Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:45:41.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Words that second language learners are likely to hear, read, and use*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2008

DOUGLAS J. DAVIDSON ,
PETER INDEFREY  and
MARIANNE GULLBERG
DOUGLAS J. DAVIDSON*
Affiliation:
F. C. Donders Centre for Cognitive NeuroimagingMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
PETER INDEFREY
Affiliation:
F. C. Donders Centre for Cognitive NeuroimagingMax Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
MARIANNE GULLBERG
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
*
Address for correspondence: Doug Davidson, F. C. Donders Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlandsdoug.davidson@fcdonders.ru.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present study, we explore whether multiple data sources may be more effective than single sources at predicting the words that language learners are likely to know. Second language researchers have hypothesized that there is a relationship between word frequency and the likelihood that words will be encountered or used by second language learners, but it is not yet clear how this relationship should be effectively measured. An analysis of word frequency measures showed that spoken language frequency alone may predict the occurrence of words in learner textbooks, but that multiple corpora as well as textbook status can improve predictions of learner usage.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 133 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Arna van Doorn assembled the vocabulary lists from the three Dutch textbooks. The Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics provided access to the CELEX, the CGN, and the ESF corpora. The analysis was conducted using R (R Development Team, 2005), and the stats (R Development Team, 2005) and MASS (Venables & Ripley, 2002) libraries. This research was supported by the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO). We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions, and Jan Hulstijn for providing helpful comments and references for textbook vocabulary selection including, in addition to those cited in the text, Hazenberg (1994) and Sciarone (1979).

References

Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AU-19, 716–722.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. & Schooler, L. J. 1991. Reflections of the envi-ronment in memory. Psychological Science, 2, 396–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & Gulikers, L. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bossers, B. 1996. Woordenschat. In Hulstijn, J. H., Stumpel, R., Bossers, B. & Van Veen, C. (eds.), Nederlands als tweede taal in de volwasseneneducatie: Handboek voor docenten, pp. 167–193. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff Educatief.Google Scholar
Brown, C. 1993. Factors affecting the acquisition of vocabulary: Frequency and saliency of words. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes & J. Coady (eds.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning, pp. 263–286. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Corpus Gesproken Nederlands. Copyright Nederlandse Taalunie 2004. http://lands.let.kun.nl/cgn/home.htm (accessed 17 October 2007).Google Scholar
Day, R., Omura, C. & Hiramatsu, M. 1991. Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 7, 541–551.Google Scholar
De Kleijn, P. & Nieuwborg, E. 1983. Basiswoordenboek Nederlands. Leuven: Wolters.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B. 1996. Colloquial Dutch: The complete course for beginners. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. 1997. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 3rd edition. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupuy, B. & Krashen, S. 1993. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in French as a foreign language. Applied Language Learning, 4, 55–63.Google Scholar
Fukkink, R. G., Hulstijn, J. & Simis, A. 2005. Does training of second-language word recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., DeGlopper, K. Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P. & Stevenson, M. 2004. Linguistic knowledge, processing speed, and metacognitive knowledge in first- and second-language reading comprehension: A componential analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazenberg, S. 1994. Een keur van woorden. Ph.D. dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M. & Greidanus, T. 1996. Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kampen, H. & Stumpel, R. 2002. Dutch for self-study/Nederlands voor anderstaligen (4th edn.). Utrecht: Prisma (Het Spectrum B.V.).Google Scholar
Laufer, B. 2005. Lexical frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to the real world. Applied Linguistics, 26 (4), 582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K. & Congdon, P. 2004. Size and strength: Do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 21, 202–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meara, P. 2005. Lexical frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Linguistics, 26 (1), 32–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N. 2000. The Spoken Dutch Corpus: Overview and first evaluation. In Gravilidou, M., Carayannis, G., Markantonatou, S., Piperidis, S. & Stainhaouer, G. (eds.), LREC-2000 (Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation) Proceedings, vol. 2, pp. 887–894. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Pavlik, P. I., Jr. & Anderson, J. R. 2005. Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect. Cognitive Science, 29, 559–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perdue, C. (ed.) 1984. Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: A field manual. Rowley: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Perdue, C. (ed.) 1993. Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (vol. 1: Field methods). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pitts, M., White, H. & Krashen, S. 1989. Acquiring second language vocabulary through reading: A replication of the Clockwork Orange study using second language acquirers. Reading in a Foreign Language, 5, 271–275.Google Scholar
R Development Team 2005. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rott, S. 1999. The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners' incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. Studies in Second Language Learning, 21, 589–619.Google Scholar
Schneider-Broekmans, J. 2000. Taal vitaal: Nederlands voor beginners. Amsterdam & Antwerpen: Intertaal.Google Scholar
Sciarone, A. G. 1979. Woordjes leren in het vreemde-talenonderwijs. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
Uitden Bogaart, P. C. (ed.) 1975. Woordfrequenties in geschreven en gesproken Nederlands. Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. 2002. Modern applied statistics with S. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, A. 2001. Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar