Multiple Meanings in the EFL Lexicon
AbstractThe extent of words with multiple meanings in English has important implications for the vocabulary learning load of EFL learners. The greater proportion of such words among the target vocabulary implies an increased learning load. The present study investigates the extent of multiple word meanings among the most frequent 9,000 words of the English language, which we refer here as the EFL lexicon. These include two subsets of vocabulary ‘the high frequency vocabulary’ covering the most frequent 3,000 words and ‘the mid-frequency vocabulary’, which covers the subsequent 6,000 words in the 4,001 -9,000 frequency range. The meanings of 225 words randomly sampled from nine word frequency lists based on the British National Corpus were checked using the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries website. The results indicated that 64% of the words in the entire sample had multiple meanings. The percentage was much higher among the high frequency vocabulary (95%) but dropped considerably (48%) in the mid-frequency vocabulary. The words had 2.49 meanings on average amounting to a learning load of over 22,000 meanings for the 9,000 words. The high frequency vocabulary had more meanings, 4 meanings per word, suggesting an even heavier load for lower proficiency learners for whom this vocabulary is a common first target. The extent of multiple meanings was greater in adjectives: there was a greater percentage of adjectives with multiple meanings (85%) and the number of meanings per word was also higher (2.93 meanings) warranting special pedagogic attention.
Britton, B. K. (1978). Lexical ambiguity of words used in English text. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10(1), 1-7.
Compleat Lexical Tutor http//www.lextutor.ca/list_learn/bnc/).
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60(3), 573-605.
Kuçera, H., & Francis, W.N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI Brown University Press.
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15-30.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. (1995). Linguistic categorization. Prototypes in linguistic theory (2nd ed.). Oxford Oxford University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Polysemy’s paradoxes. Language Sciences, 25, 637-655.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484-503.
Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3, 547-586.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London Longman.
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human Behavior and the principle of least effort. An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA Addison‐Wesley.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.