Word Families and Frequency Bands in Vocabulary Tests: Challenging Conventions.

Vocabulary test development often appears to be based on the design principles of previous tests, without questioning or empirically examining the assumptions underlying those principles. Given the current proliferation of vocabulary tests, it seems timely for the field of vocabulary testing to problematize some of those traditionalised assumptions, based on more current research. This article begins this process by challenging two common assumptions key to vocabulary test development: (1) the counting unit of word families, and (2) the 1,000-word band divisions in the use of frequency. Based on existing literature and an analysis of corpus-based coverage figures, the article frames future research agendas by arguing that the lemma may be a more useful counting unit for vocabulary assessment and pedagogy. Further, it argues that the traditional 1,000-item frequency bands are not optimal. Smaller 500-item bands would be more informative at the higher frequencies, and bands larger than 1,000 items would be adequate at lower frequencies. Because most vocabulary tests are aimed at beginner to intermediate learners of English as a foreign language, these new empirically informed conventions should facilitate the development of more informative vocabulary tests.

[1]  James Milton,et al.  Modelling and Assessing Vocabulary Knowledge: Lexical profiles, learning styles and the construct validity of lexical size tests , 2007 .

[2]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test , 2001 .

[3]  D. Beglar,et al.  The creation and validation of a listening vocabulary levels test , 2015 .

[4]  Kristin Lemhöfer,et al.  Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[5]  Laura Collins,et al.  Lexical Frequency Profiles and Zipf's Law , 2011 .

[6]  Nick C. Ellis,et al.  FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN LANGUAGE PROCESSING , 2002, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[7]  Henrik Gyllstad,et al.  Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats : Issues with guessing and sampling rates , 2015 .

[8]  Tom Cobb,et al.  How much vocabulary is needed to use English? Replication of van Zeeland & Schmitt (2012), Nation (2006) and Cobb (2007) , 2015, Language Teaching.

[9]  I. Nation How Large a Vocabulary Is Needed for Reading and Listening? , 2006 .

[10]  H. Clahsen,et al.  Morphologically Complex Words in L1 and L2 Processing: Evidence from Masked Priming Experiments in English. , 2008 .

[11]  Norbert Schmitt,et al.  A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching1 , 2012, Language Teaching.

[12]  Patrick Parslow,et al.  Back to Basics: How Measures of Lexical Diversity Can Help Discriminate between CEFR Levels , 2016 .

[13]  Norbert Schmitt,et al.  A Phrasal Expressions List , 2012 .

[14]  D. Beglar A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test , 2010 .

[15]  Vaclav Brezina,et al.  Is There a Core General Vocabulary? Introducing the "New General Service List". , 2015 .

[16]  Jeremy Ward,et al.  Suffix knowledge: Acquisition and applications , 2009 .

[17]  B. Laufer,et al.  Testing Vocabulary Knowledge: Size, Strength, and Computer Adaptiveness. , 2004 .

[18]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Interpreting Vocabulary Test Scores: What Do Various Item Formats Tell Us About Learners’ Ability to Employ Words? , 2016 .

[19]  N. Schmitt,et al.  Derivative Word Forms: What Do Learners Know? , 2002 .

[20]  James Milton,et al.  Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition , 2009 .