Sunmary "Assessing Grammar and Asseing Vocabulary"
Name : Umi Kalsum Ilham
Npm : 03061811022
Subject : Language Assessment
Assessing Grammar
Differing notions of ‘grammar’ for
assessment
Introduction
The study of grammar has had a long and important role in the history of second language and foreign language teaching. For centuries, to learn another language, or what I will refer to generically as an L2, meant to know the grammatical structures of that language and to cite prescriptions for its use. Grammar was used to mean the analysis of a language system, and the study of grammar was not
just considered an essential feature of language learning, but was thought to be sufficient for learners
to actually acquire another language (Rutherford, 1988). Grammar in and of itself was deemed to be worthy of study – to the extent that in the Middle Ages in Europe, it was thought to be the foundation of all knowl- edge and the gateway to sacred and secular understanding (Hillocks and Smith, 1991). Thus, the central role of grammar in language teaching remained relatively uncontested until the late twentieth century. Even a few decades ago, it would have been hard to imagine language instruction without immediately thinking of grammar.
What is meant by ‘grammar’ in theories of language?
Grammar and linguistics Before attempting to define what it means to ‘know’ grammar or to be able to ‘use’ it to communicate in second or foreign language contexts, we first need to discuss what is commonly meant by ‘grammar’. This is important given the different definitions and conceptualizations of grammar that have been proposed over the years, and the diverse ways in which these notions of grammars have influenced L2 educators. When most language teachers, second language acquisition (SLA) researchers and language testers think of ‘grammar’, they call to mind one of the many paradigms (e.g., ‘traditional grammar’ or ‘universal
grammar’) available for the study and analysis of language. Such linguistic grammars are typically derived from data taken from native speakers and minimally constructed to describe well-formed utterances within an individual framework. These grammars strive for internal consistency and are mainly accessible to those who have been trained inthat particular paradigm.
Generally speaking, most linguists have embraced one of two general perspectives to describe linguistic phenomena. Either they take a syntac-tocentric perspective of language, where syntax, or the way in which words are arranged in a sentence, is the central feature to be observed and analyzed; or they adopt a communication perspective of language,where the observational and analytic emphasis is on how language is used to convey meaning (VanValin and LaPolla, 1997). I will use these two erspectives to classify some of the more influential grammatical paradigms in our field. In the syntactocentric view of language, formal grammar is defined as a systematic way of accounting for and predicting an ‘ideal’ speaker’s or hearer’s knowledge of the language. This is done by a set of rules or ‘principles’ that can be used to generate all well-formed or grammatical utter-ances in the language. This approach typically examines sounds that are combined to form words, words that are put together to form phrases, phrases combined to form clauses, and clauses assembled to form sentences. In other words, this approach is predominantly concerned with the structure of clauses and sentences, leaving the literal meaning and contextual use of these forms to other approaches (i.e., to the fields of semantics and pragmatics).
Form-based perspectives of language
Several syntactocentric, or form-based, theories of language have pro-vided grammatical insights to L2 teachers. I will describe three: traditional grammar, structural linguistics and transformational-generative grammar.
One of the oldest theories to describe the structure of language is traditional grammar. Originally based on the study of Latin and Greek, traditional grammar drew on data from literary texts to provide rich and lengthy descriptions of linguistic form. Unlike some other syntactocentric theories, traditional grammar also revealed the linguistic meanings of these forms and provided information on their usage in a sentence (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999). Traditional grammar supplied an extensive set of prescriptive rules along with the exceptions. A typical rule in a traditional English grammar might be:
The first-person singular of the present tense verb ‘to be’ is ‘I am’ ‘Am’is used with ‘I’ in all cases except in first-person singular negative tagand yes/no questions, which are contracted. In this case, the verb
‘are’ is used instead of ‘am’. For example, ‘I’m in a real bind, aren’t I?’
or ‘Aren’t I trying my best?’
Traditional grammar has been criticized for its inability to provide descriptions of the language that could adequately incorporate the exceptions into the framework and for its lack of generalizability to other languages. In other words, traditional grammar postulated a separate, uniquely language-specific set of rules or ‘parameters’ for every language. In spite of these shortcomings as a form of linguistic analysis, traditional grammar has had an enormous impact on L2 teachers and testers throughout the centuries, and many L2 educators continue to find it a valuable source of information.
Another influential theory of linguistic analysis grew out of a concerted effort by linguists in the United States both to teach English to Native American Indians and to learn the indigenous American languages so that they could be documented and preserved. However, as these languages in the early twentieth century had no written alphabet and as the native speakers were unable to describe the. languages, linguists departed from the long tradition of comparing English to Latin and began to collect samples of the target.
According to Chomsky’s (1981) theory of UG, knowledge of a language consists of not only knowledge of the universal principles shared by all languages, but also knowledge of language-specific rules, or parameters of grammatical variation observed between languages or different varieties of the same language.
Although UG has deepened our understanding of syntax, it has beencriticized for failing to account for meaning or language use in social con-texts (Hymes, 1971; Halliday, 1994). In other words, UG’s focus on syntax downplayed to some extent the role of semantics, or the study of the conventional meanings of words, phrases and sentences, and excluded pragmatics, or meanings derived from context-specific use. Nonetheless,both semantics and pragmatics, together with phonology, morphology and syntax, are critical for assessing the communicative success of an utterance within a given context.
To illustrate these shortcomings, consider the following two syntactically identical sentences.
(1.3) It is raining.
(1.4) It is working.
Another example of the theoretical limitations of applying a purely syntactocentric approach to L2 educational contexts is seen in the following two pairs of utterances.
Context: A French person, who speaks only French, is having a discussion with two Americans, who both speak English and French fluently. During the discussion, one American (Joe) lapses into English. The other American (Sue) says:
(1.5) Sue: Would you please speak French? [request and perhaps criti-cism]
(1.6) Joe: Oh, no problem. [acknowledgment and agreement to comply]
Later, noticing that Joe has not stopped speaking English, Sue repeats:
(1.7) Sue: Would you please speak French? [request and criticism/chas-tisement]
(1.8) Joe: Sorry, I forgot. [apology and excuse]
To highlight further a need to account for meaning on a lexico-grammatical level, consider the different interpretations of the modal auxiliary ‘can’ in the following sentences:
Can you speak Kurdish? (ability or potential)
Can I have some milk, please? (request)
Can I go to the movies tonight, please? (request for permission)
Can I buy you a beer? (offer)
Can we talk at 10? (suggestion)
Can they still be at work? (speculation)
Can it get any warmer? (theoretical possibility)
What is pedagogical grammar?
A pedagogical grammar represents an eclectic, but principled description of the target-language forms, created for the express purpose of helping teachers understand the linguistic resources of communication. These grammars provide information about how language is organized and offer relatively accessible ways of describing complex, linguistic phenomena for pedagogical purposes. The more L2 teachers understand how the grammatical system works, the better they will be able to tailor this information to their specific instructional contexts. One of these formal pedagogical grammars of English is The Grammar Book, published by Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999). These authors used transformational-generative grammar as an organizing framework for the study of the English language. However, in the tradition of pedagogical grammars, they also invoked other linguistic theories and methods of analysis to explain the workings of grammatical form, meaning and use when a specific grammar point was not amenable to a transformational-generative analysis. For example, to explain the form and meanings of prepositions, they drew upon case grammar (Fillmore, 1968) and to describe the English tense-aspect system at the semantic level, they referred to Bull’s (1960) framework relating tense to time. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman’s (1999) book and other useful pedagogical English grammars (e.g., Swan, 1995; Azar, 1998) provide teachers and testers alike with pedagogically oriented grammars that are an invaluable resource for organizing grammar content for instruction and assessment.
Summary
In this chapter, I have attempted to answer the question ‘What do wemean by grammar?’ In this respect, I have differentiated between language and language analysis or linguistics. I have also discussed several schools of linguistics and have shown how each has broadened our understanding of what is meant by ‘grammar’. Finally, I have shown how these different notions of grammar provide complementary information that could be drawn on for purposes of teaching or assessing grammar. In the next chapter I will discuss how second language grammatical knowledge is acquired. In this respect, we will examine how grammatical ability has been conceptualized in L2 grammar teaching and learning, and how L2 grammar teaching and learning are intrinsically linked to assessment.
Research on L2 grammar teaching, learning and assessment
Research on L2 teaching and learning
Over the years, several of the questions mentioned above have intrigued language teachers, inspiring them to experiment with different methods, approaches and techniques in the teaching of grammar. To determine if students had actually learned under the different conditions, teachers have used diverse forms of assessment and drawn their own conclusions about their students. In so doing, these teachers have acquired a consid- erable amount of anecdotal evidence on the strengths and weaknesses of using different practices to implement L2 grammar instruction. These experiences have led most teachers nowadays to ascribe to an eclectic approach to grammar instruction, whereby they draw upon a variety of different instructional techniques, depending on the individual needs, goals and learning styles of their students. I might add that this research is especially important for language testers, who have, over the years, overlooked many of the findings obtained in SLA research related to the acquisition of L2 grammatical ability. In fact, language testers can be criticized in many cases for perpetuating the testing of grammar with discrete-point tasks of grammatical form; for constructing scoring rubrics with descriptors of grammatical development that have little support from SLA findings (Savignon, 1985; Pienemann, Johnston and Brindley, 1988) or from a coherent model of grammatical ability; and for downplaying the role of grammatical accuracy in favor of ‘communicative effectiveness’ in performance assessments of speaking and writing (McNamara, 1996). They might also be faulted for ignoring the role that grammatical knowledge often plays in articulating the different levels of language ability or the role it plays in formulating rater’s judgments of student performance (Homburg, 1984). Finally, language testers can be questioned for intimating that grammatical knowledge is impossible to isolate and assess in communicative situations (e.g., Douglas, 1997). In examining rater scoring behaviors while using communicatively oriented criteria in judging speaking performance, McNamara (1996, p. 222) concluded that: ‘Given what Savignon (1985:131) says about the pervasiveness of a structural orientation in the language-teaching profession, even among progressive and communicatively oriented teachers, it is likely that accuracy, including structural accuracy, is a strong determinant of scores given in this category.’Findings from SLA research, according to Bachman and Cohen (1998),Skehan (1998), Tarone (1998) and Ellis (2001a, 2001b), could be useful in providing language testers with new considerations in the design, development and analysis of grammar tests.
Comparative methods studies
The comparative methods studies sought to compare the effects of different language-teaching methods on the acquisition of an L2. These studies occurred principally in the 1960s and 1970s, and stemmed from a reaction to the grammar-translation method, which had dominated language instruction during the first half of the twentieth century. More generally, these studies were in reaction to form-focused instruction (referred to as ‘focus on forms’ by Long, 1991), which used a traditional structural syllabus of grammatical forms as the organizing principle for L2 instruction. According to Ellis (1997), form-focused instruction contrasts with meaning-focused instruction in that meaning-focused instruction emphasizes the communication of messages (i.e., the act of making a suggestion and the content of such a suggestion) while form-focused instruction stresses the learning of linguistic forms. These can be further contrasted with form-and-meaning focused instruction (referred to by Long (1991) as ‘focus-on-form’), where grammar instruction occurs in a meaning-based environment and where learners strive to communicate meaning while paying attention to form.
Non-interventionist studies
While some language educators were examining different methods of teaching grammar in the 1960s, others were feeling a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the central role of grammar in the L2 curriculum. As a result, questions regarding the centrality of grammar were again raised by a small group of L2 teachers and syllabus designers who felt that the teaching of grammar in any form simply did not produce the desired classroom results.
Possible implications of fixed developmental order to language assessment
The notion that structures appear to be acquired in a fixed developmental order and in a fixed developmental sequence might conceivably have some relevance to the assessment of grammatical ability. First of all, these findings could give language testers an empirical basis for constructing grammar tests that would account for the variability inherent in a learner’s interlanguage. In other words, information on the acquisitional order of grammatical items could conceivably serve as a basis for selecting grammatical content for tests that aim to measure different levels of developmental progression, such as Chang (2002, 2004) did in examining the underlying structure of a test that attempted to measure knowledge of the relative clauses. These findings also suggest a substantive approach to defining test tasks according to developmental order and sequence on the basis of how grammatical features are acquired over time (Ellis, 2001b). In other words, one task could potentially tap into developmental level one,while another taps into developmental level two, and so forth.
Grammar processing and second language development
It is important for language teachers and testers to understand these processes, especially for classroom assessments. As we will see in Chapter 8, we might need to design assessments to determine which stage of the learning process students need help with. For example, I have had students fake their way through an entire lesson on the second conditional. They knew the form and could produce it well enough, but it was not until the end of the lesson that I realized they had not really understood the meaning of the hypothetical or counterfactual conditional. In other words, meaning was not mapped onto the form. A short comprehension test earlier in the lesson might have allowed me to re-teach the meaning of the conditionals before moving ahead.
The role of grammar in models of
communicative language ability
The role of grammar in models of communicative
competence
Every language educator who has ever attempted to measure a student’s communicative language ability has wondered: ‘What exactly does a student need to “know” in terms of grammar to be able to use it well enough for some real-world purpose?’ In other words, they have been faced with the challenge of defining grammar for communicative purposes. To complicate matters further, linguistic notions of grammar have changed over time, as we have seen, and this has significantly increased the number of components that could be called ‘grammar’. In short, definitions of grammar and grammatical knowledge have changed over time and across context, and I expect this will be no different in the future. So how has grammatical knowledge been conceptualized and defined in the major models of communicative competence over the last few decades?
Summary
Given the central role that construct definition plays in test development and validation, my intention in this chapter has been to discuss the ‘what’ of grammar assessment. I have examined how grammar has been depicted in models of communicative language ability over the years, and have argued that for assessment purposes grammar should be clearly differentiated from pragmatics. Grammar should also be defined to include a form and meaning component on both the sentence and discourse levels. I have also argued that meaning can be characterized as literal and intended. Also the pragmatic dimension of language constitutes an extrapolation of both the literal meaning and the speaker’s intended meaning, while using contextual information beyond what is expressed in grammatical forms. I have argued that pragmatic meanings may be simultaneously superimposed upon grammatical forms and their meanings (e.g., as in a joke). In short, grammar should not be viewed solely in terms of linguistic form, but should also include the role that literal and intended meaning plays in providing resources for all types of communication. Although forms and meanings are highly related, it is important for testers to make distinctions among these components, when possible, so that assessments can be used to provide more precise information to users of test results. In the next chapter, I will use this model of grammar as a basis for defining second or foreign language grammatical ability for assessment.
Designing test tasks to measure L2
grammatical ability
Summary
Given the central role of task in the development of grammar tests, this chapter has addressed the notion of task and task specification in the test development process. I discussed how task was originally conceptualized as a holistic method of eliciting performance and argued that the notion of task as a monolithic entity falls short of providing an adequate frame-work from which to specify tasks for the measurement of grammatical ability. I also argued that given the diversity of tasks that could emerge from real-life and instructional domains, a broad conceptualization of task is needed in grammatical assessment – one that could accommodate selected-response, limited-production and extended-production tasks. For assessment, the process of operationalizing test constructs and the specification of test tasks are extremely important. They provide a means of controlling what is being measured, what evidence needs to be observed to support the measurement claims, what specific features can be manipulated to elicit the evidence of performance, and finally how the performance should be scored. This process is equally important for language teachers, materials writers and SLA researchers since any variation in the individual task characteristics can potentially influence what is practiced in classrooms or elicited on language tests. In this chapter, I argued that in developing grammar tasks, we needed to strive to control,or at least understand, the effects of these tasks in light of the inferences we make about examinees’ grammatical ability. Finally, I described Bachman and Palmer’s (1996) framework for char-acterizing test tasks and showed how it could be used to characterize SL grammar tasks. This framework allows us to examine tasks that are currently in use, and more interestingly, it allows us to show how variations in task characteristics can be used to create new task types that might better serve our educational needs and goals. In the next chapter, I will discuss the process of constructing a grammar test consisting of several tasks.
Reference : James E.Purpura.Assessing Grammar.2004
Assessing Vocabulary
The place of vocabulary in language assessment
Introduction
At first glance, it may seem that assessing the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners is both necessary and reasonably straightforward. It is necessary in the sense that words are the basic building blocks of language, the units of meaning from which larger structures such as sentences, paragraphs and whole texts are formed. For native speakers, although the most rapid growth occurs in child hood, vocabulary knowledge continues to develop naturally in adult life in response to new experiences, inventions, concepts, social trends and opportunities for learning. For learners, on the other hand. acquisition of vocabulary is typically a more conscious and demand ing process. Even at an advanced level, learners are aware of limita tions in their knowledge of second language (or L2) words. They experience lexical gaps, that is words they read which they simply do not understand, or concepts that they cannot express as adequately as they could in their first language (or L1).
Learners' progress in vocabulary learning and to assess how adequate their vocabulary knowledge is to meet their communication needs. Vocabulary assessment seems straightforward in the sense that word lists are readily available to provide a basis for selecting a set of words to be tested. In addition, there is a range of well-known item types that are convenient to use for vocabulary testing. Here are some examples:
Multiple-choice (Choose the correct answer)
The principal was irate when she heard what the students had done.
a. surprised
b. interested
c. proud
d. angry
Completion (Write in the missing word) At last the climbers reached the sof the mountain.
Translation (Give the Ll equivalent of the underlined word) They worked at the mill.
Matching (Match each word with its meaning)
1 accurate ------ a.not changing
2 transparent ------ b.not friendly
3 constant ------ c.related to seeing things
4 visual ------ d.greater in size
5 hostile ------ e.careful and exact
f.allowing light to go through
g.in the city
These test items are easy to write and to score, and they make efficient use of testing time. Multiple-choice items in particular have een commonly used in standardised tests, A professionally produced multiple-choice vocabulary test is highly reliable and distinguishes learners effectively according to their level of vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore, it will usually be strongly related to measures of the learners' reading comprehension ability. Handbooks on language testing published in the 1960s and 1970s (for example Lado, 1961: Harris, 1969; Heaton, 1975) devote a considerable amount of space to vocabulary testing, with a lot of advice on how to write good items and avoid various pitfalls.
Recent trends in language testing
However, scholars in the field of language testing have a rather differ ent perspective on vocabularv-test items of the conventional kind Such items fit neatly into what language testers call the discrete point approach to testing. This involves designing tests to assess whether learners have knowledge of particular structural elements of the language: word meanings, word forms, sentence patterns, sound contrasts and so on. In the last thirty years of the twentieth century language testers progressively moved away from this approach, to the extent that such tests are now quite out of step with current thinking about how to design language tests, especially for proficiency assessment.
A number of criticisms can be made of discrete-point vocabulary tests.
It is difficult to make any general statement about a learner's voca bulary on the basis of scores in such a test. If someone gets 20 items correct out of 30, what does that say about the adequacy of the learner's vocabulary knowledge?
Being proficient in a second language is not just a matter of knowing a lot of words - or grammar rules, for that matter -but being able to exploit that knowledge effectively for various commu nicative purposes. Learners can build up an impressive knowledge of vocabulary (as reflected in high test scores) and yet be incapable of understanding a radio news broadcast or asking for assistance at an equiry counter.
Learners need to show that they can use words appropriately in their own speech and writing, rather than just demonstrating that they understand what a word can mean. To put it another way, the standard discrete-point items test receptive but not productive competence.
In normal language use, words do not occur by themselves or in isolated sentences but as integrated elements of whole texts and discourse. They belong in specific conversations, jokes, stories, letters, textbooks, legal proceedings, newspaper advertisements and so on. And the way that we interpret a word is significantly influ enced by the context in which it occurs.
In communication situations, it is quite possible to compensate for lack of knowledge of particular words. We all know learners who are remarkably adept at getting their message across by making the best use of limited lexical resources. Readers do not have to under stand every word in order to extract meaning from a text satisfacto rily. Some words can be ignored, while the meaning of others can be guessed by using contextual clues, background knowledge of the subject matter and so on. Listeners can use similar strategies, as well as seeking clarification, asking for a repetition and checking that they have interpreted the message correctly.
Three dimensions of vocabulary assessment
Up to this point, I have outlined two contrasting perspectives on the role of vocabulary in language assessment. One point of view is that it is perfectly sensible to write tests that measure whether learners know the meaning and usage of a set of words, taken as independent semantic units. The other view is that vocabulary must always be assessed in the context of a language-use task, where it interacts in a natural way with other components of language knowledge. To some extent, the two views are complementary in that they relate to differ. ent purposes of assessment. Conventional vocabulary tests are most likely to be used by classroom teachers vocabulary learning and diagnosing areas of weakness. Other users of these tests are researchers in second language acquisition with a special interest in how learners develop their knowledge of, and ability to use, target-language words. On the other hand, researchers in language testing and those who undertake large testing projects tend to be more concerned with the design of tests that assess learn ers' achievement or proficiency on a broader scale. For such pur poses, vocabulary knowledge has a lower profile, except to the extent that it contributes to, or detracts from, the performance of communicative tasks.
Discrete - embedded
The first dimension focuses on the construct which underlies the assessment instrument. In language testing, the term construct refers to the mental attribute or ability that a test is designed to measure. Ir the case of a traditional vocabulary test, the construct can usually be labelled as 'vocabulary knowledge' of some kind. The practical signifi cance of defining the construct is that it allows us to clarify the meaning of the test results. Normally we want to interpret the scores on a vocabulary test as a measure of some aspect of the learners vocabulary knowledge, such as their progress in learning words from the last several units in the course book, their ability to supply derived forms of base words (like scientist and scientific, from science), or their skill at inferring the meaning of unknown words in a reading passage Thus, a discrete test takes vocabulary knowledge as a distinct con struct, separated from other components of language competence.
Selective -comprehensive
The second dimension concerns the range of vocabulary to be in. cluded in the assessment. A conventional vocabulary test is based on a set of target words selected by the test-writer, and the test-takers are assessed according to how well they demonstrate their knowledge of the meaning or use of those words. This is what I call a selective vocabulary measure. The target words may either be selected as in dividual words and then incorporated into separate test items, or alternatively the test-writer first chooses a suitable text and then uses certain words from it as the basis for the vocabulary assessment.
On the other hand, a comprehensive measure takes account of all the vocabulary content of a spoken or written text. For example, let us take a speaking test in which the learners are rated on various criteria, including their range of expression. In this case, the raters are not listening for particular words or expressions but in principle are forming a judgement of the quality of the test-takers' overall vocabulary use. Similarly, as we shall see in Chapter 7, some re searchers have investigated productive vocabulary use by setting learners a written composition task and then counting the number of different words or the number of 'sophisticated', low-frequency words used.
Context-independent -context-dependent
The role of context, which is an old issue in vocabulary testing, is the basis for the third dimension. Traditionally contextualisation has meant that a word is presented to test-takers in a sentence rather than as an isolated element. From a contemporary perspective, it is necessary to broaden the notion of context to include whole texts and, more generally, discourse. In addition, we need to recognise that contextualisation is more than just a matter of the way in which vocabulary is presented. The key question is to what extent the test takers are being assessed on the basis of their ability to engage with the context provided in the test.
We can illustrate the distinction by looking at a vocabulary item embedded in a reading-comprehension test.
Humans have an innate ability to recognise the taste of salt because it provides us with sodium, an element which is essential to life. Although too much salt in our diet may be unhealthy, we must consume a certain amount of it to maintain our wellbeing.
What is the meaning of consume in this text
Use up completely
Eat or drink
Spend wastefully
Destory
The point about this test item is that all four options are possible meanings of the word consume. Thus, the test-takers need some understanding of the context in order to be confident that they have chosen the correct option, rather than simply relying on the fact that they have learned 'eat and drink' as the meaning of consume.
An overview of the book
The three dimensions are not intended to form a comprehensive model of vocabulary assessment. Rather, they provide a basis for locating the variety of assessment procedures currently in use within a common framework and, in particular, they offer points of contact between tests which treat words as discrete units and ones that assess vocabulary more integratively in a task-based testing context. At various points through the book I refer to the dimensions and exem plify them. Since a large proportion of work on vocabulary assessment to date has involved instruments which are relatively discrete, selec tive and context independent in nature, this approach mmay seem tu be predominant in several of the following chapters. However, my aim is to present a balanced view of the subject, and I discuss mea sures that are more embedded, comprehensive and context depen dent wherever the opportunity arises, and especially in the last two chapters of the book.
The nature of vocabulary
What is a word?
A basic assumption in vocabulary testing is that we are assessing knowledge of words. But the word is not an easy concept to define, either in theoretical terms or for various applied purposes. There are some basic points that we need to spell out from the start. One is the distinction between tokens and types, which applies the inflected forms leaks, leaking and leaked as well as these deriva tives: leaky, leakiness, leakage and leaker. Even though there is a distinction between the literal 'loss of a fluid' and the more metapho rical 'loss of secret information', all these words are closely related in form and meaning. Such a set of word forms, sharing a common meaning, is known as a word family.
Reference : John Read.Assessing vocabulary,2000.New york
Comments
Post a Comment