The Word Frequency Effect

2011 ◽  
Vol 58 (5) ◽  
pp. 412-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Brysbaert ◽  
Matthias Buchmeier ◽  
Markus Conrad ◽  
Arthur M. Jacobs ◽  
Jens Bölte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
German Language ◽  
Word Frequency Effect ◽  
Processing Data ◽  
Google Books ◽  
Word Frequencies ◽  
Decision Times

We review recent evidence indicating that researchers in experimental psychology may have used suboptimal estimates of word frequency. Word frequency measures should be based on a corpus of at least 20 million words that contains language participants in psychology experiments are likely to have been exposed to. In addition, the quality of word frequency measures should be ascertained by correlating them with behavioral word processing data. When we apply these criteria to the word frequency measures available for the German language, we find that the commonly used Celex frequencies are the least powerful to predict lexical decision times. Better results are obtained with the Leipzig frequencies, the dlexDB frequencies, and the Google Books 2000–2009 frequencies. However, as in other languages the best performance is observed with subtitle-based word frequencies. The SUBTLEX-DE word frequencies collected for the present ms are made available in easy-to-use files and are free for educational purposes.

scholarly journals Visual word recognition in a second language: A test of the lexical entrenchment hypothesis with lexical decision times

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 530-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARC BRYSBAERT ◽  
EVELYNE LAGROU ◽  
MICHAËL STEVENS
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Lexical Decision ◽  
Word Frequency ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Qualitative Difference ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
Word Frequency Effect ◽  
Vocabulary Size ◽  
Decision Times

The word frequency effect is stronger in second language (L2) processing than in first language (L1) processing. According to the lexical entrenchment hypothesis, this difference is not due to a qualitative difference in word processing between L1 and L2, but can be explained by differences in exposure to the target language: People with less exposure to a language show a steeper frequency curve for that language. Exposure differences can be measured with a vocabulary test. The present study tested whether the lexical entrenchment hypothesis provides an adequate explanation for differences in lexical decision times. To this end, we compared the performance of 56 Dutch–English bilinguals to that of 1011 English L1 speakers on 420 English six-letter words. In line with previous research, the differences in the word frequency effect between word processing in L1 and in L2 became vanishingly small once vocabulary size was entered as a predictor. Only in a diffusion model analysis did we find some evidence that the information build-up may be slower in L1 than in L2, independent of vocabulary size. We further report effects of cognates, age-of-acquisition, and neighborhood size that can also be explained in terms of differences in exposure.

scholarly journals The Word Frequency Effect in Word Processing: An Updated Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Brysbaert ◽  
Paweł Mandera ◽  
Emmanuel Keuleers
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Word Frequency ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Word Processing ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
Word Frequency Effect ◽  
Frequency Measure ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
High Frequency Words

The word frequency effect refers to the observation that high-frequency words are processed more efficiently than low-frequency words. Although the effect was first described over 80 years ago, in recent years it has been investigated in more detail. It has become clear that considerable quality differences exist between frequency estimates and that we need a new standardized frequency measure that does not mislead users. Research also points to consistent individual differences in the word frequency effect, meaning that the effect will be present at different word frequency ranges for people with different degrees of language exposure. Finally, a few ongoing developments point to the importance of semantic diversity rather than mere differences in the number of times words have been encountered and to the importance of taking into account word prevalence in addition to word frequency.

Temporal contrast and the word frequency effect.

1979 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. May ◽  
Lauren J. Cuddy ◽  
Janice M. Norton
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
Temporal Contrast ◽  
Word Frequency Effect

scholarly journals The word frequency effect and lexical access

1982 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 615-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Segui ◽  
Jacques Mehler ◽  
Uli Frauenfelder ◽  
John Morton
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
Lexical Access ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
Word Frequency Effect

Word Frequency Effect in False Memories

2005 ◽  
Vol 96 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1095-1112E ◽  
Author(s):  
İlyas Göz
Keyword(s):  
Word Frequency ◽  
Recognition Test ◽  
Recall Test ◽  
False Memories ◽  
The Other ◽  
Frequency Effect ◽  
Word Frequency Effect ◽  
Testing Effects ◽  
Trace Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Trace Theory

Fuzzy Trace Theory argues that false memories arise from a weak verbatim memory along with strong encoding of the meaning (gist). The present study simultaneously investigated the effects of the strength of both the gist and the verbatim information on false memories. Exp. 1 was carried out to compare false memories for common and rare words in recall and recognition. In Exp. 2 a control for possible testing effects was added, and participants were given a recognition test with no preceding recall test. Qualitative judgements (Remember vs Know) regarding words judged as old on the recognition test were also collected in Exp. 2. Both experiments showed that false memories were more likely when weak verbatim items occurred along with strong gist (as with common words) than only with weak gist encoding (as with rare words). Moreover, participants were more likely to choose falsely physically similar distractors for rare words than for common words. Semantically similar distractors, on the other hand, were more likely to be selected for common than for rare words. These results provide further support for the fuzzy trace theory explanation of false memories. However, some weaknesses of this model regarding false memories are also discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document