Talk:Academic Word List

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Linguistics / Applied Linguistics  (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-Class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Recent articles suggest that the AWL may not be as 'academic' as the name suggests. In fact, by assuming that the GSL represented the 'common' words in English, the words that appeared frequently in Coxhead's corpus analysis were, by default, 'academic'. In fact, to a great degree, Coxhead actually provided some well-needed updates to the GSL. 'JOB' is just one of many examples.

Further research that I conducted with my colleague Ali Billuroglu lead us to the conclusion that there was no 'academic' word list, but rather what is warranted is an expanded 'general' word list, especially in the context of teaching English as a foreign language. For example, 'study', 'research' and 'report' are words in the GSL, but they are also very high frequency words in any academic corpus. Dividing a list into 'general' and 'academic' words seems inappropriate and only serves to fragment the approach to lexis taken by EFL teachers. See our article at for a full discussion of this.

More recently, Hyland and Tse (Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (June 2007). Is there an "Academic Vocabulary"? TESOL Quarterly, Volume 41, Number 2, pp. 235-253.) argue that the AWL needs to be treated with a good deal of caution in its application in materials design or EFL teaching. Their justification in criticism about Coxhead's corpus design in particular, and the notion of an 'academic word list' as being unattainable, has a good degree of validity.

Steve.neufeld (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does Template:Frequency list put Academic Word List under Add-ons?[edit]

Note: I've placed this here to get more people involved. To read about or discuss this issue, please go to Template talk:Frequency list, in the section of the same name. Thanks! --Geekdiva (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academic Word List. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)