How Many Words Do We Know? Practical Estimates of Vocabulary Size Dependent on Word Definition, the Degree of Language Input and the Participant’s Age
Marc Brysbaert, Michaël Stevens, Paweł Mandera, Emmanuel Keuleers · 2016
영어를 모국어로 쓰는 스무 살 미국인이 아는 낱말 수를 대규모 온라인 실험으로 추정한 연구입니다. 평균 4만 2천 개의 표제어를 알고, 스무 살부터 예순 살까지 이틀에 하나꼴로 새 낱말을 배운다는 결과를 냅니다. 낱말을 안다는 말을 어떻게 정하느냐에 따라 숫자가 크게 달라지는 까닭도 설명합니다.
출처 Brysbaert et al. (2016), Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1116 · 라이선스 CC BY 4.0 · 원문
이 장은 원문만 있습니다. 문장별 해석은 앞 장부터 차례로 붙입니다.
6장 · Toward a Pragmatic Answer 3: From Lemmas to Word Families
When one looks at lists of lemmas, it rapidly becomes clear that they still contain a lot of redundancy, as shown in Table 2 Words form families based on derivation and compounding. Knowledge of one word from a family helps to understand the meaning of the other members (although it may not be enough to produce the word) and to learn these words.
The power of morphological families has been investigated most extensively in second language education (Goulden et al., 1990), where it was observed that participants were often able to understand the meaning of non-taught members of the family on the basis of those taught. If you know what ‘diazotize’ means, you also know what ‘diazotization, diazotizable, and diazotizability’ stand for, and you have a pretty good idea of what is referred to with the words ‘misdiazotize, undiazotizable, or rediazotization.’ Similarly, if you know the adjective ‘effortless,’ you will understand the adverb ‘effortlessly’ (you can even produce it). You will also quickly discover that the adjective ‘effortless’ consists of the noun ‘effort’ and the suffix ‘-less.’ And if you know the words ‘flower’ and ‘pot,’ you understand the meaning of ‘flowerpot.’
Psycholinguistic research (Schreuder and Baayen, 1997; Bertram et al., 2000) has also pointed to the importance of word family size in word processing. Words that are part of a large family (‘graph, man, work, and fish’) are recognized faster than words from small families (‘wren, vase, tumor, and squid’).
Goulden et al. (1990) analyzed the 208,000 distinct lemma entries of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961) described above. Of these, they defined 54,000 as base words (referring to word families), 64,000 as derived words, and 67,000 as compound words (there were also 22,000 lemmas that could not be classified). The person, who has spent most energy on defining word families, is Nation (e.g., Nation, 2006). His current list has pruned (and augmented) Goulden et al.’s (1990) list of 54,000 base words to some 28,000 word families, of which 10,000 suffice for most language understanding.
As is the case with all natural categories, the boundary between base words and derived words is not clear (see Bauer and Nation, 1993, for guidelines). Although most of the time the categorization is straightforward, there are a few thousand borderline instances. For instance, what to do with the trio ‘abbey, abbot, and abbess’? They are not morphologically related according to present-day morphological rules, but they are historically related and the similarity in meaning and orthography helps to understand and learn the three of them. A similar question can be asked about ‘move and motion’: Are they part of the same family or not, given their small orthographic and phonological similarity? Authors disagree which of these are base words and which not, leading some scholars to conclude that the transition from lemmas to word families creates more confusion than clarity (Schmitt, 2010). Therefore, it is interesting to do the counts for both definitions.
이 글은 위 출처의 원문을 그 라이선스(CC BY 4.0)에 따라 옮겼습니다. 참고문헌 목록과 인용 번호, 그림 · 표 · 각주 · 수식 · 부록은 빼고 절별로 나누어 실었으며, 그 밖의 문장은 원문 그대로입니다. 원 저작자와 발행 기관은 이 화면을 만들거나 검토하지 않았고, 이곳의 해석과 낱말 풀이는 공식 번역이 아닙니다.
