vivspage

3 text samples

1 from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/97/may/waring.html What is Graded Reading? Graded Reading is also known as Basal Reading or Simplified Reading. The rationale behind using graded materials is to allow the reader to read without difficulty. Graded Reading therefore involves the reading of material which has been made easy to read. The material can be graded simplified according to the use of high frequency vocabulary rather than vocabulary a native speaker might use; simplified phrasing or sentence structure; the use of illustrations; and so on. What is the relationship between Graded Reading and Extensive Reading? Extensive Reading is often called Graded Reading and vice versa, and the terms are often used interchangeably. There are, however, important differences between the two. First, Graded Reading uses specially prepared materials while Extensive Reading can, but need not do so. Second, Extensive Reading requires fluent reading while Graded materials can be used for extensive or intensive reading. Third, Extensive Reading sees pleasure as a goal leading to increased motivation. Graded Reading has a specific purpose: for readers to read enough material at one level to develop sufficient fluency and other forms of linguistic knowledge to enable them to move to a higher level. The ultimate goal of Graded Reading is to do so much of it that the learner can deal with native level texts fluently. Why do Graded Reading? There are several reasons. First, I shall discuss four linguistic benefits: building reading speed, lexical speed access, reading fluency, and the ability when reading to move from working with words to working with ideas (see Nation, this issue, for a more thorough account). A short review of reading theory is necessary here to explain the need for Graded Reading. A learner beginning to read in a second language starts by looking at each letter of each word to decode the word, and keeps each word in working memory while the next word is processed. By the time she gets to the end of the line, the first word can easily be forgotten and very little meaning of the text is retained. As the reader reads more, she can decode words faster and remember earlier words more easily. She can therefore read more words within the limited space of her memory. This then allows the reader to move from the word by word level of decoding to the processing of chunks of text -- short phrases or "ideas." The old lady took her dog to the park A beginner reader will see each of the nine words separately and will read word by word. A more experienced and proficient reader will read the sentence as three ideas or propositions: The old lady took her dog to the park This is a vital stage in the learner's development because she is no longer working with words; she is working with ideas. At this level she can make more effective use of background information about the topic to fill in non-comprehended parts of the text. It is well known that we tend to remember ideas much better than actual words.

2. from http://lextutor.ca/vp/bnl/BNL_Rationale.doc 1. The development of lists of commonly used words Debates over learning vocabulary in a foreign language are likely to remain with us as long as there are teachers, revolving around the core issues of what it means to know a word, which words to learn, how many and in what order. It has long been a goal of researchers, inspired by pioneers such as Ogden (1930), Palmer and Lorge (Chujo & Utiyama, 2005), to determine the core lexis required for proficiency in English. Some have been particularly interested in the size of vocabulary of native speakers of English, using this as a starting point in order to estimate the learning task that learners of English would face. Recent studies show that an average educated native speaker knows around 20,000 word families (Goulden, Nation and Read, 1990, as stated in Nation & Waring, 1997; Zechmeister, Chronis, Cull, D’Anna and Healy, 1995, as stated in Nation, 2001). This daunting task might be something to consider if learners are in an English as a Second Language (ESL) context (Milton and Maera, 1995, as stated in Nation & Waring, 1997) where learners are continuously exposed to the language and pick up language incidentally besides explicit learning. For the learners of English as a foreign language, however, such a level of lexical competency is an extremely ambitious, if not simply unattainable, goal to aim for. 1.1. Which words to focus on? Since there are so many words to learn but neither sufficient time nor the necessary conditions for foreign language learners to acquire minimal lexical competence, the key question is what words to select to teach in the first place. From the point of frequency, Nation (1990, 2001), and Nation & Waring (1997) state that the most frequent 2000 words in English (West, 1953) are the most useful, for knowing these would allow learners a good degree of comprehension (around 80%) of what they hear or read. Research by Liu Na and Nation (1982, as stated in Nation & Waring, 1997), on the other hand, showed that knowing the 2000 words only is not sufficient for overall comprehension, arguing at least 95 percent coverage is needed for a good comprehension of a text. Coxhead (2001) came up with a list of specialized vocabulary consisting of 570 word families most frequently occurring in academic texts. It is asserted that knowing these words in the AWL (Academic Words List), in addition to 2000 most frequent words (the GSL), would be a good basis for learning English for academic purposes (Nation, 2001). Nation also proposes that since these words of high frequency are clearly crucial, teachers and learners should place considerable emphasis on them especially when time is limited, such as the case of intensive university preparatory programmes in non-English speaking countries. Until the advent of the Internet, the practical application of word lists in everyday teaching remained outside the realm of ordinary teachers. However, there are now excellent software programs such as the web-based “Vocabulary Profiler” in the "Compleat Lexical Tutor" (Cobb, 2005) and the PC-based "RANGE" (downloadable from http://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/nation.aspx) that can assist teachers in effortlessly calculating text coverage.

3. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_service_list

The General Service List is a list of roughly words published by in. The words were selected to represent the most frequent words of English and were taken from a corpus of written English. The target audience was English language learners and ESL teachers. To maximize the utility of the list, some frequent words that overlapped broadly in meaning with words already on the list were omitted. In the original publication the relative frequencies of various senses of the words were also included. The list is important because a person who knows all the words on the list and their related families would understand approximately 90-95 percent of colloquial speech and 80-85 percent of common written texts. The list consists only of headwords, which means that the word "be" is high on the list, but assumes that the person is fluent in all forms of the word, e.g. am, is, are, was, were, being and been. Researchers have expressed doubts about the adequacy of the GSL because of its age and the relatively low coverage provided by the words not in the first 1000 words of the list (Engels, 1968). Engels was, in particular, critical of the limited vocabulary chosen by West 1953, and while he concurred that the first 1000 words of the GSL were good selections based on their high frequency and wide range, he was of the opinion that that the words beyond the first 1000 of the GSL could not be considered general service words because the range and frequency of these words were too low to be included in the list. Recent research by confirmed that the General Service List was in need of minor revision, but the headwords in the list still provide approximately 80% text coverage in written English. The research showed that the GSL contains a small number of archaic terms, such as shilling, while excluding words that have gained currency since the first half of the twentieth century, e.g. plastic, television, battery, okay, victim, drug, etc. The GSL evolved over several decades before West’s publication in 1953. Contrary to popular belief, the GSL is not a list based solely on frequency, but includes groups of words on a semantic basis (Nation & Waring, 2004; Dickins). Today there is no version of the GSL in print; it only exists in virtual form via the Internet. Various versions float around the Internet, and attempts have been made to improve it However, for practical purposes, one of its most accessible formats exists in the Lexical Tutor web site created by Tom Cobb, where it can be viewed, downloaded or used for vocabulary profiling of texts. The headwords and family members in this version of the GSL conform to Bauer and Nation, level 6. The Classic Vocabulary Profiler, produces output in coloured form—blue for K1 (the first 1,000 words of the), green for (the second words of the GSL), yellow for Academic word list, and red for words that are not in any of the lists. For other types of reading different lists may be required. For example when reading texts in the academic genre, a person may wish to consult the Academic word list. For students studying English as a foreign language, a person may wish to consult the and use the BNL profiler at the Lexical Tutor web site.

4. from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/04cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

With Senator crossing the threshold of delegates needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination, party leaders began to move on Wednesday to bring the lengthy primary battle to a close and unite the party, even as questions swirled about Senator next move.

In the morning, a group of top Democratic leaders asked all of the party’s uncommitted superdelegates, the officials and party leaders who get automatic convention seats, to make their preferences known by Friday. While the group of leaders — including the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,; the Speaker of the House,; the Senate Majority Leader,; and of— did not formally endorse Mr. Obama or urge Mrs. Clinton to exit the race, they said in a joint statement: “Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election.” They added that the party needed to “stand united and begin our march toward reversing the eight years of failed Bush/McCain policies that have weakened our country.” Other party leaders began to coalesce behind Mr. Obama, including Representative Rahm Emanuel, of Illinois, a former aide in the Clinton White House but also a close friend of Mr. Obama. “Look, I’ve known him for years, and I said that as the election came to an end, I would make my endorsement, come from underneath the desk — and I did that,” Mr. Emanuel said. “The fact is, he is the nominee.” But Mrs. Clinton’s top aides continued to sidestep questions on Wednesday morning about when she would suspend her campaign, even as some of her supporters began ratcheting up pressure on Mr. Obama to take her on as his running mate. Robert L. Johnson, a prominent Clinton backer and the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said Wednesday on the CNN program “American Morning” that he planned to enlist members of the Congressional Black Caucus to push Mr. Obama to accept Mrs. Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. He said Mrs. Clinton had not directed his efforts, but was aware of them. Mr. Johnson argued that an Obama-Clinton ticket would have the best chance of winning in the general election and would help unify the Democratic Party. Lanny Davis, who was an aide in the Clinton White House, said he was circulating a petition asking Mr. Obama to pick Mrs. Clinton as his running mate. Mr. Davis said he was acting on his own. On a conference call with members of the New York Congressional delegation on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton was asked whether she would be open to joining a ticket headed by Mr. Obama. She replied, according to some who were on the call, that if he offered the vice presidential nod, she would accept, and would do whatever she could to help Democrats win the White House. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, however, insisted Wednesday morning on CNN that there had been “absolutely zero discussions” about whether she would accept a vice presidential nomination. Mr. McAuliffe said that Mrs. Clinton, whose speech on Tuesday night in New York was more defiant than conciliatory, wanted to talk things over with her supporters on Wednesday. “There is plenty of time,” Mr. McAuliffe said, continuing to argue that Mrs. Clinton had won the most popular votes, a notion disputed by the Obama campaign. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton spoke by telephone just after midnight Wednesday. He congratulated her and renewed his offer to “sit down when it makes sense for you,” according to a spokesman for Mr. Obama, Robert Gibbs. Mrs. Clinton responded positively, Mr. Gibbs said, but he added there were no immediate plans to meet on Wednesday.