Measuring L2 Lexical Growth Using Hypernymic Relationships

Crossley, Scott A.; Salsbury, Tom; McNamara, Danielle S.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00508.x

Cited by 84 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various studies have shown MTLD to be at least as effective as the industry standard vocd-D index, and even one of the most informative and distinguishing variables in the entire arsenal of several hundred Coh-Metrix indices (see Crossley, Salsbury, & McNamara, 2009;McNamara et al, 2010). Such successes do not mean that all the settings of the MTLD approach are optimal.…”

Section: Preliminary Analysesmentioning

confidence: 98%

MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment

McCarthy

Jarvis

2010

Behavior Research Methods

554

269

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Preliminary Analysesmentioning

confidence: 98%

MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment

McCarthy

Jarvis

2010

Behavior Research Methods

554

269

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These associations tap into different domains of lexical knowledge, such as variation Koizumi & In'nami, 2012), appropriateness (Iwashita et al, 2008), fluency (Iwashita et al, 2008;Lu, 2012), sophistication (Lu. 2012), abstractness and sense relations (Crossley et al, 2009). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…L2 learners tend to produce less specific words as their L2 experience increases (Crossley et al, 2009), which contributes to raters' judgment of overall lexical proficiency . More proficient L2 learners likely rely on strategies by using more general/holistic terms to compensate for specific words which they may not know or have difficulty accessing (e.g., water vs. pond) (Faerch & Kasper, 1984).…”

Section: Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More proficient L2 learners likely rely on strategies by using more general/holistic terms to compensate for specific words which they may not know or have difficulty accessing (e.g., water vs. pond) (Faerch & Kasper, 1984). L2 learners tend to learn concrete words at earlier stages, and with greater ease, compared to more abstract words (Crossley et al, 2009;Ellis & Beaton, 1993).…”

Section: Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lexical Profiles of Comprehensible Second Language Speech

Saito

Webb

Trofimovich³

et al. 2015

Stud Second Lang Acquis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined contributions of lexical factors to native-speaking raters' assessments of comprehensibility (ease of understanding) of second language (L2) speech. Extemporaneous oral narratives elicited from 40 French speakers of L2 English were transcribed and evaluated for comprehensibility by 10 raters. Subsequently, the samples were analyzed for 12 lexical variables targeting diverse domains of lexical usage (appropriateness, fluency, variation, sophistication, abstractness, and sense relations). Results revealed that L2 comprehensibility was chiefly of L2 speech especially from the perspective of comprehensibility. Therefore, the goal of this study was to extend previous research on L2 comprehensibility by targeting a range of lexical measures in L2 speech, including lexical appropriateness, fluency, variation, sophistication, abstractness, and sense relations. The overall intent was to identify which lexical aspects of L2 speech are associated with different levels of oral ability, defined in terms of comprehensibility of L2 speech for native-speaking raters.

show abstract

“…Clearly, the absence of significant correlation between percentage scores and oral ability in the study indicates potential problems with the frequency-based principle for assessing vocabulary knowledge (Nation & Webb, 2011). Therefore, in order to further investigate the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 speaking ability, it is important to be aware of other aspects of vocabulary knowledge besides frequency such as L1 cognate (Bardel, Gudmundson, & Lindqvist, 2012), speed of lexical retrieval (Fitzpatrick & Izura, 2011;Miralpeix & Meara, 2014), abstractness (Crossley, Salsbury, & McNamara, 2009), sense relations (Crossley, Salsbury, & McNamara, 2010), richness and sophistication (Lu, 2012), and multi-word units (Kyle & Crossley, 2014).…”

Section: Productive Vocabulary Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability

Uchihara

Saito

2016

The Language Learning Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated the extent to which L2 learners' productive vocabulary knowledge could predict multiple dimensions of spontaneous speech production. A total of 39 EFL participants with varying L2 proficiency levels first completed a productive vocabulary knowledge task (Lex30). Their spontaneous speech, elicited via a series of picture description task, was then assessed for comprehensibility (i.e., ease of understanding), accentedness (i.e., linguistic nativelikeness), and fluency (i.e., speech rate). The findings showed that the productive vocabulary scores significantly correlated with L2 fluency, but not with comprehensibility or accentedness. Such results might indicate that more proficient L2 learners, as indicated by their productive vocabulary scores, might be able to speak spontaneously without too many pauses and repetitions, and at a faster tempo. Finally, future research directions will be discussed with a focus on the relationships between vocabulary knowledge and speaking.Key words: productive vocabulary knowledge; L2 vocabulary; L2 speaking; comprehensibility; fluency Introduction Measuring Productive Vocabulary KnowledgeVocabulary knowledge has gained recent prominence in second language (L2) education, as research seeks to examine the relationship between vocabulary size measures and general language proficiency. This has much practical appeal since scores from vocabulary size measures might act as a proxy for general language proficiency (Meara, 1996). Vocabulary size measures tend to elicit vocabulary knowledge via receptive, or passive, vocabulary knowledge tests (e.g., Vocabulary Levels Test; Nation, 1983Nation, , 1990; the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test; Meara & Jones, 1990). Accordingly, researchers (e.g. Milton, Wade, & Hopkins, 2010;Milton, 2010Milton, , 2013 have generally adopted a wide range of receptive vocabulary tests (e.g., standard yes/no vocabulary size tests), in order to compare test scores to overall proficiency benchmarks (e.g., CEFR levels; Milton 2010), placement tests (e.g., Harrington & Carey, 2009), and standardized proficiency examinations (e.g., IELTS;Milton et al., 2010). Additionally, other research has examined the predictive power of L2 vocabulary knowledge for the four main language skills (i.e., reading, writing, listening, and, to a lesser extent, speaking) (e.g. Baba, 2009;Farvardin & Koosha, 2011;Laufer & Levitzky-Aviad, 2015;Meara & Jones, 1990;Meara & Milton, 2003;Milton, 2009Milton, , 2010Milton, , 2013Milton et al., 2010;Qian, 1999, 2002, Schoonen et al., 2003and, Staehr, 2008and, Staehr, , 2009). This brief summary highlights that a majority of the existing studies likely elicit vocabulary knowledge receptively, and compare such knowledge with reading, writing, and listening performance.

show abstract

Measuring L2 Lexical Growth Using Hypernymic Relationships

Cited by 84 publications

References 56 publications

MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment

MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment

Lexical Profiles of Comprehensible Second Language Speech

Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About