Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse

93 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview (2020, background): “…that are more likely found in academic text (Coxhead, 2000), words that are less concrete, imageable, and familiar (Crossley & Skalicky, in press; Salsbury, Crossley, & McNamara, 2011; Saito et al., 2016), words that have fewer phonological and orthographical neighbors, words that have higher…”
Size and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge: What the Research Shows (2014, background): “Recently, there has been some interest in training fluency in L2 language pedagogy, largely driven by work of Norman Segalowitz and colleagues and synthesized in Segalowitz (2010) (see Segalowitz et al.”
Assessing Lexical Proficiency Using Analytic Ratings: A Case for Collocation Accuracy (2014, background): “Finally, Salsbury et al. (2011c) used a longitudinal approach to investigate the use of concrete words, imageable words, meaningful words, and familiar words (i.e. words with greater exposure) in ESL learners.”
Lexical Sophistication as a Multidimensional Phenomenon: Relations to Second Language Lexical Proficiency, Development, and Writing Quality (2018, unknown): “A number of psychological properties of words based on subjective human ratings have been extensively examined, including meaningfulness, concreteness, familiarity, imageability, and age of acquisition (AoA; Brysbaert, Warriner, & Kuperman, 2014; Coltheart, 1981; Kuperman, Stadthagen–Gonzales, & Bry”