詞彙在語言教學中佔有重要的份量，識詞量是人與詞彙的基本關係體現之一，識詞量不僅影響語言分級與教材編撰，也影響語言課程與教學的份量。學術界在識詞量相關研究多是以英文為基礎開展的實驗，本研究則以中文識詞量為主軸，以了解華語母語者的識詞量為目的，藉以錨定出語言分級的上層基準。日後可作為華語教學及中文教育之能力分級和高級教材編寫之參考。
本文為一項詞彙研究計畫之一部分，以台灣中央研究院「現代漢語語料庫」4.0所收詞彙為本，刪除含有數字、外語及詞綴重複之詞，共餘 151,096 個詞作為測試內容，按詞頻列成詞表，由受試者先經過講習及練習後，由其逐一判斷自己是否認識該詞語的意思，能完成全部詞語辨認者才納為初測數據，再進行查測，即要求受試者解釋測試稿中的部分詞語，以進行確認與數據調校。
共有12名不同性別、年齡及學歷的中國大陸籍的漢語母語者完成測試，研究結果，受測者的中文識詞量：最低者為58,286個，最高者為113,648個，平均識詞量為83,525個。通過受測者身份背景的數據對比，本研究發現，漢語母語者的識詞量高低，影響因素主要是年齡、學歷；其次為背景因素、詞語常用度、判斷嚴謹度；性別因素影響最小。

Vocabulary plays an important role in language teaching. Vocabulary size is one of the basic relationships between people and vocabulary. Vocabulary size not only affects language classification and textbook compilation, but also affects the weight of language curriculum and teaching. Most of the researches on vocabulary size are based on English. This study focuses on Chinese vocabulary size, aiming at understanding the vocabulary size of native Chinese speakers. In the future, it can be used as a reference for the ability grading of Chinese teaching and Chinese education and the compilation of advanced teaching materials.
This paper is a part of a vocabulary research project. Based on the vocabulary collected from the Balanced Corpus of Academia Sinica, we delete the words containing numbers, foreign languages and affixes. We have 151,096 words as the test content. We make a vocabulary according to the frequency of words. Only those who can identify all the words can be accepted as the initial test data, and then they are asked to explain some words in the test draft for confirmation and data adjustment.
A total of 12 mainland Chinese native speakers of different genders, ages and educational backgrounds completed the test. The results show that the lowest vocabulary is 58,286 words, the highest vocabulary is 113,648 words, and the average vocabulary is 83,525 words.
The researchers found that the amount of word recognition of Chinese native speakers is mainly affected by age and educational background, while the background factors, the degree of common use of the words themselves, and the degree of rigor of the subjects themselves also have a certain impact on it, only the gender factor has a small impact.

中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫4.0。取自http://www.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/。
王玥雯（2007）。兩岸新詞對比研究。武漢科技大學學報 ( 社會科學版 )，9，98-100。
王宇, 樊宇和高瑩（2010）。重點理工科院校學生的辭彙量到底有多少?。語文學刊，08，112-115。
田曉敏（2011）。中學生英語辭彙量問卷分析。 科教文匯(中旬刊)，2， 134-136。
李婷和甄曉婕（2009）。重點院校學生辭彙水準調查研究。科教文匯（上旬刊），11，166-167。
周浩、邱銀香和張律，2010。農業院校非英語專業碩士研究生辭彙量調查研究.。海南熱帶海洋學院學報，17，142-143。
洪嘉馡和黃居仁（2013）。 以中文十億詞語料庫為基礎之兩岸詞彙對比研究。中文計算語言學期刊, 18，19-34。
胡翠君、許媖茹和宋曜廷（2020）。英語作為外語的國小畢業生詞彙量、 詞彙閾值與閱讀理解。教育科學研究期刊，65，137-174。
桂詩春（1983）。中國學生英語辭彙量調查。中國公共外語教學研究會。公共外語教學研究文集（頁212-222）。上海:上海外語教育出版社。
徐莉（2008）。論海峽兩岸辭彙差異及融合。黃山學院學報，10，99-102。
孫燕琳、胡森慶和李力珊（2017）。海峽兩岸辭彙差異與互通性的調查與研究。現代語文(語言研究版)，05，28-33。
雷達莉和蕭惠貞（2018）。華語學習者詞彙廣度與深度知識測試之設計初探。華語文教學研究，15，95-120。
姜燕玲（2009）。非英語專業大學新生辭彙量調查分析。哈爾濱學院學報，30，124-127。
謝少萬、吳殿寧和覃德澤（2005）。師專英語專業新生英語辭彙量調查與英語閱讀教學的思考。高教論壇，2，59-62。
戴俊紅（2013）。非英語專業大學生四級階段辭彙量調查。重慶理工大學學報(社會科學)，27，118-122。

Alonso, A. C. (2013). Receptive vocabulary size of secondary Spanish EFL learners. Revista de Lingüísticay Lenguas Aplicadas, 8, 66-75.

Anderson, R. C., & P. Freebody. (1983). Reading comprehension and the assessment and acquisition of word knowledge. In B. A. Hudson(Eds.), Advances in Reading/Language Research. (pp. 231-256). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goulden, R., Nation P, & Read J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics, 11, 341-363.
Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403-430.
Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316-321). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In P. Arnaud & H. Béjoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132). London, UK: Macmillan.
Laufer, B., & Nation P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use:Lexical richness in L2written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-22.
Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 33-51.
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22, 15-30.
Meara, P., & Jones, G. (1990) Eurocentres vocabulary size test (10KA ). Zurich: Eurocentres.
Milton, J., & Meara, P. (1998). Are the British really bad at learning foreign languages? Language Learning Journal, 18, 68-76.
Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and Teaching Vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 12-25.
Nation, P & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage, and word lists. In Schmitt N & McCarthy M (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp.6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. & G, P. Y. (2007) Focus on Vocabulary. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Pignot-Shahov, Virginie. (2012). Measuring L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. Language Studies Working, 4, 37-45.
Richards, Jack, C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77-89.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355-37
Sims.(1929) The Reliability and Validity of Four Types of Vocabulary teats. The Journal of Education Resesrch, 20, 91-96.
Schmitt, N., D., Clapham, & C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18, 55-88.
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language. Learning Journal, 36, 139-152.