Edited by: Rongting Zhou, University of Science and Technology of China, China
Reviewed by: Hongliang Xu, Fuyang Normal University, China; Jian Xu, International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, China
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Most studies have shown that reading is an important source of incidental vocabulary learning, and repeated reading may have a positive effect on learning gains. However, the study of incidental vocabulary learning through listening is still limited, and the immediate and long-term effects on different vocabulary knowledge dimensions are unclear. Furthermore, no empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the association between learning gains and preexisting vocabulary knowledge in listening. This article examines the effects of listening to English songs on unintentional vocabulary learning and vocabulary retention through three different vocabulary knowledge dimensions: word recognition, meaning association, and grammar identification. A total of 114 Chinese college students participated in the study, and they were given vocabulary evaluations at different times based on three separate components of vocabulary knowledge. The effects of repeated listening (one, three, and five times) and learners’ prior vocabulary knowledge were also investigated. According to the findings, listening to songs can improve vocabulary knowledge, particularly in the area of word recognition, which can be retained 4 weeks later. Furthermore, the effect of listening three times (with exposure frequencies ranging from three to nine) was superior than listening one or five times, which provides teachers and learners with guidance for teaching or learning vocabulary more effectively. Finally, for low, intermediate, and high-level learners, there was an immediate and positive effect on the dimensions of word recognition and meaning connection after listening, and this knowledge is likely to be preserved 4 weeks later.
Learning vocabulary has long been regarded as an indispensable component of mastering a second language. According to
The current study focused on incidental vocabulary acquisition through listening to two pop songs and attempted to see if three areas of vocabulary knowledge (word recognition, meaning connection, and grammar) were retained 4 weeks after exposure, which was a drawback of prior listening studies. Additionally, because people like to listen to the same music repeatedly (
Despite the need to know many vocabulary items, learners must also understand the “depth” of vocabulary knowledge, which is just as essential as the number of items (
When learners unintentionally expand new aspects of their L2, this is known as incidental learning (
Listening also helps in the acquisition of accidental vocabulary (
Frequency of exposure is a popular research area that has gained many researchers’ attention, and the results vary across different studies. Most studies illustrate that the more frequently learners are exposed to target words, the more likely they are to be learned (
Some researchers found a strong relationship between learner’s prior vocabulary knowledge and learning gains in incidental vocabulary learning. For example,
To date, while research has shed light on the quantity and quality of vocabulary learned
To what extent does listening to songs increase vocabulary knowledge of spoken-form recognition, grammar recognition, and meaning recall?
To what extent does frequency of exposure affect incidental vocabulary learning through listening to songs?
To what extent does participants’ prior vocabulary knowledge affect incidental vocabulary learning through listening to songs?
The participants were 114 Chinese EFL learners who were first-year undergraduate students, and their ages ranged from 18 to 20 years. The participants had similar educational backgrounds, and all of them had studied English for at least 9 years, with a similar level of proficiency generally. In order to analyze the relationship between participants’ previous vocabulary size and incidental lexicon gains, all students completed a Vocabulary Level Test (VLT), and the vocabulary test results indicated that almost all the students were familiar with the first 4,000 words, 25% of the students less than the first 4,000 words (low level), 48% of the students from 4,000 to 5,900 words (intermediate level), and 27% of students more than the first 6,000 words (high level). The students were reassigned into four groups: a control group, E1 (listening to songs once), E3 (listening to songs three times), and E5 (listening to songs five times). Each group contained a similar number of students, with eight high-level students, 14 intermediate-level students, and seven low-level students, respectively.
The research’s learning material consisted of two English songs. The first song was Jason Mraz’s “Have it all” (Song A), while the second song was Billy Joel’s “Piano Man” (Song B). When choosing songs and target words, a number of factors were taken into account. First and foremost, it was critical to ensure that the participants had not heard the songs before. This contributed to the study’s validity by ensuring that learning improvements could be assigned to the learning circumstances. Second, the singers of both songs needed to have accurate pronunciation and a consistent beat, so song genres like Rap and R&B were avoided. Third, learners’ existing vocabulary had to account for 95% of vocabulary for optimal acquisition.
The lyrics of the songs are 593 and 283 words long, respectively. There were 876 words in all. Range (
Lexical frequency profile: “Have it all.”
| Word list families | Tokens/% | Types/% |
| One-thousand (157) | 829/89.14 | 184/72.73 |
| Two-thousand (30) | 34/3.66 | 30/11.86 |
| Three-thousand (2) | 4/0.43 | 2/0.79 |
| Off-lists | 63/6.77 | 37/14.62 |
| Total (189) | 930 | 253 |
Lexical frequency profile: “Piano man.”
| Word list families | Tokens/% | Types/% |
| One-thousand (111) | 268/88.16 | 132/79.52 |
| Two-thousand (13) | 13/4.28 | 13/7.83 |
| Three-thousand (1) | 1/0.33 | 1/0.60 |
| Off-lists | 22/7.24 | 20/12.05 |
| Total (304) | 166 | 125 |
The participants took an English and Chinese language version of the VLT to assess their past vocabulary knowledge. There are 140 multiple-choice questions in all, with 10 questions from each 1,000-word family level. The 140-item test is effective because it covers a wide range of frequency levels, comprises a large number of items, and the items have been meticulously prepared. To determine learners’ entire receptive vocabulary size, their total score is multiplied by 100. The following website has bilingual versions.
Twenty-six target words and 13 distractors were included for two songs. The inclusion of familiar terms was intended to encourage participants to complete the entire exam rather than give up when they realized that the majority of the words were unknown. Due to grammar identification being one form of vocabulary knowledge investigated during the tests, the vocabulary types in the choices had to be in various forms, such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives. However, adverbs were not utilized as target words because they are straightforward to identify with others. The 13 target words appeared 1–3 times on average, with word levels ranging from 2,000 to 7,000. Even though there were some vocabularies from lower word levels, none of the target words had been learned by the participants prior to the study (see
Frequency of occurrence, and word level of target words.
| Song A | Frequency | Word level/1,000 | Song B | Frequency | Word level/1,000 |
| Esteem | 1 | 6 | Shuffle | 1 | 5 |
| Paved | 2 | 3 | Tonic | 1 | 7 |
| Infinite | 3 | 3 | Gin | 1 | 6 |
| Slap | 1 | 4 | Melody | 2 | 4 |
| Bracelet | 1 | 7 | Estate | 1 | 2 |
| Clutter | 1 | 6 | Carnival | 1 | 6 |
| Chaos | 1 | 4 |
Following
The first component of the test focused on single-word item identification in spoken form. This section included seven and six multiple-choice items for Song A and Song B, respectively. Besides, the remaining 13 multiple-choice items were designed to encourage students to use words they already knew. All the distractors were nonsense words, which were created by altering the initial letters of words to make them sound like real English terms, but easily confused by students since they shared similar parts of speech and syllables to the target vocabulary. For this section, all participants listened to the tape once, with a 2-s stop between choices and a 4-s pause between items. The time break for each choice and item was adapted from
A. B. C. D. I don’t know
The participant hears on the recording:
“No.1 [1 second] A, esteemed [2 seconds] B, gasteemed [2 seconds] C, presteemed [2 seconds].”
A recall exam was used to assess knowledge of meaning in the second section. It was chosen because it assesses students’ comprehension of listening, and the test looked at the connection between form-meaning and single-word items. This part also contained seven and six multiple-choice items for two songs individually, and the rest were 13 multiple-choice items to motivate the students with words they were previously familiar with. Participants were then asked to tick the relevant Chinese translations of the alternatives on the answer sheet after hearing the target words for the first time. The distractors were responses to other exam items. The participants were given ten seconds for each item, with a four-second interval between them. An example question is presented below:
1). A.
At the same time the participant hears on the recording
“Number one [1 sec.] Shuffle.”
A multiple-choice test was used in the third section to assess receptive knowledge of grammatical functions. Song A had 7 multiple-choice items, Song B 6 multiple-choice items, and the rest of the 13 multiple-choice items were to motivate students with words they already knew. The structure of the testing followed
1). Deficit (a) It is a deficit. (b) It deficits. (c) It is very deficit.
The participant hears a recording at the same time.
“No.1 [1 sec.] deficit.”
Participants (except the control group students) listened to the songs and performed assessments in one-on-one sessions. In week 1, all the participants were required to complete a bilingual version of the VLT (English and Chinese) at the outset, and they were assigned to three different levels of students (high, intermediate, and low-level students). As a result, preexisting classes were divided into four groups in total, which were one control group (C) (
In week 2, the experimental participants were asked to listen to the songs once at the beginning, and they were told that they would be asked some questions related to the songs afterward. The purpose of the listening comprehension test was to ensure that all of them could comprehensively understand the context of the songs and make incidental vocabulary learning happen. Next, after listening to two songs, the experimental group (E1) was required to complete a posttest immediately. Finally, the experimental groups (E3 and E5) differed in the number of times they listened to the music, with the E3 group listening three times and the E5 group listening five times. The control group, on the other hand, had to complete the immediate posttest without listening to the songs.
Four weeks later, all participants took a delayed posttest for both songs.
The data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 25). Non-parametric tests were performed to address the study questions as a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test gave a negative result for a normal distribution. To answer these three study questions, all data were scored dichotomously, with 0 representing an incorrect answer and 1 a correct answer. For the first research question, a Mann–Whitney U Test was used to compare results within each group (control and experimental) on three dimensions (recognition, meaning, and grammar) at various times of testing (pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest). To evaluate the relationship between vocabulary knowledge (recognition, meaning, and grammar) and the frequency of exposure (one time, three times, and five times) participants listened to the songs accordingly, and repeated Kruskal–Wallis Tests were performed. Finally, repeated Friedman M Tests were used to investigate the link between vocabulary size and the three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge (recognition, meaning, and grammar) after listening to the songs in order to address the third study question.
Descriptive statistics for vocabulary knowledge.
| Time of testing | Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | 25th | 50th (median) | 75th | |
| Recognition | ||||||||
| 1 | 114 | 3.80 | 1.896 | 0 | 8 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 |
| 2 | 114 | 6.57 | 3.001 | 0 | 13 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 8.25 |
| 3 | 114 | 6.36 | 2.618 | 1 | 12 | 4.00 | 6.50 | 8.00 |
| Meaning | ||||||||
| 1 | 114 | 2.69 | 1.834 | 0 | 8 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 |
| 2 | 114 | 4.15 | 2.301 | 0 | 10 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 |
| 3 | 114 | 4.86 | 2.534 | 0 | 12 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 6.25 |
| Grammar | ||||||||
| 1 | 114 | 6.52 | 2.179 | 0 | 12 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 8.00 |
| 2 | 114 | 6.67 | 2.209 | 0 | 13 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 8.00 |
| 3 | 114 | 7.27 | 2.088 | 0 | 11 | 6.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 |
| Groups | 114 | 0.75 | 0.437 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Descriptive statistics for frequency of exposure.
| Percentiles |
||||||||
| Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | 25th | 50th (median) | 75 |
||
| Immediate posttest | ||||||||
| Recognition | 114 | 6.57 | 3.001 | 0 | 13 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 8.25 |
| Meaning | 114 | 4.15 | 2.301 | 0 | 10 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 |
| Grammar | 114 | 6.67 | 2.209 | 0 | 13 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 8.00 |
| Frequency | 114 | 2.20 | 1.910 | 0 | 5 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 3.00 |
| Delayed posttest | ||||||||
| Recognition | 114 | 6.36 | 2.618 | 1 | 12 | 4.00 | 6.50 | 8.00 |
| Meaning | 114 | 4.86 | 2.534 | 0 | 12 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 6.25 |
| Grammar | 114 | 7.27 | 2.088 | 0 | 11 | 6.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 |
| Frequency | 114 | 2.20 | 1.910 | 0 | 5 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 3.0 |
Descriptive statistics for prior vocabulary knowledge.
| Percentiles |
|||||||||
| Time of testing | Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | 25th | 50th (median) | 75th | ||
| Low-level | |||||||||
| Recognition | 1 | 20 | 2.35 | 1.631 | 0 | 6 | 1.25 | 2.00 | 3.75 |
| 2 | 20 | 4.55 | 2.585 | 0 | 9 | 2.25 | 4.50 | 6.75 | |
| 3 | 20 | 4.70 | 1.922 | 1 | 8 | 3.25 | 4.50 | 6.50 | |
| Meaning | 1 | 20 | 1.45 | 1.099 | 0 | 5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| 2 | 20 | 3.15 | 1.644 | 0 | 6 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | |
| 3 | 20 | 3.75 | 2.268 | 1 | 11 | 2.00 | 3.00 | 5.00 | |
| Grammar | 1 | 20 | 6.00 | 1.717 | 3 | 10 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 7.00 |
| 2 | 20 | 6.20 | 1.673 | 3 | 9 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 7.00 | |
| 3 | 20 | 7.05 | 2.089 | 2 | 10 | 6.00 | 7.00 | 8.00 | |
| Intermediate-level | |||||||||
| Recognition | 1 | 41 | 3.98 | 1.666 | 0 | 7 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 |
| 2 | 41 | 7.54 | 2.847 | 3 | 13 | 5.00 | 6.00 | 11.00 | |
| 3 | 41 | 6.90 | 2.478 | 1 | 11 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 | |
| Meaning | 1 | 41 | 2.46 | 1.614 | 0 | 6 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 3.50 |
| 2 | 41 | 4.59 | 2.291 | 0 | 9 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 6.00 | |
| 3 | 41 | 4.59 | 2.398 | 0 | 10 | 3.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 | |
| Grammar | 1 | 41 | 6.80 | 1.990 | 2 | 11 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 8.50 |
| 2 | 41 | 6.66 | 2.198 | 2 | 10 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 8.00 | |
| 3 | 41 | 7.39 | 1.986 | 3 | 11 | 6.00 | 8.00 | 9.00 | |
| High-level | |||||||||
| Recognition | 1 | 24 | 4.71 | 1.829 | 1 | 8 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 |
| 2 | 24 | 8.75 | 2.674 | 4 | 13 | 7.00 | 8.50 | 11.00 | |
| 3 | 24 | 8.04 | 2.562 | 3 | 12 | 7.00 | 8.00 | 10.75 | |
| Meaning | 1 | 24 | 4.21 | 2.064 | 1 | 8 | 2.25 | 4.00 | 5.75 |
| 2 | 24 | 5.92 | 2.358 | 2 | 10 | 4.25 | 5.00 | 8.00 | |
| 3 | 24 | 7.04 | 2.293 | 2 | 12 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 8.75 | |
| Grammar | 1 | 24 | 7.25 | 2.327 | 4 | 12 | 5.00 | 8.00 | 9.00 |
| 2 | 24 | 8.25 | 2.172 | 4 | 13 | 7.00 | 8.00 | 9.75 | |
| 3 | 24 | 7.78 | 2.092 | 3 | 11 | 7.00 | 8.00 | 9.00 | |
The first study issue addresses the extent to which word recognition, grammar identification, and meaning associations of vocabulary knowledge are addressed by listening to English songs. For each knowledge category, independent samples of Mann–Whitney U Tests were used to compare scores on a pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest. The findings revealed that there was a significant difference in the immediate posttest (
Mann–Whitney U Test statistics.
| Spoken-form recognition |
Form-meaning connection |
Grammar recognition |
|||||||
| Participant subgroups | Pretest | Immediate posttest | Delayed posttest | Pretest | Immediate posttest | Delayed posttest | Pretest | Immediate posttest | Delayed posttest |
| Control (percentiles) | 4 (2.5–5) | 5 (4–6) | 5 (4–6.5) | 3 (1.5–4) | 3 (2–4) | 4 (3–6) | 6 (4–8) | 6 (5–7) | 7 (6–8) |
| Experimental (percentiles) | 4 (2–5) | 7 (5–10) | 7 (4–8.) | 2 (1–4) | 4 (3–6) | 5 (3–7) | 7 (5–8) | 7 (5.5–8.5) | 8 (6–9) |
| −0.056 | −3.725 | −2.465 | −0.285 | −3.783 | −1.551 | −1.591 | −2.673 | −1.602 | |
| Significant | 0.955 | 0.000195 | 0.014 | 0.776 | 0.000155 | 0.121 | 0.112 | 0.008 | 0.109 |
The second study question concerns the impact of exposure frequency on incidental vocabulary learning through music listening. According to the immediate posttest hypothesis test, repeated Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed that all three aspects of vocabulary knowledge exhibited essential differences, with
Percentiles for frequency.
| Frequency | Immediate posttest | Delayed posttest |
| Percentile (mean) | Percentile (mean) | |
| Recognition | ||
| 0 time | 5 | 5 |
| 1 time | 6 | 7 |
| 3 times | 8 | 8 |
| 5 times | 6 | 5 |
| Meaning | ||
| 0 time | 3 | 4 |
| 1 time | 3 | 5 |
| 3 times | 5 | 5 |
| 5 times | 5 | 5 |
| Grammar | ||
| 0 time | 6 | 7 |
| 1 time | 7 | 7 |
| 3 times | 8 | 8 |
| 5 times | 6 | 8 |
The third research question investigated how participants’ pre-existing vocabulary knowledge influenced incidental vocabulary learning while listening to songs. Friedman M Testsrevealed that between a pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest, there was a statistically significant difference in vocabulary knowledge of spoken-form recognition for low, intermediate, and high level students, with (Chi-square = 11.676;
In terms of the first research question, the findings revealed that listening to songs resulted in substantial gains in three dimensions (recognition, meaning, and grammar) in an immediate posttest, while only spoken-form recognition demonstrated significant acquisition in a delayed posttest. This finding is partly consistent with that of
However, given the result of the delayed posttest, the current finding is not consistent with previous studies of incidental vocabulary retention of three vocabulary knowledge aspects (e.g.,
In answer to the second study question, the findings revealed that three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge demonstrate positive effects after listening to songs repeatedly. According to the findings, there was a strong correlation between the number of exposures and learning increases for all three dimensions after listening to songs three times, with the frequency of exposure to target words ranging from three to nine times.
The findings of this study are similar to those of earlier research.
In general, listening to English songs three times increases L2 vocabulary knowledge in the areas of word recognition, meaning connection, and grammatical recognition, with word recognition information likely to be preserved after 4 weeks. However, when the number of times that learners listen to songs rises, students become distracted and find it harder to concentrate on vocabulary items while listening, resulting in little vocabulary knowledge being attained.
In response to the third study question, the data imply that low-proficiency, intermediate-proficiency, and high-proficiency learners all showed significant achievement in word recognition and meaning recall after listening to songs, which lasted for 4 weeks, but there was no progress in grammar recognition. There are several possible explanations for the positive findings for word recognition and meaning recall for all levels of students. To begin with, spoken-form recognition is easier to acquire than form-meaning connections and grammar (
Several restrictions should be considered while evaluating our data. First, only two pop songs were employed in this study; thus, more research with more songs and various types of songs is encouraged to analyze which types of songs best accelerate vocabulary acquisition.
Second, in the current research, all the participants were college students with most having a restricted vocabulary of 4,000–5,900 words. Besides, an earlier study found a favorable correlation between vocabulary size and learning gains in accidental vocabulary acquisition
Third, vocabulary knowledge covers different areas, such as a word’s spoken or written form, collocations, semantic network of associations, etc. (
Fourth, learning efficiency is a metric for academic accomplishment that takes into accounts both performance and the amount of time a student spends learning. However, the difference in learning efficiency among students with different degrees of prior vocabulary knowledge was not considered in this research (
Fifth, in the present research, only the learner-internal factor was considered during the investigation. However, there are many other factors of individual difference to examine, such as working memory, motivation, age, enjoyment, etc. (see
The current research provides extensive empirical support for the possibility of incidental vocabulary learning through listening to songs. The results demonstrate that learners may acquire the spoken and meaning forms, and perform grammatical identification of single-word items by listening to songs. The effect of word recognition, on the other hand, was superior to the other two elements, and it was maintained 4 weeks later. Furthermore, repeated listening to English songs may promote vocabulary learning, but it was surprising to find that the more times a song was heard, this did not guarantee a greater total amount of vocabulary information being obtained. As a result, the data show that listening to songs three times (with exposure frequency ranging from three to nine times) was the most beneficial for L2 learners, with word recognition information likely to be preserved after 4 weeks. When the learner-internal component was taken into account, it was surprisingly found that low, intermediate, and high-proficiency learners all showed a beneficial influence on vocabulary knowledge of work-form recognition and meaning connection after listening to songs. As music has the ability to spark learners’ interest and make learning happen subconsciously, listening to songs can be an excellent way to learn new vocabulary, particularly for low-proficiency students who are usually reluctant to attend English learning activities.
This new research provides further empirical evidence supporting the favorable impact of listening to songs on vocabulary learning. It is advisable, then, for language teachers to use “listening to English songs” as another teaching strategy to improve students’ vocabulary knowledge in the classroom. This could also have the double impact of exposing students to the style of information that best matches their learning preferences, and encourage them to learn outside the classroom using their chosen source of input, which is especially important for low-level students who are not interested in traditional vocabulary learning and struggle to learn receptive knowledge of word recognition and meaning recall. Furthermore, the repeated concurrence of single-words from three to nine times throughout the song may benefit learners most. After repeated exposure, the three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge (word-recognition, meaning recall, and grammar) may improve after listening, and word recognition will remain 4 weeks later. As a result, instructors and learners can use “listening to songs three times” as a criterion for efficient vocabulary teaching and learning.
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethical approval was not provided for this study on human participants because it was not mandatory to take ethical approval first, however, all procedures were followed by the ethical guidelines of the university and international institutions. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.
KN constructed the manuscript overall. JF was responsible for conducting experiments. HR helped in the write-up. GZ helped in improving, data analysis, and proofreading. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.