad meanings

Primary competence gap: granularity. First move: build specificity ladder. Why: A richer lexicon allows controlled zooming.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

41. Avoids words after one correction

Primary competence gap: confidence/metacognition. First move: graded productive retry. Why: Competence includes calibrated risk-taking.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

42. Overestimates familiar-looking cognates

Primary competence gap: cross-linguistic false familiarity. First move: verify meaning and use. Why: Form similarity can create false confidence.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

43. Understands idiom literally only

Primary competence gap: multiword lexical competence. First move: learn phrase-level meaning. Why: Lexical elements include multiword units.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

44. Cannot use formulaic greetings naturally

Primary competence gap: formulaic/pragmatic competence. First move: learn social timing. Why: Fixed expressions have interactional conditions.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

45. Uses dictionary first sense every time

Primary competence gap: sense-selection competence. First move: read full entry and context. Why: Lexical competence is context-sensitive.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

46. Cannot recognise inflected forms

Primary competence gap: morphological receptive competence. First move: map lemma to paradigm. Why: Knowing a headword should generalise to its common forms.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

47. Knows spelling but not stress

Primary competence gap: phonological detail. First move: mark stress and syllables. Why: Pronunciation detail affects recognition and intelligibility.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

48. Writes long explanations because exact word is missing

Primary competence gap: lexical economy. First move: learn precise high-utility terms. Why: A compact lexeme can package a known concept.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

49. Uses one register across all tasks

Primary competence gap: adaptability. First move: context-switch practice. Why: Competence includes reconfiguration, not one ideal style.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

50. Performs well untimed but poorly in exams

Primary competence gap: access under load. First move: timed transfer. Why: Performance conditions expose whether lexical knowledge is sufficiently automatic.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

51. Performs well in exercises but not free writing

Primary competence gap: controlled-to-free transfer. First move: fade cues. Why: Competence must survive open production.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

52. Knows topic vocabulary but misses connectors

Primary competence gap: lexicon-grammar integration. First move: strengthen closed-class and discourse vocabulary. Why: Vocabulary and grammar interact during real performance.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

53. Has strong vocabulary but weak cohesion

Primary competence gap: text-level lexical control. First move: lexical chains and reference. Why: Competence extends beyond isolated sentence choice.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

54. Uses many different words but argument remains vague

Primary competence gap: conceptual precision. First move: tie lexical choices to propositions. Why: Diversity is not automatically semantic quality.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

55. Can explain concept in L1 but not L2

Primary competence gap: cross-language lexical gap. First move: map known concept to target forms. Why: Conceptual knowledge can exceed target-language lexical access.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

56. Can translate but not paraphrase

Primary competence gap: lexical flexibility. First move: same-language reformulation. Why: Competence needs intra-language alternatives as well as cross-language equivalents.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

57. Knows advanced words but not common collocations

Primary competence gap: frequency-depth imbalance. First move: deepen high-frequency vocabulary. Why: Rare vocabulary cannot replace mastery of common phraseology.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

58. Makes few errors but says very little

Primary competence gap: range/fluency limitation. First move: expand productive repertoire. Why: Accuracy alone is not complete lexical competence.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

59. Speaks fluently but imprecisely

Primary competence gap: fluency/precision imbalance. First move: slow contrastive revision. Why: Fast access needs semantic discrimination.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

60. Writes precisely but very slowly

Primary competence gap: automaticity limitation. First move: retrieval fluency practice. Why: Competence should eventually reduce production cost.

Form check: can the learner recognise and produce the spoken and written form accurately? If not, semantic study alone will not repair the problem because the lexical entry is not fully addressable.

Meaning check: ask for a definition, contrast, example and non-example. The learner should show the boundary of the concept rather than repeat one memorised gloss.

Grammar check: place the word into a new sentence and inspect word class, countability, complementation, prepositions or other lexical patterns. A correct definition with broken grammar signals incomplete competence.

Collocation check: ask for two or three natural partners. If the learner can only produce semantically plausible but unnatural combinations, phrase-level knowledge needs work.

Register check: rewrite the item for a friend, a formal report and an academic explanation. Appropriate lexical competence should preserve meaning while adapting social and rhetorical fit.

Retrieval check: remove cues and ask for the word from meaning after a delay. Recognition can hide access weakness; productive recall gives stronger evidence of availability.

Transfer check: move the word to a different topic or genre. If performance collapses outside the original example, the representation is still context-bound.

Mode comparison: test the same lexical item in reading, listening, writing and speaking. A learner may perform well in one mode and poorly in another, so competence should be described by the pattern rather than averaged into a misleading yes/no label.

Independence check: remove dictionary, notes, word bank and teacher prompts. Ask the learner to recognise, retrieve or use the item under realistic task conditions. Independent performance shows whether the lexical representation can operate without external scaffolding.

Teaching decision: decide whether this word needs receptive recognition only, productive mastery, or full high-utility control. Not every lexical item deserves the same depth investment.

Reassessment: retest after time has passed. Stable lexical competence should survive delay and reduced support, not merely immediate rehearsal.

22. Twenty routines for building lexical competence

1. Form–meaning bind

Say, spell, define and identify one target word without switching tasks. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

2. Definition plus boundary

Give a definition and one near-synonym that is not interchangeable. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

3. Example/non-example

Produce one correct context and one tempting but incorrect context. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

4. Collocation trio

Store three natural partners with every high-value word. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

5. Grammar frame

Record the word inside its common grammatical pattern. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

6. Register ladder

Use the word in informal, neutral and formal contexts where possible. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

7. Meaning-to-word recall

Retrieve the form from a definition rather than recognising it. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

8. Word-to-meaning recall

See/hear the form and produce the meaning. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

9. Delayed sentence

Use the word in a new sentence several days later. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

10. Cross-topic transfer

Move the word from its original topic into a different domain. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

11. Oral–print crosswalk

Hear the word, spell it; see the word, pronounce it. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

12. Synonym rejection

Explain why two nearby alternatives do not fit. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

13. Paraphrase repair

When retrieval fails, explain the idea through broader or related vocabulary. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

14. Timed retrieval

Add speed only after accuracy is stable. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

15. Free production

Use several targets in unscripted writing or speaking without prompts. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

16. Error log

Classify errors as form, meaning, grammar, collocation, register or retrieval. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

17. Depth promotion

Choose a few recurring words for deep study rather than deepening everything. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

18. Lexical self-rating

Predict competence, then test it and calibrate confidence. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

19. Dictionary depth

Read sense, grammar, labels, collocations and examples rather than first definition only. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

20. Corpus confirmation

Check natural phrase behaviour in authentic examples. Success criterion: the learner should produce evidence of usable knowledge, not simply report that the word feels familiar.

23. Frequently asked questions

What is lexical competence?

Knowledge of, and ability to use, the vocabulary of a language.

Is lexical competence the same as vocabulary size?

No. Size is one dimension; competence also includes depth, grammar, collocation, register, access and use.

Does lexical competence include phrases?

Yes. Frameworks such as the CEFR include fixed expressions among lexical elements.

What is receptive lexical competence?

Vocabulary understood in reading or listening.

What is productive lexical competence?

Vocabulary retrievable and usable in speaking or writing.

Why can I know a word but not use it?

Recognition and productive retrieval require different levels of access and control.

Does grammar belong to lexical competence?

Lexical items have grammatical behaviour, and the CEFR also distinguishes grammatical lexical elements.

Are collocations part of lexical competence?

Yes, natural word partnerships are part of knowing how a lexical item is used.

How is lexical competence assessed?

Through a combination of breadth, depth, recognition, production, use and sometimes timed tasks.

What is the simplest definition?

Knowing enough about words and expressions to understand them and use them appropriately.

24. Research grounding

The Common European Framework of Reference states that lexical competence is “knowledge of, and ability to use, the vocabulary of a language” and includes fixed expressions among lexical elements. A 2026 Cambridge Handbook chapter on the lexicon likewise emphasises that lexis is central to language acquisition and effective communication, with task-dependent vocabulary thresholds and strong roles for formulaic language and lexical coverage.

• Council of Europe — CEFR, Lexical Competence
• Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition — The Lexicon

25. Where to go next in eduKateSG

• What Is Vocabulary?
• Word Knowledge
• Vocabulary Breadth and Depth
• Lexical Access
• Receptive Vocabulary
• Expressive Vocabulary
• Vocabulary Assessment
• Vocabulary Master Router

26. Final model

Lexical competence is the integrated ability to recognise, understand, retrieve and use vocabulary with enough precision, grammar, collocation, register and speed for the task. It is therefore broader than vocabulary size and more practical than a list of definitions.

The most useful question is not “Do I know this word?” but “What can I reliably do with this word, in which modes, under what conditions?”

Lexical competence begins where familiarity ends and reliable use begins.