Katarina Heimann Mühlenbock
Department of Swedish, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Sofie Johansson Kokkinakis
Department of Swedish, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Ladda ner artikel
Ingår i: Proceedings of the SLTC 2012 workshop on NLP for CALL; Lund; 25th October; 2012
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 80:4, s. 28-34
Publicerad: 2012-11-12
ISBN:
ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)
The core in language teaching and learning is vocabulary; and access to a delimited set of words for basic communication is central for most CALL applications. Vocabulary characteristics also play a fundamental role for matching texts to specific readers. For English; the task of grading texts into different levels of difficulty has long been facilitated by the existence of word lists serving as guides for vocabulary selection. For Swedish; the situation is with a few exceptions less fortunate; in that no base vocabulary organized according to aspects of usage has existed. The Swedish base vocabulary – SweVoc – is an attempt to remediate this. It is a comprehensive resource; aimed at differentiating vocabulary items into categories of usage and frequency. As we are of the opinion that no corpus of written text can do fully justice of general language use; we have utilized materials from a second language as reference for delimiting the category of core words. Another belief is that the task of defining a base vocabulary can not be fully automatic; and that a considerable amount of manual; traditional lexicographic work has to be invested. Hence; the present approach is not an innovative; but a methodological approach to word list generation for a specific purpose; much like LSP.We anticipate SweVoc to be integrated in CALL applications for vocabulary assessment; language teaching and students’ practice.
Dee Gardner. 2007. Validating the construct of word in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: A critical survey. Applied Linguistics; 28(2):241–265.
David Hirsh and Paul Nation. 1992. What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language; 8(2):689–696.
Sofie Johansson Kokkinakis and Elena Volodina. 2011. Corpus-based approaches for the creation of a frequency based vocabulary list in the EU project KELLY
issues on reliability; validity and coverage. In eLex Conference; Slovenia.
Gunnel Källgren. 1992. SUC - the Stockholm - Umeå Corpus Project: Corpus-based research on models for processing unrestricted swedish text. Technical report; Stockholm.
D. Y. W. Lee. 2001. Defining core vocabulary and tracking its distribution across spoken and written genres. Journal of English Linguistics; 29:250–278.
Paul Nation. 1990. Teaching and learning vocabulary. Heinle & Heinle; New York.
Paul Nation. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.
W.W. Patty and W.I. Painter. 1931. Improving our method of selection high-school textbooks. Journal of Educational Research; XXIV:23–32; June.
Norbert Schmitt. 2001. Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge; UK.
Socialstyrelsen. 2003. Klassifikation av funktionstillstånd; funktionshinder och hälsa.
George D. Spache. 1953. A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. Elementary School Journal; LIII:410–413.
George D. Spache. 1974. Good reading for poor readers. Garrard Publishing; Champaign; IL.
Edward L. Thorndike and I. Lorge. 1944. The teacher’s word book of 30;000 words. Columbia University Press; New York.
Edward L. Thorndike. 1921. The teacher’s word book. Teacher’s College; Columbia University; New York.
M. Vogel and C. Washburne. 1928. An objective method of determining grade placement of children’s reading material. Elementary School Journal; 28:373–381.
Michael West. 1953. A General Service List of English Words. Longman; London.
