The Dimensionality of Lexical Features in General, Academic, and Disciplinary Vocabulary

References

• Adelman, J. S., & Brown, G. D. (2007). Phonographic neighbors, not orthographic neighbors, determine word naming latencies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anglin, J. M., Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10), i–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why SAFE is better than FAST: The relatedness of a word’s meanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 484–504. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. S. (1991). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms (Vol. 20). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beretta, A., Fiorentine, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.12.006
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bhattacharya, A., & Ehri, L. C. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 331. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370040501
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(1), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.63
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breland, H. M. (1996). Word frequency and word difficulty: A comparison of counts in four corpora. Psychological Science, 7(2), 96–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00336.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryant, P., & Goswami, U. (1987). Beyond grapheme-phoneme correspondence. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 7(5), 439–443.
   Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2018). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417727521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., McCormick, S. F., & Keuleers, E. (2019). Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English Lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1077-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervetti, G. N., Hiebert, E. H., Pearson, P. D., & McClung, N. A. (2015). Factors that influence the difficulty of science words. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(2), 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X15615363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195584
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary. World Book/Childcraft International.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): One billion million words, 1990-2019. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca
   Google Scholar
• DeRocher, J. (1973). The counting of words: a review of the history, techniques and theory of word counts with annotated bibliography. Syracuse University Research Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107–143). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
   Google Scholar
• Fellbaum, C. (2005). WordNet and wordnets. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00946-9.
   Google Scholar
• Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D., & Pethick, S. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(5), i. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (1990). Early lexical acquisition: Rate, content, and the vocabulary spurt. Journal of Child Language, 17(1), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013167
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, J. C., Dale, P. S., & Li, P. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 35(3), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000907008641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H., & Fisher, C. W. (2005). A review of the national reading panel’s studies on fluency: The role of text. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 443–460. https://doi.org/10.1086/431888
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiebert, E. H., Goodwin, A. P., & Cervetti, G. N. (2018). Core vocabulary: Its morphological content and presence in exemplar texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: AN alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(6), 1331–1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 686–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., & Rogers, T. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 718–730. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0278-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalbert, A., Neath, I., & Surprenant, A. M. (2011). Does length or neighborhood size cause the word length effect? Memory and Cognition, 39(7), 1198–1210. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0094-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. N., Johns, B. T., & Recchia, G. (2012). The role of semantic diversity in lexical organization. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 66(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026727
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjeldsen, A. C., Niemi, P., & Olofsson, Å. (2003). Training phonological awareness in kindergarten level children: Consistency is more important than quantity. Learning and Instruction, 13(4), 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00009-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klepousniotou, E. (2002). The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexical. Brain and Language, 81(1), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-Acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, J. F., Francis, D., Paré-Blagoev, J., & Snow, C. E. (2017). The poor get richer: Heterogeneity in the efficacy of a school-level intervention for academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(4), 767–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237596
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, J. F., Knoph, R., McIlraith, A., Kulesz, P. A., & Francis, D. J. (2022). Reading comprehension and academic vocabulary: Exploring relations of item features and reading proficiency. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(2), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laxon, V. J., Coltheart, V., & Keating, C. (1988). Children find friendly words friendly too: Words with many orthographic neighbours are easier to read and spell. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00882.x
   Google Scholar
• Leech, G., & Rayson, P. (2014). Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British national corpus. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840161
   Google Scholar
• Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., Kelley, J. G., & Harris, J. R. (2014). Effects of academic vocabulary instruction for linguistically diverse adolescents: Evidence from a randomized field trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1159–1194. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady, 10(8), 707–710.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y., Michel, J. B., Lieberman, E. A., Orwant, J., Brockman, W., & Petrov, S. (2012, July). Syntactic annotations for the google books ngram corpus. In Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations, Jeju Island, Korea, (pp. 169–174).
   Google Scholar
• Loewen, S., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis. In Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 182–212). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204766
   Google Scholar
• Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/Information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A. (1990). WordNet: An online lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/3.4.235
   Google Scholar
• Miller, L. T., & Lee, C. J. (1993). Construct validation of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—revised: A structural equation model of the acquisition order of words. Psychological Assessment, 5(4), 438–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.4.438
   Google Scholar
• Monsell, S., Doyle, M. C., & Haggard, P. N. (1989). Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: Where are they? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.43
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy, W., Townsend, D., Lesaux, N., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1968). A factor-analytic study of word attributes and verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80161-6
   Google Scholar
• Parks, R., Ray, J., & Bland, S. (1998). Wordsmyth English dictionary-thesaurus [electronic version]. University of Chicago. www.wordsmyth.net
   Google Scholar
• Perfetti, C., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–213). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(9), 3526–3529. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012551108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raiche, G. (2010). An R package for parallel analysis and non graphical solutions to the Cattell scree test. R Package Version 2.3.3.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nFactors.
   Google Scholar
• Revelle, W. (2020). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University. R package version 2.0.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych
   Google Scholar
• Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodd, J. M., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2004). Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity in word recognition. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2801_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008196330239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snow, C. E. (1972). Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43(2), 549–565. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127555
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storkel, H. L. (2004). Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storkel, H. L. (2009). Developmental differences in the effects of phonological, lexical, and semantic variables on word learning by infants. Journal of Child Language, 36(2), 291–321. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090800891X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, J. (2007). Developing knowledge of polysemous vocabulary. University of Waterloo. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/2637
   Google Scholar
• Swanborn, M. S., & De Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 261–285. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069003261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touchstone Applied Science Associates n.d. http://lsa.colorado.edu/spaces.html.
   Google Scholar
• Van Heuven, W. J. B., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vitevitch, M. S., Storkel, H. L., Francisco, A. C., Evans, K. J., & Goldstein, R. (2014). The influence of known-word frequency on the acquisition of new neighbours in adults: Evidence for exemplar representations in word learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(10), 1311–1316. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.912342
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. Longmans, Green and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Yap, M. J., Balota, D. A., Sibley, D. E., & Ratcliff, R. (2012). Individual differences in visual word recognition: insights from the English lexicon project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youn, H., Sutton, L., Smith, E., Moore, C., Wilkins, J. F., Maddieson, I., Croft, W., & Bhattacharya, T. (2016). On the universal structure of human lexical semantics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(7), 1766–1771. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520752113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeno, S., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. Touchstone Applied Science Associates.
   Google Scholar