|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 112
member
|
member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 112 |
It's an an old thread, but I came across this article and thought it would be of interest. http://www.quinion.com/words/articles/howmany.htmIt's really a good site to explore. I've sent a query regarding public/private schools, but I notice that the Author is away until the end of July - we might have a long wait!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4 |
The Biggest question is how would someone measure someone's vocabulary. You can't just ask someone to List all the words they know. That’s impractical and many words would be left off.
And another question is how do you define vocabulary? Is it words we understand? Because a large percentage of the time we understand the word only because of context and not the word its self.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 18
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 18 |
Regarding the controversy about what to include in an estimation of a person's vocabulary: estimates of the size of Shakespeare's vocabulary range from 15,000 to 30,000 words, depending on what you decide to count. Here the question of counting method is crucial, since the scholars working in this area base their estimates on the same body of texts. The one who arrived at the highest word count regards the different forms of a word (such as cry, cries, cried, criedst) as separate words. He also includes proper names in his estimate. This does not address your question directly, I know, but indicates another kind of problem encountered when estimating vocabulary: what is a word? Regarding the question whether passive vocabulary should be included in such a count, I would say yes, since most of us use only a small part of our vocabulary actively and otherwise the numbers we would be looking at as estimates would hardly serve to satisfy our vanity. Isn't that what this question is all about, anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4 |
So maybe a better way to count someone's [someplace] used vocabulary would to strap a tape recorder to them and
record a few days worth of usage. Then enter all the words they used and have a computer count them and
remove redundancies. Do this 5-6 times and I bet you would have a very good idea as to how big
someone's used vocabulary would be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
But you would still have the problem of what counts as a word (do inflections and compounds count?) and would still only get the most commonly used part of their spoken active vocabulary. For example, I certainly know the word "fraternisation" but have only used it once or twice in my life.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Here's another spanner in the works:
in counting someone's vocabulary, how many languages
do you allow ? Do you allow extremely well-known
words (e.g., pro bono, c'est la vie) from another language?
And what if the person speaks several languages?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
It seems to me that most contributors to this thread assume at least implicitly that vocabulary size stands for a certain quality of a person: the larger the better.. This is certainly valid up to a point. Rather than speculating about the maximum possible vocabulary size, it would be interesting to know the "most useful" size, i.e. the point where further increase only appeals to collectors of rarities, and does not contribute anymore to the precision of communication. Accessibility of information quite generally decreases with growing volume.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Excellent, wsieber! The whole point of using words is to
communicate, and it is interesting to speculate on what
you're communicating if no one knows what you're saying.
One difficulty, though: who gets to decide at what point
>>"where further increase only appeals to collectors of rarities, and does not contribute anymore to the precision of communication."<<
As an example, I use in my normal speech words that many of
my church friends don't seem to know, but my Mensa friends do. And Tsuwm and our old friend Jeff, at least, are clearly light-years ahead of me in the vocabulary dep't.
Response eagerly anticipated!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Accessibility of information quite generally decreases with growing volume.
I find age a big factor, my recall is not what it once was. Perhaps it is because my brain is so full of useless information, for example where to buy the cheapest petrol (gas) in a place I no longer live. I know so many road names of places I may never visit again (one of the problems of moving house so much) I just wish I could archive some of the useless stuff and make room for some more information.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Hi Jackie,
>and it is interesting to speculate on what
you're communicating if no one knows what you're saying.<
Sorry to repeat myself, I have been harping on that before, in connection with Latin etc. In the case you mention, I am communicating: "Look what an intelligent and learned person I am and how lucky you are to know me" .
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts229,919
Members9,197
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
749
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
