Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications

System

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 965-981

  Crossley, Scott A ^a   Cobb, Tom ^b   McNamara, Danielle S ^c  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Active and passive lexical proficiency; Band based frequency measures; Computational linguistics; Count based frequency measures; Frequency analysis; Frequency lists; Learner corpora; Lexical sophistication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886793009     PISSN: 0346251X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Adolphs S., Schmitt N. Lexical coverage of spoken discourse. Appl. Linguist. 2003, 24(4):425-438.
2. Baayen R.H., Piepenbrock R., Gulikers L. The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) 1995, Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
3. Balota D.A., Chumbley J.L. Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1984, 10:340-357.
4. Beglar D., Nation P. A vocabulary size test. Lang. Teach. 2007, 31(1):9-13.
5. Bell H. Using Frequency Lists to Assess L2 Texts 2003, University of Wales Swansea, (Unpublished thesis).
6. Biemiller A., Slonim N. Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. J. Educ. Psychol. 2001, 93(3):498-520.
7. Boldt R.F., Larsen-Freeman D., Reed M.S., Courtney R.G. Distributions of ACTFL Ratings by TOEFL Score Ranges 1992, TOEFL Res. Rep. 41.
8. Cobb T. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing?. System 1997, 25(3):301-315.
9. Cobb T. Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Comp. Assist. Lang. Learn. 1999, 12(4):345-360.
10. Cobb T. One size fits all? Francophone learners and English vocabulary tests. Can. Modern Lang. Rev. 2000, 57(2):295-324.
11. Cobb T. Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Lang. Learn. Technol. 2007, 11(3):38-63.
12. Cobb T., Horst M. Vocabulary sizes of some City University students. City University (HK). J. Lang. Stud. 1994, 1(1):59-68.
13. Cobb T., Horst M. Does word coach coach words?. CALICO 2011, 28(3):639-661.
14. Crossley S.A., Allen D., McNamara D.S. Text readability and intuitive simplification: A comparison of readability formulas. Read. Foreign Lang. 2011, 23(1):84-102.
15. Crossley S.A., Greenfield J., McNamara D.S. Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Q. 2008, 42(3):475-493.
16. Crossley S.A., Louwerse M.M., McCarthy P.M., McNamara D.S. A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Lang. J. 2007, 91(2):15-30.
17. Crossley S.A., McNamara D.S. Predicting second language writing proficiency: The role of cohesion, readability, and lexical difficulty. J.Res. Read. 2012, 35(2):115-135.
18. Crossley S.A., Salsbury T. Using lexical indices to predict produced and not produced words in second language learners. Mental Lexicon 2010, 5:115-147.
19. Crossley S.A., Salsbury T., McNamara D.S. The role of lexical cohesive devices in triggering negotiations for meaning. Issues Appl. Linguist. 2010, 18(1):55-80.
20. Crossley S.A., Salsbury T., McNamara D.S. Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Lang. Test. 2012, 29(2):240-260.
21. Crossley S.A., Salsbury T., McNamara D.S., Jarvis S. Predicting lexical proficiency in language learners using computational indices. Lang. Test. 2011, 28(4):561-580.
22. Crossley S.A., Salsbury T., McNamara D.S., Jarvis S. What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Q. 2011, 45(1):182-193.
23. Davies A., Widdowson H. Reading and writing. Techniques in Applied Linguistics 1974, 155-201. Oxford University Press, Oxford. J.P. Allen, S.P. Corder (Eds.).
24. Forster K., Chambers S. Lexical access and naming time. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 1973, 12:627-635.
25. Graesser A.C., Millis K.K., Zwaan R.A. Discourse comprehension. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1997, 48:163-189.
26. Graesser A.C., McNamara D.S., Louwerse M., Cai Z. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comp. 2004, 36:193-202.
27. Grant L., Ginther A. Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. J. Second Lang. Writ. 2000, 9:123-145.
28. Horst M., Collins L. From "faible" to strong: how does their vocabulary grow?. Can. Mod. Lang. Rev. 2006, 63(1):83-106.
29. Hunt K.W. Grammatical structures written at three grade levels 1965, NCTE Research Report Number 3 Urbana, National Council of Teachers of English, Illinois.
30. Jarvis S., Grant L., Bikowski D., Ferris D. Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. J. Second Lang. Writ. 2003, 12:377-403.
31. Kirsner K. Implicit processes in second language learning. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages 1994, 283-312. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. N. Ellis (Ed.).
32. Laufer B. How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension?. Vocabulary & Applied Linguistics 1992, 126-132. Macmillan, London. P. Arnaud, H. Béjoint (Eds.).
33. Laufer B. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different?. Appl. Linguist. 1998, 19(2):255-271.
34. Laufer B., Nation P. Vocabulary size & use: lexical richness in L2 written productions. Appl. Linguist. 1995, 16(3):307-322.
35. Laufer B., Nation P. A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability. Lang. Test. 1999, 16(1):33-51.
36. Leech G., Rayson P., Wilson A. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus 2001, Longman, London.
37. Lu X. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Q. 2011, 45(1):36-62.
38. McCarthy P.M., Jarvis S. MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: a validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behav. Res. Methods 2010, 42:381-392.
39. McNamara D.S., Graesser A.C. Coh-Metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Identification, investigation, and resolution 2011, 188-205. IGI Global, Hershey, PA. P.M. McCarthy, C. Boonthum (Eds.).
40. Morris L., Cobb T. Vocabulary profiles as predictors of TESL student performance. System 2004, 32(1):75-87.
41. Meara P. Lexical frequency profiles: a Monte Carlo analysis. Appl. Linguist. 2005, 26(1):32-47.
42. Meara P., Bell H. P_Lex: a simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect 2001, 16(3):5-19.
43. Meara P., Buxton B. An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Lang. Test. 1987, 4(2):142-154.
44. Murphy G.L. The Big Book of Concepts 2004, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
45. Nation P. Teaching & Learning Vocabulary 1990, Newbury House, Rowley MA.
46. Nation P. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?. Can. Mod. Lang. Rev. 2006, 63(1):59-82.
47. Newman M.L., Groom C.J., Handelman L.D., Pennebaker J.W. Gender differences in language use: an analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Process. 2008, 45:211-246.
48. Schmitt N., Schmitt D. A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in vocabulary teaching. Lang. Teach. 2013, (in press).
49. Ovtcharov V., Cobb T., Halter R. La richesse lexicale des productions orales: mesure fiable du niveau de compétence langagière. Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 2006, 63(1):107-125.
50. Tuldava J. The frequency spectrum of text and vocabulary. J. Quant. Linguist. 1996, 3(1):38-50.
51. Wendt A., Woo A. A Minimum English Proficiency Standard for the Test of English as a Foreign Language Internet-based Test (TOEFL-iBT) 2009, NCLEX Psychometric Research Brief, National Council of State Boards of Nursing.
52. Zipf G.K. The meaning-frequency relationship of words. J. Gen. Psychol. 1945, 33:251-256.