Comparing Phonological and Orthographic Vocabulary Size: Do Vocabulary Tests Underestimate the Knowledge of Some Learners?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Any description of what it means to know a word in a foreign language is likely to include recognition of form, both how a word sounds when heard and what it looks like when written. However, tests of vocabulary knowledge focus almost exclusively on the written form of the word. We have little idea of learners' phonological vocabulary knowledge or how it might interact with orthographic knowledge. It is suspected that written vocabulary tests may underestimate the vocabulary knowledge of native Arabic speakers, who often handle English orthography poorly. This paper reports a comparison of the phonological and orthographic vocabulary sizes of Greek and Arabic native speakers. Results suggest that written tests do not underestimate Arabic speakers' vocabulary size. The two aspects of vocabulary knowledge develop differently with language level. Very proficient learners of EFL are characterized by an orthographic word recognition much greater than their phonological word recognition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it