Skip Navigation

Applied Linguistics 2003 24(2):197-222; doi:10.1093/applin/24.2.197
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Daller, H.
Right arrow Articles by Treffers-Daller, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Lexical Richness in the Spontaneous Speech of Bilinguals

Helmut Daller1, Roeland van Hout2 and Jeanine Treffers-Daller1

1 UWE, Bristol 2 KUB, Nijmegen

The focus of the present paper is on the measurement of lexical richness. Lexical richness is often measured either by the traditional type-token ratio (TTR) or by its square root variant, the index of Guiraud. The disadvantages of these measures, especially those of the TTR, are well-known. In this paper we propose two measures (Advanced TTR and Guiraud Advanced) that have clear advantages over the traditional measures. These two measures combine characteristics of type/token related measures with the notion of different layers of frequency/productivity in the lexicon (see Laufer and Nation 1995). We computed indices for the lexical items used in an oral text production task by two groups of Turkish-German bilinguals. One group has a German dominant bilingual competence; the other group consists of Turkish dominant bilinguals. It will be shown that the proposed measures for advanced lexical richness trace the characteristics of the bilingual profiles of the groups of subjects better than the traditional measures. Since the two languages involved in this study are typologically quite different, the additional technique of standardizing scores (z scores) was required to draw comparisons between the two languages. The conclusion is that the two proposed indices of advanced lexical richness, and especially the Guiraud Advanced, yield the clearest results. The new measures can be readily computed and are useful in the context of linguistic research as well as in classroom settings.

Received October 2002.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


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

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
P. M. McCarthy and S. Jarvis
vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation
Language Testing, October 1, 2007; 24(4): 459 - 488.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Language TestingHome page
T. Eckes and R. Grotjahn
A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests
Language Testing, July 1, 2006; 23(3): 290 - 325.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
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]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.