Article published in:
Spanish in Context
Vol. 13:2 (2016) ► pp. 285–307

Can speakers’ virtual lexical richness be calculated?

Individual and social determining factors

The aim of this paper is to show an original method of calculating individual lexical richness. This method leads to a non-linear optimization. A randomized algorithm, Simulated Annealing, is used in order to carry out the optimization. This procedure has allowed us to represent a function from which we obtain a reliable pattern for lexical estimation. Furthermore, this method is compatible with other traditional procedures used for the estimation of lexical richness. Therefore, in this work we have taken an alternative and more general approach: we wish to calculate the virtual richness of the individual’s vocabulary. In order to validate the new model that calculates lexical richness, we carried out a pilot study based on the subjects’ sociolinguistic patterns that govern their lexical richness. We have explored the lexical variation of the Spanish system that occurs during the oral exchanges of 86 speakers born in Malaga.
Keywords: lexical variation, lexical density, lexical richness, sociolinguistic patterns
Published online: 15 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.13.2.06avi
References

References

Ávila, Raúl
1985 “La langue espagnole et son enseignement. Oppresseurs et oprimes.” In La crise des langues, ed. by Jacques Maurais, 342ff. Québec-París: Conseil de la Langue Française.Google Scholar
1988 “Lengua hablada y estrato social. Un acercamiento lexicoestadístico.” NRFH XXXVI/1: 131–148.Google Scholar
Baldi, Pierre Luigi
1971 “Fattori sociali dell’abilitá lingüística nella produzione scrita di bambini di novidieci anni.” SILTA 1: 335–471.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens
1995 Enriching Linguistics with Statistics. Performance Models of Natural Language. Amsterdam: ILLC Disertation Series, Amsterdam University.Google Scholar
Bott, Elizabeth
1957 Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London-New York: Tavistock-Free Press.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta and David Sankoff
1974 “Variable Rules. Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence.” Language 50: 333–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Charniak, Eugene
1993 Statistical Language Learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guiraud, Pierre
1959 Problèmes et méthodes de la statisque linguistique. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
1978 Language as Social Semiotics. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: E. Arnold.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott
2002 “Short Texts, Best Fitting Curves, and New Measures of Lexical Diversity.” Language Testing 19: 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1966 The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington: CAL.Google Scholar
1969 “Contraction, Deletion and Inherent Variability of the English Copula.” Language 45: 715–762. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984 “Field Methods of the Project of Linguistic Change and Variation.” In Language in Use. Readings in Sociolinguistics, ed. by John Baugh and Joel Sherzer, 28–53. New Jersey: Prentice‑Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
López Morales, Humberto
(coord.) 1983 Introducción a la lingüística actual. Madrid: Playor.Google Scholar
Malvern, David and Brian Richards
2000 “Investigating Accommodation in Language Proficiency in Interviews Using a New Measure of Lexical Diversity.” Language Testing 19: 85–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malvern, David, Brian Richards, Ngoni Chipere, and Pilar Durán
2004 Lexical Diversity and Language Development: Quantification and Assessment. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Metropolis, Nicholas, et al.
1953 “Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines.” The Journal of Chemical Physics 21: 1087–1092. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana
1979 Function and Process in a Variable Phonology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Pascale and David Sankoff
1989 “Statistical Evidence for Rule Ordering.” Language Variation and Change 1(1): 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez Sáez, José María
1994 El algoritmo Simulated Annealing. Doctoral dissertation. Malaga University.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David
1978 Linguistic Variation. Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
van Gijsel, Sofie, Dirk Speelman, and Dirk Geeraerts
2006 “Locating Lexical Richness: A Corpus Linguistic, Sociovariational Analysis.” 8es Journées internationales d’Analyse statistique des Données Textuelles. Accessed February 19, 2014. http://​lexicometrica​.univ​-paris3​.fr​/jadt​/jadt2006​/PDF​/II​-085​.pdf.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Anne
2004 “The Relation between Lexical Richness and Vocabulary Size in Dutch L1 and L2 Children.” In Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition and Testing, ed. by Paul Bogaards and Baita Laufer, 173–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Villena Ponsoda, Juan Andrés
1994a La ciudad lingüística. Fundamentos críticos de la sociolingüística urbana. Granada: Granada University.Google Scholar
1994b “Pautas y procedimientos de representación del corpus oral español de la Universidad de Málaga. Informe preliminar.” In Estudios para un corpus del español, ed. by Manuel Alvar Ezquerra and Juan Andrés Villena Ponsoda, 73–10. Málaga: Malaga University.Google Scholar
1995 Proyecto de investigación de las variedades vernáculas de la ciudad de Málaga. Objetivos, métodos y primeros resultados. Final report for the DGICYT PB 91‑0417, 1992-1995. Málaga: Malaga University.Google Scholar
Williams, Frederick
(ed.) 1973 Language and Poverty. Chicago: McNally.Google Scholar
Zareva, Alla, Paula Schwanenflugel, and Yordanka Nikolova
2005 “Relationship between Lexical Competence and Language Proficiency-Variable Sensitivity.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 567–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar