RELEVANCE OF THE NEW GENERAL SERVICE LIST IN SELECTING READING PASSAGES FOR ESL STUDENTS

Anealka Aziz, Norwati Roslim

Abstract


The original General Service List, published in 1953, was a list of words deemed important for the second language learners of English. The list became the main reference by many studies involving the coverage of words that the second language learners needed to know to understand a certain amount of the text. Since it was developed over 60 years ago, a couple of attempts to update the list was initiated. One of the significant attempts resulted in the development of the New General Service List (NGSL) in 2013. The NGSL consists of high-frequency words that the second language learners need to know to understand approximately 92% of most general English language texts. These are the basic words, but where these words stand in the English Vocabulary Profile (EVP) of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) have yet to be confirmed. The study intended to determine the CEFR level of the words listed in the NGSL and determine the relationship between the NGSL and the CEFR levels. A descriptive research design and purposive sampling method were adopted. The findings show that most words in the NGSL are listed in the EVP, and there is an inverse relationship between the coverage of the NGSL and the CEFR levels, thus confirming the NGSL can be used as a comparative measure on how much an L2 learner would understand a certain reading text. Future investigations to include analysis of learners’ comprehension and more sample passages are recommended.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


readability, CEFR levels, New General Service List, word analyzer, reading passages

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aziz, A., Fook, C. Y. & Alsree, Z. (2010a). Computational text analysis: A more comprehensive approach to determine the readability of reading materials. Advances in Language and Literary Studies 1 (2), 200-219

Aziz, A., Fook, C. Y. & Alsree, Z. (2010b). Scientific Structural Changes within Texts of Adapted Reading Materials. English Language Teaching 3 (4), 216-223

Bell Team (2016) how many words do you know? https://www.bellenglish.com/blog/how-many-words-do-youknow/#:~:text=Studies%20have%20shown%20that%20the,words%20that%20are%20used%20repeatedly.

Browne C., Culligan, B. & Phillips, J. (2013). The New General Service List: The most important words for second language learners. Retrieved from http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org/ on 14 August 2018.

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Readability in ESL. Reading in Foreign Language , 4, 21-40.

Chall, J. S. (1958). Readability: An appraisal of research and application. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University.

Chall, J. S. (1981). Conceptions and misconceptions. SLATE Newsletter , Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge: Brookline Books.

Chavkin, L. (1997). Readability and reading ease revisited: State-adopted textbooks. The Clearing House , 70, 151-154.

Council of Europe. (n.d.). Global scale - Table 1 (CEFR 3.3): Common Reference levels. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale on 14 August 2018.

Council of Europe. (2018) Common European Framework Of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment Companion Volume With New Descriptors. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989 on 14 August 2018.

Day, R. R. (1994). Selecting a passage for EFL reading class. FORUM , 32 (1), 20.

Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (3), 221-233.

Gunning, R. (1971). The technique of clear writing (2nd ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Gunning, T. G. (2003). The role of readability in today's classroom. Topics in Language Disorder, 23 (3), 175-190.

Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching second language reading. China: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, P. (1981). Effects of reading comprehension on language complexity and cultural background. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169-181.

Johnson, K. (1998). Readability. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://www.timetabler.com

Klare, G. R. (1985). How to write readable English (5th ed.). UK: Hutchinson.

Kincaid, J. P., Fisburne, R. P. Jr., Rogers, R. L. & Chisson, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75, Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training, U. S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN.

Laufer, B. (1997). the lexical plight in second language reading. In J. Coady, & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition. UK: Cambridge University Press.

McCombes, S. (2020) Descriptive research. Retrieved on 2 January 2021 from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/descriptive-research/

McLaughlin, G. H. (1968). Proposal for British readability measures. In J. Downing, & A. L. Brown (Eds.), The Third International Reading Symposium. London: Cassell.

Mesmer, H. A. (2008). Tools for matching readers to text: Research-based practices. New York: Guildford Press.

Nation, P. & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy (Eds.): Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. USA: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Nation, P., & Coady, J. (1998). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching. Singapore: Longman.

Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. UK: Heinemann.

Oakland, T., & Lane, T. (2004). Language, reading and reading formulas: Implications for developing and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 4 (3), 239-252.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching. Singapore: Longman.

Sagar-Fenton, B. & McNeill, L. (2018). How many words do you need to speak a language? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-44569277#:~:text=He%20discovered%20that%20it%20is,lemmas%20%2D%20in%20their%20first%20language. On 20 January 2021.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two versions of the vocabulary test. Language Testing, 18 (1), 55-58.

Shehadeh, C. M., & Strother, J. B. (1994). The use of computerized readability formulas: Bane or Blessing? Retrieved March 27, 2003, from http://www.stc.org

Stenner, J., & Stone, M. H. (2006). Does the reader comprehend the text because the reader is able or because the text is easy? Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://www.lexile.com

Syed Ahmad, T. S. A. (2021). Developing a framework for designing engaging online grammar instructional games. Unpublished thesis. Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia.

Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Malaysia: Longman.

West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman, Green and Co.

Wills, D.S. (2018). Dealing with mixed ability classes (ESL Advice). Retrieved from Dealing with Mixed Ability Classes [ESL Advice] - IELTS Teaching (ielts-teaching.com) on 9 May 2021.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v6i6.4037

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright © 2015 - 2022. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).