Team Me: Foxing Around

Continue or start your personal language log here, including logs for challenge participants
User avatar
reineke
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3570
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
Languages: Fox (C4)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
x 6554

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby reineke » Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:05 pm

Children. Plenty of Oliver Twists, little Gavroches and Remis have picked up language under difficult circumstances. Brain plasticity and critical period may be relevant points but I have purposefully included references to adults.

All things being equal (eeesh)...
1 What frequency list is being studied? How many words? If you see above, the first 1000 words are generally useful basic words and function words. They're highly repetitive in all kinds of texts so I'm not sure SRS people have such a great advantage here. SRS might make more sense later if you really care about certain vocabulary but in my opinion learners should be very discriminating about what they include here.

As illustrated above, if the students are studying subsequent 1000s of words from an academic word list and are later asked to read adult literature they may have deficiencies vs students who were reading graded readers based on literary works. Readers of graded works have the additional benefit of being exposed to connected prose. Conversely, students who were reading adapted novels will have to boost their academic vocabulary in order to read academic texts and newspapers. However at the 1650 word threshold they will all struggle with whatever adult material they're attempting to read.
Student 3 may choose to read RL Stine

Why are they only reading to reach the first 1650 words? According to research above a basic initial vocabulary of 1600-2000 words is necessary for successful fast incidental addition of subsequent vocabulary. Incidentally, 2000 words represent the lowest vocabulary threshold necessary for comfortable coverage and subsequent learning using oral material and children's programming.

How do we know when the task is accomplished? Students of vocabulary cards can study precisely 1650 words. When are the extensive readers "done"? With some graded readers you can fine tune exposure to 1500-2000 most common words. Students reading children's books or young adult material will be exposed to all the most frequent 5000 words and some lower frequency words. Even the Peppa Pig corpus features 5000 unique words. I wonder if it includes any references to balloons.

Recently I brought up that conversation I had a few years ago about the usefulness of the word "balloon." The point I was making was that the person was writing off children's material because it's full of such children's words which are not worthy of his adult existence. The thing is, many words are common in children's programs but low frequency in adult material. Not knowing these words contributes to excessive vocabulary load.

Now that I think of it, in another conversation a smart lady thought of merry go round as a better example. While it's true that the word hshows up less often than say balloon, it is still used metaphorically or simply when you referring to the thing itself.

There's another thread here titled
Unconscious mastering of a word.
Here we discussed the usefulness or uselessness of the expression libre albedrio. Libero arbitrio in italiano and "free will" in English. A native speaker of Spanish, a long time board member maintained that he never heard this expression in his life. As such it deserved to be chopped from someone's vocabulary learning deck. We entered into a discussion and I looked into it further.

The RAE corpus includes expressions from Spanish-speaking America and Spain, and covers some recent language. In the RAE frequency list "albedrío" is at position 24,352. I added that "Mocoso" (moccioso in Italian) is at 45,126. This type of word is also more likely to appear in fiction. I'm mentioning it to illustrate a further point. Libre albedrio is sort of philosophical. I also ran into it watching cartoons and reading Cervantes. I cannot imagine enjoying fiction without a sufficient vocabulary relating to people's appearance or attitude and "mocoso" is crushingly low likely due to RAE being based on a mixture of adult fiction and nonfiction. The similarity to Italian moccioso is a clue about my quick progress in Spanish and why I judged it more critical to map to existing aural vocabulary than worrying about amassing additional vocabulary which continues to find its way into my vocabulary on its own anyway.
2 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby luke » Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:13 pm

reineke wrote:If you see above, the first 1000 words are generally useful basic words and function words. They're highly repetitive in all kinds of texts so I'm not sure SRS people have such a great advantage here. SRS might make more sense later if you really care about certain vocabulary but in my opinion learners should be very discriminating about what they include here.

As illustrated above, if the students are studying subsequent 1000s of words from an academic word list and are later asked to read adult literature they may have deficiencies vs students who were reading graded readers based on literary works. Readers of graded works have the additional benefit of being exposed to connected prose. Conversely, students who were reading adapted novels will have to boost their academic vocabulary in order to read academic texts and newspapers. However at the 1650 word threshold they will all struggle with whatever adult material they're attempting to read.
Student 3 may choose to read RL Stine

Thank you for your very thoughtful answer. If I'm understanding correctly, SRS is not so useful for the first 1000 words. The first 1000 are better learned in context, particularly from graded readers of literary works.

The graded reader student may be particularly helped by that 800 and some odd frequent academic word list, as they show up not only in academic works, but also in news and newspapers and aren't as common in the literary graded reader domain.

Beyond 1000, SRS may be useful if one chooses what to include judiciously. That is, based on the needs or interests of the particular student. (Or maybe from that academic word list).

I'll have to look up RL Stine.

Thank you also for your generosity in entertaining my 3 student thought experiment :)
0 x
: 124 / 124 Cien años de soledad 20x
: 5479 / 5500 5500 pages - Reading
: 51 / 55 FSI Basic Spanish 3x
: 309 / 506 Camino a Macondo

User avatar
reineke
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3570
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
Languages: Fox (C4)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
x 6554

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby reineke » Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:21 am

Generally speaking you should not include any high frequency abstract functional words in a vocabulary learning tool. High frequency concrete nouns can be learned with the help of images, lists etc. I don't cram vocabulary, period. In one of the papers I linked to above they clumped together a corpus of readers amounting to around 400k words and found them lacking. I believe the corpus didn't provide the desired 5+ repetitions for most high frequency words in a certain range (3k).

luke wrote:We know vocabulary is complex.

I'm curious for more details on reineke's 50 books in Italian in a few weeks. Easy to imagine how it would be helpful. Curious more about the details. Were the books short or quite easy, based on your capabilities at the time?

P.S. I am the guy who asked, "how much do you put up with dreadful?" and some people give it 110%. :lol:


It was a year's worth of university reading requirements. It was mostly 19th and 20th century literature, some theater and selections from histories of literature. My phonology, prosody, lexis and syntax were learned aurally and already in place for years. I had some previous experience reading Italian literature. I also enjoyed it. It just happened I left my reading for the summer and then procrastinated. I read everything except for a D'Annunzio novel which I didn't want to finish. I got a nice brain pump out of it and it boosted my reading skills.
2 x

User avatar
reineke
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3570
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
Languages: Fox (C4)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
x 6554

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby reineke » Thu Jan 13, 2022 8:21 pm

A New Receptive Vocabulary Size Test for French

Abstract:

Researchers have developed several tests of receptive vocabulary knowledge suitable for use with learners of English, but options are few for learners of French. This situation motivated the authors to create a new vocabulary size measure for French, the Test de la taille du vocabulaire (TTV). The measure is closely modelled on Nation’s (1983) Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) and follows the guidelines written by Schmitt, Schmitt, and Clapham (2001). Initially, a pilot version was trialled with 63 participants; then an improved
version was administered to 175 participants at four proficiency levels. Results attest to the TTV’s validity: mean scores across the four frequency sections decreased as the tested words became less frequent, and more proficient learner groups outperformed less proficient groups. The TTV in its current form is intended to be of practical use to teachers and learners, but it is also expected to evolve; ideas for future improvements are discussed.

An important characteristic of receptive size measures is the frequency-informed selection of test items. Analyses of large corpora
have resulted in lists of the most frequent word families or lemmas of a language (a lemma differs from a family in that it includes a headword and its inflections but does not include derived forms).


Frequency-informed size testing is based on the assumption that the most frequent words of a language will be learned early, while less frequently encountered words will be learned later. An overview of research by Milton (2009) provides evidence that this assumption is
sound:

But it is also clear that in the cases of certain words and certain learners, learning may not always follow a strict frequency order. Research by Bardel, Gudmundson, and Lindqvist (2012) shows that Swedish-speaking learners of French can readily recognize some infrequent French words (e.g., e´lectrique, vocation) due to their resemblance to words that have been borrowed into Swedish.

These researchers also identified “thematic” words that are rather infrequent in French generally, but are likely to be known to learners
because they occur frequently in classroom input
. Nonetheless, frequency appears to be a powerful factor in vocabulary learning across
groups of learners. Milton’s (2009) analysis of learnability factors found the frequency of a word to be a much stronger predictor of its being learned than cognateness, word length, and part of speech. It is important to note that the number of L2 word families that a
learner knows receptively is just one of several measurable dimensions of vocabulary knowledge
(see Nation [2013] for an overview).

Instruments used by researchers interested in the acquisition of French, for example, include measures of lexical diversity in speech production (Tidball & Treffers-Daller, 2007), “depth” measures that assess learners’ ability to recognize collocates and other word associations (Bogaards, 2000; Greidanus, Bogaards, van der Linden, Nienhuis, & de Wolf, 2004), and profiling software that identifies proportions of advanced lexis in speech samples (Bardel et al., 2012). A study by Forsberg Lundell and Lindqvist (2014) uses
innovative measures of productive collocation ability and lexicopragmatic knowledge. Generally, the instruments mentioned above have proved their usefulness in answering questions about relationships between different kinds of lexical knowledge and effective ways
of distinguishing between groups of varying proficiency levels. But most of them target fairly advanced university learners of French, and
they are accessible mainly to researchers. In our view, there is a need for a new, freely available French vocabulary size test suited to assessing learners of a wide range of proficiencies. It is also important that the test be easy to administer and that it produce readily interpretable scores. Our size test was designed with these practical goals in mind.

What are some of the typical vocabulary sizes identified using these instruments? An investigation using the VST, reported by
Nation (2013), found that learners of English who were able to perform adequately in undergraduate studies at an English-medium university had vocabulary sizes of 5,000 to 6,000 word families. Learners studying at the doctoral level were found to have a vocabulary size of around 9,000 English families. Analyses of the coverage of frequency lists for a variety of text types by Nation (2006) show that learners would need knowledge of the 8,000 to 9,000 most frequent English word families to understand 98% of the vocabulary that occurs in novels written for native speakers. The 98% criterion is based on research by Schmitt, Jiang, and Grabe (2011) and others (see Nation [2013]), which indicates that knowledge of 98% of the words in a text is a reasonably good guarantee that it will be comprehended adequately. Size research has also investigated native speakers; a study by Goulden, Nation, and Read (1990) indicates that university-educated adults may know around 20,000 English word families.

What does vocabulary size research have to say about learners of French? In a study tellingly entitled “Language Lite,” Milton (2006) reports that after hundreds of hours of French study over seven years in British secondary school programs, learners were found to have a recognition vocabulary size of only 1930 lemmas (SD = 475), according to mean scores on the checklist test. Similar modest figures are reported by David (2008) in a study that also investigated secondary learners in Britain using the checklist test. In a follow-up to his study of secondary learners, Milton (2008) investigated university students. He reports that after an additional four years of study at a British university, including a year abroad spent in France, students’ mean French vocabulary size reached 3,326 lemmas (SD = 579).
Although the research discussed above sheds some light on the amount of vocabulary needed to complete school French programs
in Britain, many other questions remain.

To our knowledge, the vocabulary sizes that learners would need to read a French novel without assistance, follow the dialogue of a movie, study at a French medium university, or achieve other learning goals they may have are largely undetermined. Corpus counts by Cobb and Horst (2004) suggests that knowledge of words on the 2,000 most frequent French list is likely to be a powerful asset, offering a possibly even higher level of known-word coverage than in English. But to our knowledge this potential has not been investigated experimentally with L2 learners. Nor are we aware of research that specifies the number of words that native speakers of French can recognize, as indicated by their performance on a size test. One explanation for this research shortfall may be the unavailability (until recently) of good corpus-based frequency lists for French.

All these concerns informed our decision to create and trial a new French size test suitable for use in classrooms, the Test de la taille du vocabulaire (TTV). VST, which presents four answer options for each target word. A possible point in favour of the VST is its sampling of English words from all of 14 corpus-based frequency bands, which gives it the ability to test a wide range of learner knowledge. But French word lists drawn from a large modern corpus at 14 different levels of frequency were not available to us. However, we were able to take
advantage of recent work by Lonsdale and Le Bras (2009), whose list of the 5,000 most frequent lemmas is based on a 23-million word corpus of current written and spoken international French.

Unlike earlier French corpora that are based largely on written language (e.g. Baudot, 1992; Verlinde & Selva, 2001), this corpus has a substantial spoken component (50%). The Lonsdale and Le Bras list was used to construct a pilot version of the TTV following the VLT, with sections that sample the 2,000, 3,000, and 5,000 frequency levels. The VLT also has sections that test the 10,000 level as well as Coxhead’s (2000) Academic Word List, a list of families that occur frequently in university textbooks. Like the VLT, the TTV tests words at the 10,000 level, but since the Lonsdale and Le Bras lists go only as far as the 5,000 frequency level, we turned to an older list by Baudot (1992) to create this part of the test. The decision to include the same frequency levels as the VLT was made with a view to enabling eventual comparison studies of L2 English and French vocabulary development. However, we did not include a section on the TTV that parallels the Academic Word List section on the VLT. Such a list has not been determined for French, and it may well not exist. Research by Cobb and Horst (2004) indicates that while a distinct academic lexis (largely Greco-Latin) is characteristic of English, this is likely not the case in French or other Romance languages. Creating the pilot TTV involved first sampling the test words and distractors at random from the 2,000, 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 frequency lists (henceforth referred to as 2K, 3K, 5K, and 10K) and creating test clusters for each level.

Interviews

Before moving to the larger study, we probed test-takers’ knowledge of tested words in individual interviews. The procedure was intended
to explore the extent to which learners actually knew words they had correctly matched to definitions on the TTV.

When the TTV in its piloted and improved form was administered to 175 learners of French at four levels of proficiency at a school in Montreal, it functioned as expected: The sections that tested less frequent words proved more difficult than sections with more frequent words; means for the four frequency sections differed significantly. Since research has shown that learners generally acquire more frequent words before they acquire less frequent ones (Milton, 2009; Nation, 1990), the frequency findings speak to the validity of the test.

Performance of individuals did not always follow this neatly descending pattern, however. For example, several learners in the advanced group scored higher on the 3K and 5K sections than on the 2K section. Milton notes similar results in his 2009 overview of vocabulary size testing. One possible explanation for this finding comes from Milton’s (2007) study, which compared learners with “normal” profiles to those with a 2K deficit and found evidence of an aptitude effect. More research of this type is needed to understand how individual learners respond to frequency in the input to which they are exposed. Also, as Bardel et al. (2012) have found, exposure to thematic classroom vocabulary and the availability of L1 cognates can facilitate the learning of infrequent words; these factors may have been in play here.

The testing also identified proficiency differences in the expected direction: the higher the proficiency level of the group, the greater the
mean scores on the test. These differences were statistically significant. The finding that greater vocabulary sizes were associated with more advanced proficiency (as determined by the school’s placement measure) lends credibility to the test and points to its potential usefulness in helping to place students in language courses.

In terms of hours of instruction, the beginning Quebec participants in the TTV study, who have completed 330 hours of study, can be seen as roughly comparable to British secondary learners in year 5, who have completed an estimated total 351 classroom hours (78 + 58.5 + 58.5 + 78 + 78), according to Milton’s figures. As shown in the first row of Table 4, the mean vocabulary size for the Quebec learners amounts to an estimated 2,699 words. This stands in marked contrast to the mean size of just 852 words reported for the British learners after a similar amount of time in class. Another comparison might be made between the low intermediate Quebec learners with 660 hours spent in class and the British learners, who are reported to have spent a total of 643.5 hours in class by the end of seven years of secondary school.

Again, the difference is large. The mean size for the Quebec learners shown in the second row of Table 4 is estimated at 4,068, while the British figure is 1,930 (with considerable variability in both groups). Arguably, these very great differences call the TTV’s measurement capabilities into serious question.

But are the Quebec figures wildly implausible? There are several reasons to think they are not. First, the TTV is designed to measure size through the 10K frequency level, while the maximum level assessed on the checklist test is 5K. This gives the Quebec learners a considerable advantage in terms of opportunities to demonstrate word knowledge. Another explanation pertains to the frequency lists used to build the two size tests. The checklist test draws on the Baudot (1992) list, which is based on a corpus of written materials, but the TTV draws for the most part on work by Lonsdale and Le Bras (2009), whose corpus contains a large spoken component (50%). In other words, the character of the lists sampled to build the measures differs considerably, and it is possible that this makes the TTV an easier test.

There are also important differences in exposure to target language input in the two learning contexts. In Milton’s study, the participants were learning French as a foreign language at school while living in an English-speaking milieu. By contrast, the TTV participants live and work in a French-speaking society, and therefore they have a great deal more exposure to target language input. Acquiring proficiency in their new language promises social and economic benefits, so the Quebec participants are likely to be motivated learners. There is also
research evidence that intensive instruction leads to greater proficiency gains than does a distributed “drip feed” program (Serrano &Mun˜oz, 2007; White & Turner, 2005), which seems a fair characterization of the classroom situations investigated by Milton. By contrast,
Quebec francisation programs promote rapid integration...

...all of the TTV participants spent at least 12 hours per week in class; most of them spent as many as 30. This may well have given them a vocabulary learning advantage over the British learners, who appear to have attended only two or three hours of class per week during most of their seven years of study. Finally, over a third of the students who took the TTV were speakers of Romance languages and were therefore probably able to recognize many words on the test due to familiarity with cognate equivalents or near-equivalents in their first languages.

To determine the extent to which the TTV might have advantaged participants with a Romance-language background, we divided the 175 participants into three rough first language groups: Romance language speakers, Asian language speakers, and speakers of other languages. The Romance group consisted of 67 speakers of Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish. The Asian group consisted of 27 speakers of Korean, Mandarin, Teochew, and Vietnamese; these East Asian languages are typologically distant from French and have not been as strongly influenced by Latin as English has been, for instance. The “other” group consisted of 81 speakers of Farsi, Russian, Tagalog, and 11 other languages (see the Participants section above). The means in these three groups were calculated for each of the four frequency sections and for the test as a whole. As can be seen in the first row of Table 5, means on the 2K section were distinctly higher in the Romance group, at 25.40 (maximum score = 30), while the means in the two other groups were both lower, at around 17.80. This pattern is also seen in the other frequency sections, with Romance speakers outperforming the other two groups by substantial margins (and with more consistency, as the smaller standard deviations indicate). When means for total scores in the three groups were tested via a oneway ANOVA, significant differences were found, F(2, 174) = 59.11, p < .0001. Post hoc pairwise comparisons confirmed a statistically significant advantage for the Romance speakers over both of the nonRomance groups, but there was no statistically significant difference between the two non-Romance groups (p < .01)...

Conclusion

There is an imbalance in available corpus-based resources for vocabulary research and pedagogy in the case of L2 French, with a great deal more in the way of frequency lists, size tests, and learning activities available to those interested in English. One of the goals in creating the TTV was to help redress that imbalance by drawing on state-of-the-art corpus work in French to create an updated receptive vocabulary size measure and make it available to the teaching and research community. To this end, the TTV appears in its entirety at the testing link on Cobb’s Lextutor website (www.lextutor.ca)

https://www.lextutor.ca/tests/batista_horst_2016.pdf

https://www.lextutor.ca/tests/ttv/?mode=test
6 x

Lawyer&Mom
Blue Belt
Posts: 980
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 6:08 am
Languages: English (N), German (B2), French (B1)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=7786
x 3767

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby Lawyer&Mom » Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:04 am

That was fun!

Percentile per level:
2k: 97
3k: 83
5k: 97
10k: 57

Turns out the benefits in French of a wide English vocabulary are unevenly distributed? It seems fair that I only know 57% of the 10th thousand words, but curious that my knowledge of the 3rd thousand words was so much lower than the 5th thousand words. How did you do?
4 x
Grammaire progressive du français -
niveau debutant
: 60 / 60

Grammaire progressive du francais -
intermédiaire
: 25 / 52

Pimsleur French 1-5
: 3 / 5

DaveAgain
Black Belt - 1st Dan
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:26 am
Languages: English (native), French & German (learning).
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... &start=200
x 4049

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby DaveAgain » Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:12 am

I got 93, 97, 97, 97.

I had some trouble finding the finish/mark button. It's on the left hand side, coloured yellow, with 'score as test' within it. In my web browser (FF 95.0.2) I could only see the 'as test' text.
3 x

User avatar
Herodotean
Orange Belt
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:55 am
Languages: English (N)
x 905

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby Herodotean » Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:22 pm

My results:

2k: 97
3k: 90
5k: 87
10k: 53

I'm okay with that for not having focused on French for quite some time now. Latin certainly helps, though.
3 x

Beli Tsar
Green Belt
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:59 pm
Languages: English (N), Ancient Greek (intermediate reading), Latin (Beginner) Farsi (Beginner), Biblical Hebrew (Beginner)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=9548
x 1294

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby Beli Tsar » Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:59 pm

2k: 73
3k: 73
5k: 90
10k: 57

Interesting marks considering I haven't studied French since school, which was terrible, have never been able to speak it, and haven't studied since. Kwiziq marks me as A0 in grammar...

Does this partly show how transparent French is to an English speaker? Certainly the marks for 5k were interesting - and I didn't really feel there was much guessing.
3 x
: 0 / 50 1/2 Super Challenge - Latin Reading
: 0 / 50 1/2 Super Challenge - Latin 'Films'

User avatar
reineke
Black Belt - 3rd Dan
Posts: 3570
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:34 pm
Languages: Fox (C4)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... =15&t=6979
x 6554

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby reineke » Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:42 pm

I think the test takers were instructed not to guess but there was no penalization if you did. Other sciency tests:

English

The test takes about 4 minutes and you can repeat the test as often as you want (you will get new letter sequences each time).
If you take part, you consent to your data being used for scientific analysis of word knowledge.
Advice! Do not say yes to words you do not know, because yes-responses to nonwords are penalized heavily!

"Knowing more foreign languages increases rather than decreases vocabulary in your first language. This is probably a result of the shared vocabulary between languages and the faster growth in new types when acquiring a new language."

http://vocabulary.ugent.be

Spanish

¿Cuántas palabras del español conoces? Al realizar esta prueba, en 4 minutos tendrás una estimación válida de tu vocabulario y ayudarás a la investigación científica.
Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language

http://vocabulario.bcbl.eu/

Italian

Quante parole italiane conosci? Con questo test puoi ottenere una stima valida della dimensione del tuo vocabolario in soli 4 minuti e in questo modo aiuterai anche la ricerca scientifica.

http://vocabolario.ugent.be
http://vocabolario.ugent.be/instructions

Coldrainwater, based on his knowledge of English + Spanish took the Italian test 10 times and averaged 35.6%
That's some dedication. Thanks.
Ani scored 41% based on her knowledge of English and French (mostly)

The Dutch test. My answers were based on English + German cognates.

Jouw resultaat
Op basis van je resultaten schatten we dat je 52% van alle Nederlandse woorden kent.

Je hebt 59% van de woorden juist herkend. (similar to German erkennen)

Je hebt 7% van de niet-bestaande woorden verkeerd herkend.

Dit geeft je een gecorrigeerde score van 59% - 7% = 52%.

Dit is een behoorlijk niveau voor een Nederlandssprekende

http://woordentest.ugent.be
1 x

User avatar
luke
Brown Belt
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:09 pm
Languages: English (N). Spanish (intermediate), Esperanto (B1), French (intermediate but rusting)
Language Log: https://forum.language-learners.org/vie ... 15&t=16948
x 3631

Re: Team Me: Foxing Around

Postby luke » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:47 pm

reineke wrote:Spanish

http://vocabulario.bcbl.eu/

bcbl vocabulario prueba wrote:En función de tus resultados, estimamos que conoces 43% de palabras del español
Este es el nivel aceptable para una persona nativa.

Muy interesante ;)
1 x
: 124 / 124 Cien años de soledad 20x
: 5479 / 5500 5500 pages - Reading
: 51 / 55 FSI Basic Spanish 3x
: 309 / 506 Camino a Macondo


Return to “Language logs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests