Log In | Register
According to the Global Language Monitor, a San Diego-based linguistic consultancy, there will be one-million words in the English language this summer, keeping the current rate of progress in mind. GLM uses its own algorithm, the Predictive Quantities Indicator that measures the language as found in print, electronic media, and on television and radio. While GLM's estimated number is not universally accepted, it is less doubted that the average vocabulary of an educated native English speaker is about 24,000 to 30,000, with an active vocabulary of just 10% of it or so. * "Up to 20 per cent of the words used by Global Language Monitor come from hybrids such as Chinglish and Japlish. Words from Chinglish include the business terms "drinktea", meaning closed, and "torunbusiness", meaning open. Bushisms such as "uninalienable" and 'misunderestimate' are included."
English with 1 Million Words
Article Source: Independent.co.uk- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (5)
This hardly seems right; you can just keep tacking on to the beginning and ends of words, and get another word? If we're counting vocabulary, shouldn't we only count the root word? If someone knows the meaning of the word estimate, they shouldn't be considered to know another word when they can define misunderestimate. What about misunderestimating, misunderestimatable, unmisunderestimatable...are those all knew words?
#1 - Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:54 AM EDTIn theory, lexicographers count root words, i.e. words that are unmarked (called headwords or lemmas e.g. "go" in a dictionary represents the forms "go", "goes", "going", "went", "gone"), but in practice the words that get into a dictionary are the 'least marked,' and not the 'unmarked.' Obviously it lets some freedom. How much freedom is another question.
On the one hand, you are right to criticize the practice of GLM (so I sent them an e-mail to clarify their policy--no reply yet, but if you check back, I will write what they consider lemmas).
On the other hand, your example does not really support the usefulness criteria. If I want to say the opposite of legal, can I say unlegal? Not really, I'm afraid, and the dictionary gives some help at that. While some words get 'mis' others get 'un' 'dis' or 'in/im/il' etc. based on language users' practice. It is rightly included in the lexicon how to change the meaning of a root word by adding such a prefix. Even if you understand what 'unlegal' is meant to convey.
Bushisms also mean fun: "uninalienable" is an unnecessary (and silly) longer version of alienable? or a stressed (and silly) duplicate of inalienable? So strange animlas like these words, or ephemeral slang words are also included in the lexicon.
- 2 votes
Interesting! You sound like you're speaking from experience in the field?
- 1 vote
in the broader field of studying linguistics, but not actually being a lexicographer. :)
- 1 vote
I got the answer from GLM's mail service: "Basically, we only count headwords, so GO counts, but not GOES, GOING, etc."
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
