But 3000 words seems too low a target for an advanced learner, arguably representing not so much the words users need to know, as the words they know already. Among words ranked between 3000th and 6000th most frequent, there is a huge amount of vocabulary that is pretty much essential to anyone working in an EAP or ESP context (as so many advanced learners are), such as:
[WORK] Macmillan Dictionary 7500 Words List
macmillan Collocations dictionary restore FOR LEARNERS OF ENGLISH boost confidence great complete gain insight rapidly steadily confidence experience understanding real profound clear inspire gain build deep in-depth understanding complete thorough
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, also known as MEDAL, is an advanced learner's dictionary first published in 2002 by Macmillan Education. It shares most of the features of this type of dictionary: it provides definitions in simple language, using a controlled defining vocabulary; most words have example sentences to illustrate how they are typically used; and information is given about how words combine grammatically or in collocations. MEDAL also introduced a number of innovations.[1][2] These include:
The Macmillan English Dictionary also existed as an electronic dictionary, available free on the Web. Like most online dictionaries,[7] it benefits from being able to update content regularly with new words and meanings. In addition to the dictionary, the online version had a thesaurus function enabling users to find synonyms for any word, phrase or meaning.[8] There was also a blog (the Macmillan Dictionary Blog) with daily postings on language issues, especially on global English and language change.[9] An "Open Dictionary"[10] allowed users to provide their own dictionary entries for new words they had come across. The online edition was recognised as a good example of this emerging genre of reference publishing.[11] The website of the electronic dictionary and the blog were closed on 30 June 2023.[12]
Both words can be used to indicate a relatively wide range of strength or degree of positive evaluation, but both of them generally indicate at least an acceptable degree of skill, capability, potential, or desirability. The dictionary I've cited here gives pretty good information on how competent can be graded as more or less positive. We tend to use very and highly to intensify both of these terms.
However, there is hope! We can get better at recognising frequent words. One way is to test yourself on guessing frequency for example through the website which goes with the McCrostie article above. However, simply knowing frequency is only part of the issue. Teaching less frequent words can be of use at times. It may be difficult to avoid teaching at least some nationalities such as French when they may well be needed for one of the first kinds of conversation many foreign speakers will have. Furthermore, if we can give good examples, this often makes the teaching and time spent worthwhile because it will often involve using a lot of more frequent language. It is the combination of low frequency and single word lists which we would see as inefficient. So, unlike the lexical tutor website linked in above, our aim would be to get teachers to think not only about which words are more frequent, but also about how they might be used.
I just found out today that many Chinese students memorize English dictionaries to improve their English skills. Not sure of the efficiency of this method, but I was wondering why wouldn't it be successful? When I learn a new word by reading a novel for example, I will just learn it in the context. Memorizing individual words is definitely time wasting, but what if we learn words from dictionaries using the same way deliberately by learning whole sentences instead of learning individual words? Like let's say that I learned the word allocate, instead of memorizing it individually, I will learn the sentence used in the dictionary ( the librarian has allocated money for new books). I fail to see how is that different from learning the word by watching a movie or reading a newspaper? + You don't have to memorize dictionaries like Oxford that are full with unusable words, but something like school dictionary which are aimd to high school students. What do you think? Is it worth trying?
Learning lists of words by heart, rote learning, is deeply unfashionable. It is associated with an approach to language teaching that focuses almost exclusively on the language input (at the expense of language use) (Nation, 2008, p.114); it is seen as uncommunicative and decontextualized, and, perhaps worst of all, it is work, not glossily-packaged fun.
However, even with these lists, students need to be able to use the information they contain. They need, for example, to understand the abbreviations that indicate part of speech. They also need to understand the codes that indicate frequency (e.g. the red stars that are used in some books), because this tells them at a glance which words are most important. Research suggests that most students just learn lists without prioritising and selecting (Moir & Nation, p.164), but we need to encourage to take a little more responsibility for their learning through judicious selection.
Putting together useful word lists and collecting the information necessary for them entails effective dictionary use. We know from research that most learners do not make best use of dictionaries (Nation, 2008, p.89). Some training will be beneficial, and all the major dictionaries offer free support on their websites. At the most basic level, many students will need to be shown appropriate resources. Good, free online dictionaries and apps for smartphones exist (e.g. ) and, for some languages, there are now excellent bilingualized dictionaries (e.g. -cobuild/).
Psychological research has demonstrated that learners are more likely to remember words that they have generated in some way (Sharafian, 2002). For this reason, teachers may occasionally want to give their students word lists to study that have to be worked on in some way first. If the list contains individual words, students could be asked to generate these words from cognates, antonyms, partially-gapped words, etc. If the list contains chunks or phrases, these could be jumbled or gapped.
Do you have any conflicting interests? *Conflicting interests helpClose Conflicting interests help Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.
The main objection to this presentation, as also to that ofthe rationalists, is that it is very largely based not upon thehistorical data, but upon a pre-determined theory.Granted the philosophical basis, the criticism practisedTübingen school.upon the New Testament by Paulus and Straussfollows almost automatically. Herein lies the permanent importanceof the work of Ferdinand Christian Baur, professorof theology at Tübingen from 1826 to 1860. The corner-stoneof his reconstruction of early Christian history is derived notso much from philosophical principles as from a fresh studyof the documents. Starting from Galatians and I Corinthians,which are obviously the genuine letters of a Christian leadercalled Paul to his converts, Baur accepted 2 Corinthians andRomans as the work of the same hand. From the study of thesecontemporary and genuine documents, he elaborated the theorythat the earliest Christianity, the Christianity of Jesus and theoriginal apostles, was wholly Judaistic in tone and practice.Paul, converted to belief in Jesus as Messiah after the Crucifixion,was the first to perceive that for Christians Judaism had ceasedto be binding. Between him and the older apostles arose a longand fierce controversy, which was healed only when at last hisdisciples and the Judaizing disciples of the apostles coalescedinto the Catholic Church. This only occurred, according toBaur, early in the 2nd century, when the strife was finallyallayed and forgotten. The various documents which makeup the New Testament were to be dated mainly by their relationto the great dispute. The Apocalypse was a genuine work ofJohn the son of Zebedee, one of the leaders of the Judaisticparty, but most of the books were late, at least in their presentform. The Acts, Baur thought, were written about A.D. 140,after the memory of the great controversy had almost passedaway. All four Gospels also were to be placed in the 2nd century,though that according to Matthew retained many featuresunaltered from the Judaistic original upon which it was based.
The appointment of the revisers was a work of much responsibilityand labour, and five months elapsed before they wereselected and their respective portions assigned to them; butthe list of those who began the work, and who, with some fewchanges in consequence of deaths, brought it to a happy conclusion,shows how large an amount of scholarship was enlisted.It includes Dr Andrewes, afterwards bishop of Winchester,who was familiar with Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek, Latinand at least ten other languages, while his knowledge of patristicliterature was unrivalled; Dr Overall, regius professor of theologyand afterwards bishop of Norwich; Bedwell, the greatest Arabicscholar of Europe; Sir Henry Savile, the most learned laymanof his time; and, to say nothing of others well known to latergenerations, nine who were then or afterwards professors ofHebrew or of Greek at Oxford or Cambridge. It is observablealso that they were chosen without reference to party, at leastas many of the Puritan clergy as of the opposite party beingplaced on the committees.
f3a93f9fa9