Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity

Lexical diversity is an important indicator of language learners’ active vocabulary and how it is deployed. Traditionally it has been measured by the Type-Token Ratio (TTR), the ratio of different words to total words used. Unfortunately, TTR is a function of sample size: larger samples of words will give a lower TTR and even commonly used measures derived from TTR which are claimed to be independent of sample size are problematic. To overcome this, the authors have developed an innovative measure of vocabulary diversity, D, based on mathematically modelling how new words are introduced into larger and larger language samples, and have produced software (vocd) to calculate it. Previous research by the authors into language proficiency interviews (Richards and Malvern, 2000) investigated linguistic and discourse accommodation of teacher-testers using a wide range of student and teacher variables. In a study of teenage learners of French, the aspect of teachers’ language in oral interviews that was most responsive to the ability of their students was lexical diversity. The analysis reported here focuses on this finding in greater depth using the new measure, D. The relationship between D and other measures of foreign language proficiency is investigated, the Ds of students and teachers are compared and the correlations between teachers’ D and students’ proficiency are computed. Results firstly demonstrate the validity of D as a measure of vocabulary diversity and the effectiveness of vocd as a tool to analyse language data. Secondly, with regard to accommodation processes in oral testing, the two teachers did not finely tune their vocabulary diversity to the proficiency of individual students. Instead, each teacher roughly adjusted his or her language to the ability of the class they examined.

[1]  David Malvern,et al.  Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software , 2000 .

[2]  P. Guiraud Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique , 1960 .

[3]  C W Hess,et al.  The reliability of type-token ratios for the oral language of school age children. , 1989, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  Evangeline Marlos Varonis,et al.  Variation in Native Speaker Speech Modification to Non-Native Speakers , 1985, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[5]  Michael Milanovic,et al.  Discourse Variation in Oral Proficiency Interviews , 1992, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[6]  L. Gleitman,et al.  [Language and thought]. , 1991, La Revue du praticien.

[7]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  How Variable May a Constant be? Measures of Lexical Richness in Perspective , 1998, Comput. Humanit..

[8]  John Read,et al.  Assessing Vocabulary by John Read , 2000 .

[9]  C. W. Hess,et al.  Sample size and type-token ratios for oral language of preschool children. , 1986, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  B. Richards Type/Token Ratios: what do they really tell us? , 1987, Journal of Child Language.

[11]  Anne Lazaraton,et al.  The Structural Organization of a Language Interview: A Conversation Analytic Perspective. , 1992 .

[12]  M. Wesche Input and interaction in language acquisition: Input and interaction in second language acquisition , 1994 .

[13]  B. Richards,et al.  Reliability and validity in the GCSE Oral Examination , 1996 .

[14]  Andrea Tyler,et al.  Re-analyzing the OPI: How Much Does It Look Like Natural Conversation? , 1998 .

[15]  Steven J. Ross,et al.  The Discourse of Accommodation in Oral Proficiency Interviews , 1992, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  Anne Lazaraton,et al.  Interlocutor support in oral proficiency interviews: the case of CASE , 1996 .

[17]  Helen R. Fairbanks,et al.  II. The quantitative differentiation of samples of spoken language. , 1944 .

[18]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  The Child Language Data Exchange System: an update , 1990, Journal of Child Language.

[19]  S. Ross Accommodative questions in oral proficiency interviews , 1992 .

[20]  Leo Van Lier,et al.  Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation , 1989 .

[21]  Carol Lynn Moder,et al.  Framing the Language Proficiency Interview as a Speech Event: Native and Non-Native Speaker’s Questions , 1998 .

[22]  Pierre J. L. Arnaud The lexical richness of L2 written productions and the validity of vocabulary tests , 1984 .

[23]  B. MacWhinney The Childes Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, Volume I: Transcription format and Programs , 2000 .

[24]  John W. Chotlos,et al.  IV. A statistical and comparative analysis of individual written language samples. , 1944 .

[25]  Robert S. Wachal,et al.  Some Measures of Lexical Diversity in Aphasic and Normal Language Performance , 1973, Language and speech.

[26]  D. Ader,et al.  Formal Thought Disorder, the Type-Token Ratio, and Disturbed Voluntary Motor Movement in Schizophrenia , 1981, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[27]  Mary Bachmann-Mann The quantitative differentiation of samples of written language , 1944 .

[28]  J. Pine Input and interaction in language acquisition: The language of primary caregivers , 1994 .

[29]  Criteria for oral assessment , 1992 .

[30]  W. Johnson,et al.  Studies in language behavior: A program of research , 1944 .

[31]  A. Vermeer Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data , 2000 .