Cited by 25Second Language Acquisition and LearningSubtitles and Audiovisual MediaLexicography and Language Studies

Using glossaries to increase the lexical coverage of television programs

Open access
Webb, Stuart·2010·Reading in a Foreign Language

Abstract

This study examined the extent to which glossaries may affect the percentage of known words (coverage) in television programs. The transcripts of 51 episodes of 2 television programs (House and Grey’s Anatomy) were analyzed using Range (Heatley, Nation, & Coxhead, 2002) to create glossaries consisting of the low-frequency (less frequent than the 3,000 word level) word families that were encountered 10 or more times in each program. The results showed that coverage of the glossaries was 1.31% for Grey’s Anatomy and 2.26% for House. This was greater than coverage of the 3,001–4,000 most frequent word families in both programs. The cumulative coverage including the glossaries at the 3,000 word level increased to 96.00% for House and 97.20% for Grey’s Anatomy. The findings indicate that glossaries have the potential to improve comprehension of television programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.64152/10125/66653

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Knowledge of the 2,000 to 4,000 most frequent word families provides 95% coverage of television programs.

    “They found that knowledge of the 2,000 to 4,000 most frequent word families provides 95% coverage of television programs, which, according to Nation (2006), is the coverage required for incidental learning and adequate text comprehension.”

    From Effects of captioning on video comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning (2014) · cites this paper as Webb, 2010

    The Procedure section reports 95% coverage for Grey’s Anatomy with the 3,000 most frequent word families plus proper nouns and marginal words; the House section reports 4,000 on the same basis. The cited passages do not establish that 2,000 word families suffice, and the claim omits the assumption that viewers recognize proper nouns and understand marginal words. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

8 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Andrade, H. S. (1997). The effects of previewing and vocabulary and providing background information on the comprehension of television commercials. JACET Bulletin, 28, 1-16.
  2. Bauer, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6, 253-279.
  3. Ydewalle, G., & Van de Poel, M. (1999). Incidental foreign-language acquisition by children watching subtitled television programs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 227- 244.
  4. Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 767-787. Reading in a Foreign Language 22(1)
  5. Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, (pp. 316-323). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
  6. Laufer, B., & Sim, D. D. (1985). An attempt to measure the threshold of competence for reading comprehension. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405-411.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Webb, S.
Affiliations
Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
Corresponding author
Webb, Stuart
Venue
Reading in a Foreign Language
Published
2010-04-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
201-221
ISSN
  • 0264-2425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-0578
OpenAlex
W2115037898
Cited by
20
References
51
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Reading in a Foreign Language (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
  • Reading in a Foreign Language
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Lexicography and Language Studies
Keywords
glossary, lexical coverage, television programs, medical drama, low-frequency words, word families, vocabulary comprehension, television viewing, Grey's Anatomy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review