1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In line with recent developments in both language acquisition and text comprehension studies, it is argued that more reliable and valid lexical richness measures can be obtained by including frequency class information. To that end, texts written by 452 elementary school children (L1/L2) in grades 3–6 were investigated. In order to find out whether a frequency class based lexical measure is more valid than type/token based measures, the central question to be answered was whether with increasing vocabulary skills from grades 3 to 6 (measured by standardized vocabulary tests), the number of low frequency words in children’s writings increased, and whether L2-children with lower vocabulary skills used relatively more high frequency words than their L1-peers. The results show a gradually growing number of low frequency words: children in grade 3 use more words belonging to the 1,000–5,000 word frequency range; in grades 4/5 more from the 5,000–12,500 range; and in grade 6 more from the 12,500-plus range. L2-children in all grades use relatively more words from the first frequency class (the first 1,000 lemmas) than their L1-peers. The effect sizes, however, with eta2 ranging from .09 to .02 between grades, and from eta2 = .01 to nonsignificant between L1/L2, were lower than those of the standardized productive and receptive vocabulary tests (eta2 = .26-.35 resp. between grades, eta2 = .34-.23 resp. between L1/L2), and also lower than the effect sizes for the number of different types in the texts (eta2 = .23 between grades, and .01 between NT1/NT2). The TTR shows only a significant difference in the wrong direction (grade 6 outperforming grade 5). The frequency class based lexical measure MLR discriminates significantly both between the grades and between L1/L2, but the effect sizes are low (eta2 = .05 between grades, and eta2 = .02 between L1/L2). These outcomes show evidence that a frequency class based lexical measure as the MLR is more valid than a type/token based measure such as the TTR.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.1.02ver
2016-06-27
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.1.02ver
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alekseev, P
    (1984) Statistische Lexikographie. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. BasiLex-corpus
    . Vantst-centrale.org/nl/producten/lexica/basilex-lexicon/7-159
  3. Brown, Ch
    (1993) Factors affecting the acquisition of vocabulary: Frequency and saliency of words. In Th. Huckin , M. Haynes , & J. Coady (Eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.263–286). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Decoo, W
    (2012) De Europese pogingen om tot lexicale normen te komen: welke woordenschat hoort bij welk niveau?Levende Talen Magazine, 99, 7, 20–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Goossens, N. , & Vermeer, A
    (2009) Wat is een optimale tekstdekking? Woordkennis en tekstbegrip in groep 6. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 82, 81–92. doi: 10.1075/ttwia.82.08goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ttwia.82.08goo [Google Scholar]
  6. Hazenberg, S
    (1994) Een keur van woorden. Proefschrift, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Hout, R. van , & Vermeer, A
    (1989) Spontane taaldata en het meten van lexicale rijkdom in tweede-taalverwerving. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 32, 108–122. doi: 10.1075/ttwia.32.07hou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ttwia.32.07hou [Google Scholar]
  8. (2007) Comparing measures of lexical richness. In H. Daller , J. Milton , & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp.93–116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667268.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667268.008 [Google Scholar]
  9. Huttenlocher, J. , Haight, W. , Bryk, A. , Seltzer, M. , & Lyons, Th
    (1991) Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology, 27, 236–248. doi: 10.1037/0012‑1649.27.2.236
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.236 [Google Scholar]
  10. Jarvis, S
    (2002) Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19 (1), 57–84. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt220oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt220oa [Google Scholar]
  11. Just, M.A. , & Carpenter, P.A
    (1987) The psychology of reading and language comprehension. Newton, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Kuperman, V. , & Van Dyke, J.A
    (2013) Reassessing word frequency as a determinant of word recognition for skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 39(3), 802–823. doi: 10.1037/a0030859
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030859 [Google Scholar]
  13. Laufer, B. , & Nation, I
    (1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.3.307
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1999) A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16, 1, 31–51. doi: 10.1177/026553229901600103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229901600103 [Google Scholar]
  15. MacWhinney, B
    (2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Malvern, D. , & Richards, B
    (2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt221oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa [Google Scholar]
  17. Meara, P. , & Bell, H
    (2001) P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16(3), 5–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Orlov, J
    (1982) Ein Model der Häufigskeitsstruktur des Vokabulars. In H. Guiter & M. Arapov (Eds.), Studies on Zipf’s Law (pp.154–233). Bochum: Brockmeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Pander Maat, H.L.W. , & Kraf, R
    (2009) Leesbaarheidsonderzoek: oude problemen, nieuwe kansen. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 31(2), 97–123. doi: 10.5117/TVT2009.2.LEES356
     https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2009.2.LEES356 [Google Scholar]
  20. Richards, B. , & Malvern, D
    (2007) Validity and threats to the validity of vocabury measurement. In H. Daller , J. Milton , & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp.79–92). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667268.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667268.007 [Google Scholar]
  21. Schrooten, W. , & Vermeer, A
    (1994) Woorden in het basisonderwijs. 15.000 woorden aangeboden aan leerlingen. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Via: www.woordwerken.annevermeer.com
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Staphorsius, G
    (1994) Leesbaarheid en leesvaardigheid. De ontwikkeling van een domeingericht meetinstrument. Arnhem: Cito.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Tellings, A. , Hulsbosch, M. , Vermeer, A. , & Bosch, A van den
    (2014) BasiLex, an 11.5 million words corpus of Dutch texts written for children. Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands Journal, 4, 191–208.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Verhoeven, L. , & Vermeer, A
    (1993) Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw. Tilburg: Zwijsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (1996) Taalvaardigheid in de bovenbouw. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. (2001) Taaltoets Alle Kinderen. Arnhem: Cito.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Verhoeven, L. , Leeuwe, J. van , & Vermeer, A
    (2011) Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 8–25. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.536125
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.536125 [Google Scholar]
  28. Vermeer, A
    (1986) Tempo en struktuur van tweede-taalverwerving bij Turkse en Marokkaanse kinderen. Proefschrift, Universiteit van Tilburg.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (2004a) The relation between lexical richness and vocabulary size in Dutch L1 and L2 children. In P. Bogaards & B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp.173–189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.10.13ver
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.10.13ver [Google Scholar]
  30. (2004b) MLR: Maat voor Lexicale Rijkdom/Measure of Lexical Richness. Via: https://danteweb.uvt.nl/mlr/
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Vermeer, A. , & Ceglarek, J
    . (te verschijnen 2016) Development of qualifiers in children’s written stories. In E. Segers & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Title tba. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Werf, R. van der , & Vermeer, A
    (2008) Online kranten, een model van de (tweede-) taalleerder en het genereren van adaptief lesmateriaal. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 80, 49–61. doi: 10.1075/ttwia.80.06wer
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ttwia.80.06wer [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.5.1.02ver
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Dutch L1; Dutch L2; elementary school children; lexical richness; measures word frequency layers; text comprehension; text difficulty; text writing skills; vocabulary

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error