The vocabulary range dilema

The vocabulary range dilema

Spread the love

“check” and, “wrote” are A2 and A1 vocabulary in the English Vocabulary Profile, but are used in an English Grammar Profile example of C1 grammar as the criterion for range.

The never-ending “problem” for tagging grammar complexity is when to revert back to accepting vocabulary as a criterion. Would it make sense then for every range point on the English Grammar Profile, to base its marking on vocabulary? For example, at C1 questions with a wide range of verbs, would merely accept any question mark associated with a verb associated with A2 and above.

One problem is that this would be twice as long to mark since the programme would need to loop through the system and have much more tagging to do. Another problem is that EGP is vague about what vocabulary range is. There is no formal scale that they have released.

Options are:

Don’t mark any range points and just leave vocabulary as it is divided through the EVP. This is most objective and true since it doesn’t add personal interpretation.

The other is to devise a system of marking it through either tagging a number or looping. This then would require vocabulary to be tagged before grammar which is the opposite of logic.

An alternative would be to tag only that vocabulary into the grammar by the same level or higher. This is the easiest yet is not how the EGP intends as its examples show that lower-level vocabulary is often accepted as higher-level grammar range.

The final option is to have a final category to all range related points at the end after all others are done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Legal Notice: Copyright 2019. The online software, text report and research at EnglishGrammar.Pro has made use of the English Grammar Profile. This resource is based on extensive research using the Cambridge Learner Corpus and is part of the English Profile programme, which aims to provide evidence about language use that helps to produce better language teaching materials. See for more information.