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

David D. Malvern · Brian Richards

267 citations0/0 files storedLanguage Testing

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Second Language Acquisition and Learning EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning Linguistics and Language Analysis

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 267 citations exist upstream.

References

1979Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Edited by Catherine E. Snow and Charles A. Ferguson. Cambridge: University Press, 1977. Pp. x, 369. $16.95.2000Assessing Vocabulary 1990The Child Language Data Exchange System: an update 1987Type/Token Ratios: what do they really tell us?1989Reeling, Writhing, Drawling, Stretching, and Fainting in Coils: Oral Proficiency Interviews as Conversation 1984Advances in the social psychology of language . Ed. by Colin Fraser and Klaus R. Scherer. Cambridge: University Press; Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1982. Pp. viii, 264. Cloth $39.50, paper $12.95.1944I. A program of research.1985Variation in Native Speaker Speech Modification to Non-Native Speakers

Cited by

2009Talk During Book Sharing Between Parents and Preschool Children: A Comparison Between Storybook and Expository Book Conditions 2009A cross-linguistic and bilingual evaluation of the interdependence between lexical and grammatical domains 2012Effects of Input Properties, Vocabulary Size, and L1 on the Development of Third Person Singular –s in Child L2 English 2009Measuring L2 Lexical Growth Using Hypernymic Relationships

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.