Lexical Frequency Profiles: A Monte Carlo Analysis
Lexical Frequency Profiles: A Monte Carlo Analysis
复制标题
词汇频率概况：蒙特卡罗分析
DOI：
10.1093/applin/amh037
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
P. Meara
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Meara
本文报告了一组蒙特卡罗模拟，旨在评估Laufer和Nation关于词法频率谱（LFP）的主要主张。Laufer和Nation声称，LFP是一种敏感而可靠的工具，可以评估第二语言使用者的生产性词汇，他们认为它可能在学习者的诊断评估中发挥重要作用。模拟表明LFP实际上并不那么敏感。当被比较的组具有非常不同的词汇量时，它最有效，并且可能不够敏感，无法捕捉到词汇量的适度变化。1. 本文对Laufer和Nation（1995）中描述的用于估计生产词汇量的词汇频率轮廓（LFP）方法进行了批判性分析。LFP最初是由Nation开发的一种评估特定文本是否适合特定熟练程度的学习者使用的方法。在其最简单的形式中，LFP将文本作为原始输入，并输出一个概要文件，该概要文件根据频带描述文本的词法内容。在Nation最初的LFP公式（Nation and Heatley 1996）中，波段描述如下：第一个[波段]包含英语中出现频率最高的1000个单词。第二个[波段]包括第二个最常见的1000个单词，第三个[波段]包括不在英语的前2000个单词中，但在高中和大学的广泛学科中经常出现的单词。所有这些基表都包括单词的基本形式和派生形式。在二语词汇学习中，使用频带来表征词汇是一种相当标准的做法。学者们对于哪个频率列表提供了最好的标准存在一些分歧，但这实际上只是在低频率水平下的一个严重问题。标准频率计数对于哪些单词应该出现在“前一千个”或“后一千个”单词列表中有着广泛的共识。有人可能会说，出现在这类列表中的单词将非常依赖于上下文或体裁，但实际上情况似乎并非如此。当前版本的LFP
This paper reports a set of Monte Carlo simulations designed to evaluate the main claims made by Laufer and Nation about the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP). Laufer and Nation claim that the LFP is a sensitive and reliable tool for assessing productive vocabulary in L2 speakers, and they suggest it might have a serious role to play in diagnostic evaluations of learners. The simulations suggest that LFP is not in fact all that sensitive. It works best when the groups being compared have very disparate vocabulary sizes, and is probably not sensitive enough to pick up modest changes in vocabulary size. 1. LEXICAL FREQUENCY PROFILES This paper is a critical analysis of the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) approach to estimating productive vocabulary size described in Laufer and Nation (1995). LFP was originally developed by Nation as a way of assessing whether a particular text is suitable for use with learners at a specified level of proficiency. In its simplest form, LFP takes a text as raw input, and outputs a profile that describes the lexical content of the text in terms of frequency bands. In Nation‘s original formulation of LFP (Nation and Heatley 1996), the bands are described as follows: The first [band] includes the most frequent 1000 words of English. The second [band] includes the 2nd 1000 most frequent words, and the third [band] includes words not in the first 2000 words of English but which are frequent in upper secondary school and university texts from a wide range of subjects. All of these base lists include the base forms of words and derived forms. This use of frequency bands to characterize vocabulary is a fairly standard practice in L2 vocabulary studies. There is some disagreement among scholars about which frequency list provides the best standard, but this is really only a serious issue at low levels of frequency. The standard frequency counts are in broad agreement about which words should appear in a ‘first thousand’ or a ‘second thousand’ word list. It might be argued that the words appearing in lists of this sort would be very dependent on context or genre, but in practice this appears not to be the case. LFP in its current incarnation