I suggest you take a look at the notion ONOMASIOLOGY. Best regards.

The most influential and important work on this is by Mchael Lewis (1993) The Lexical Approach and Implementing the Lexical approach( 1997 ). if you Google the lexical approach a full range of material will come up for you. Lewis' work includes semantic and syntactic collocations or lexical chunks that usually go together. T Iin my opinion hese chunks have replace single word approaches in vocabulary frequency and pedagogical thinking as they are much more useful to the learner . Lewis of course argues that this lexical chunking approach is much more pedagogically useful than a sentence level grammar in learning languages . In my programmes with teachers they almost universally report the same findings Best Wishes John McCaffery

Research into vocabulary learning by writers like Nattinger & DeCarrico (1992) suggests that Learners do not store individual words, rather they learn chunks of language.As John rightly states, chunks as lexical phrases are particularly useful since they may  be a part of texture reflecting typical genres.Consequently, they can have a predictive value .

Best regards,

Reza Biria

I think you two have posted responses to the wrong question here.  I'm not asking about the inclusion of collocations in word lists. I'm asking about the inclusion of alternate forms of the same headword.

Hi John, The JACET8000 frequency list has 4 versions of employ (employee, employment, employer) and 2 unemploys (unemployed and unemployment). Does this help?

Hi Raymond. Yes, I'm familiar with the JACET 8000. They kept various members of the same word families in the list, based on their frequencies. They lemmatized, but they didn't group items any further than that.  What I'm really looking for are empirical studies (or even theoretical ones) that justify making word lists that way. I think the reasons I cited in the question are relevant, I just haven't seen any studies that bear them out.

Paul Nation is Emeritus Professor in Applied Linguistics at the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies (LALS) at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He supervises PhD research on vocabulary.

He has taught in Indonesia, Thailand, the United States, Finland and Japan.

Two new books written for teachers have appeared in early 2013. They are called What Should Every ESL Teacher Know (available free in electronic form), and What should Every EFL Teacher Know (for sale). For details go to Compass Media. http://www.compasspub.com/english/book/book_view.asp?h_seq=1721

Dr Paul Nation  is widely acknowledged as the NZ expert in the  field of Vocabulary frequency and academic word lists etc  He  is the author of many texts and articles on this matter he has always maintained that his  Vocabulary frequency work involved all the derivations in the word family- Google him for all the details 

Where I differ from him is with the importance of  Lexical Approach. Lewis contends that words are not pedagogically  stored or retrieved  in the brain by frequency but by Schema and Function . So all the words, head and related are stored and accessed through the relevant schema or schemata . Consequently a combination of frequency and schema networks are needed in order to usefully teach and learn vocabulary . SO the grammatical collocations and the semantic ones that tie lexical chunks together are interconnected with the  frequency issue . This is why Reading  and  related Vocabulary activity  is so valuable as a Vocabulary development  activity because it demonstrates the lexical functions and schema of how and where the high frequency words operate in genuine communication in contexts or schema.

 A reminder about the figures

Approximately 100 words make up about 50% of most English texts

• First 1000 words make up 72% of texts

• First 2000 words make up 79.7% of texts

• First 4000 words make up 86.8% of texts

• Although there are approx. 54,000 word families in English, 3,000 to 5,000 word families provide a basis for comprehension.

 An excellent pedagogical text covering these approaches  we use is the work of  Scott (Thornbury, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. Essex, England: Pearson.)

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/409603.Scott_Thornbury

Regards

John

Hi,

I just thought about the article by Schreuden & Baayen (1997) in which they argue that words in bigger morphological families are easily recognized in a lexical decision task (in Dutch).

https://files.nyu.edu/mp108/public/baayen-jml.pdf

In a paper I wrote last year (in French) I tested several measures, among them the family size (learners of French L1). The family variable was significant in a task of identifying 'simple words' (Gala et al. 2014).

I haven't done experiments for L2, but I am convinced that including words of the same morphological family in L2 vocabulary lists would facilitate vocabulary learning.

I hope this helps. Best,

Nuria

 Levelt's classical paper has talked about the reasoning behind the distinction of lemma and lexemes (with different morphemes).

Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Mever, A. S. (1999). A Theory of Lexical Access in Speech Production. . BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 22(1), 1-75.

Here are some of the evidences he cited. Obviously Ardi Roelofs's works have contributed a lot in the discussion of morphemes and lemmas.

Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1-3), 107-142.

Roelofs, A. (1996). Serial order in planning the production of successive morphemes of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 854-876.

Roelofs, A. (1997). Morpheme frequency in speech production: Testing WEAVER Yearbook of morphology 1996 (pp. 135-154): Springer.

Also, there are some evidences from gender activation you may be interested.

Badecker, W., Miozzo, M., & Zanuttini, R. (1995). The two-stage model of lexical retrieval: Evidence from a case of anomia with selective preservation of grammatical gender. Cognition, 57(2), 193-216.

Van Turennout, M., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1998). Brain activity during speaking: From syntax to phonology in 40 milliseconds. Science, 280(5363), 572.

About morphological decoding in second language, this recent article may interest you.

De Grauwe, S., Lemhöfer, K., Willems, R. M., & Schriefers, H. (2014). L2 speakers decompose morphologically complex verbs: fMRI evidence from priming of transparent derived verbs. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "most vocabulary lists (AWL, GSL, etc.) Include only head words." All the electronic versions of the GSL, AWL, NGSL and NAWL plus word lists derived from the BNC and COCA that can be used with software like Ranges and AntWordprofiler contain headwords and all derivatives.