This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Vermeer, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data

Tilburg University, The Netherlands, anne.vermeer{at}kub.nl

In spontaneous speech data, lexical richness is generally operationalized by measures in which the relation between the number of types and tokens plays a role, of which the Type/Token Ratio (TTR) is the most famous. This article discusses the reliability and validity of different measures of lexical richness in various language data research and computer simulations, and examines the behaviour of these measures in spontaneous speech data of first language and second language children learning Dutch, aged four to seven, compared with their lexical abilities as measured by tests. The results show that neither the validity nor the reliability of the measures were satisfactory, especially the widely applied TTR. Initially, the number of types, or lemmas, and the Guiraud and Uber indexes seem to be adequate measures. However, in later stages of vocabulary acquisition (from 3000 words on) neither is valid. It is suggested that more effective measures of lexical richness might be based not on the distribution of or the relation between the types and tokens, but on the degree of difficulty of the words used, as measured by their (levels of) frequency in daily language input.

Language Testing, Vol. 17, No. 1, 65-83 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/026553220001700103


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Yu Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances Applied Linguistics, June 4, 2009; (2009) amp024v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Coleman, N. Gregg, L. McLain, and L. W. Bellair A Comparison of Spelling Performance Across Young Adults With and Without Dyslexia Assessment for Effective Intervention, March 1, 2009; 34(2): 94 - 105. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Iwashita, A. Brown, T. McNamara, and S. O'Hagan Assessed Levels of Second Language Speaking Proficiency: How Distinct? Applied Linguistics, March 1, 2008; 29(1): 24 - 49. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Gregg, C. Coleman, M. Davis, and J. C. Chalk Timed Essay Writing: Implications for High-Stakes Tests J Learn Disabil, August 1, 2007; 40(4): 306 - 318. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Klatter-Folmer, R. van Hout, E. Kolen, and L. Verhoeven Language Development in Deaf Children's Interactions With Deaf and Hearing Adults: A Dutch Longitudinal Study J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., April 1, 2006; 11(2): 238 - 251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Jarvis Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity Language Testing, January 1, 2002; 19(1): 57 - 84. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Malvern and B. Richards Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity Language Testing, January 1, 2002; 19(1): 85 - 104. [Abstract] [PDF]