Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Slovenščina 2.0: Emp...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Crowdsourcing ratings for single lexical items

Authors: Elena Volodina; David Alfter; Therese Lindström Tiedemann;

Crowdsourcing ratings for single lexical items

Abstract

In this study, we investigate theoretical and practical issues connected to differentiating between core and peripheral vocabulary at different levels of linguistic proficiency using statistical approaches combined with crowdsourcing. We also investigate whether crowdsourcing second language learners’ rankings can be used for assigning levels to unseen vocabulary. The study is performed on Swedish single-word items. The four hypotheses we examine are: (1) there is core vocabulary for each proficiency level, but this is only true until CEFR level B2 (upper-intermediate); (2) core vocabulary shows more systematicity in its behavior and usage, whereas peripheral items have more idiosyncratic behavior; (3) given that we have truly core items (aka anchor items) for each level, we can place any new unseen item in relation to the identified core items by using a series of comparative judgment tasks, this way assigning a “target” level for a previously unseen item; and (4) non-experts will perform on par with experts in a comparative judgment setting. The hypotheses have been largely confirmed: In relation to (1) and (2), our results show that there seems to be some systematicity in core vocabulary for early to mid-levels (A1-B1) while we find less systematicity for higher levels (B2-C1). In relation to (3), we suggest crowdsourcing word rankings using comparative judgment with known anchor words as a method to assign a “target” level to unseen words. With regard to (4), we confirm the previous findings that non-experts, in our case language learners, can be effectively used for the linguistic annotation tasks in a comparative judgment setting.

Keywords

non-expert crowdsourcing, CEFR levels, core vocabulary and language learning, P1-1091, single lexical items, comparative judgment, Philology. Linguistics

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Published in a Diamond OA journal