Action Research Report

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

What Vocabulary do they Know, What sort are they Learning and How Much of it Gets Produced in an IELTS Writing Exam? Malcolm Lewthwaite, English Department

Abstract This brief exploratory report investigates the receptive and productive levels of a tested-in L3 class and makes suggestions about their vocabulary learning needs based on this. After analyzing the nature of the L3 target vocabulary it then examines the extent that these students produce this in an IELTS writing examination. Examination scripts of these higher level (tested-in) IELTS candidates (n=15) reveal minimal usage of receptive vocabulary above the 1,000 word level and even less from the AWL and VTL lists. I conclude by making some comments on activating receptive vocabulary in classrooms and a suggestion that vocabulary be taught in the writing classes. Introduction Vocabulary learning is one of the core strands of UGRU’s English programme. Progress in the sophistication and variety of vocabulary use in writing and speech is a sign of students’ increasing communicative competence. Thus the programme’s vocabulary goals explicitly aim to enhance students’ vocabulary recognition and use, with Level 3 specifically targeting the direct learning of 260 word families and which are tested in the 3 module exams. Given the connection between lexical quality and writing quality they are also targeted in the writing programme. This productive intent is brought even more sharply into focus given that students must produce adequate and appropriate language in the speaking and writing components of the benchmark IELTS exam. The purpose of this ‘snapshot’ study is to explore the extent that UGRU IELTS candidates are using lexis from the Academic Word List (AWL) word families in the writing module of the IELTS exam. While there are no studies that establish any correlation between vocabulary levels in IELTS writing and speaking scores (though see Read, 2005, discussed below), it is assumed from the IELTS band descriptors that a lexical resource that allows ‘flexible, appropriate, accurate and precise usage’ would need to come from a wider source than the 2,000 word of West’s General Service List (GSL – available http://132.208.224.131). In fact, as the work of Coxhead (1998, 2000) indicates, 8.5–10 % of the vocabulary in academic writing that undergraduates encounter comes from the academic generic pool of words as published in the AWL, and thus there is some logic that the more words are used appropriately from the AWL corpus the more the writing would correspond to the desired academic discourse (as in the IELTS writing instructions for task 1 “Write a report for a university lecturer” and task 2 “Present a written argument or case to an educated reader”). The usefulness of the AWL across disciplines is well established in the literature (Coxhead, 2000, Nation, 2001) and thus UGRU’s emphasis on the Vocabulary to Learn lists (VTL’s) where just over a third of VTL words are from the AWL (see table 1) is well justified. There are 570 head-words or word families in the AWL, bearing approximately 3,110 words altogether. The UGRU level 3 VTL’s have 262 head-words giving access to around 1440 words in the word families. Of these nearly a third (151) are from the AWL (see Appendix, Table 1) with 100 words from the 2,000 word list and, given that around 10% of readings and

1

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

lectures across almost all faculty levels and disciplines will entail usage of AWL vocabulary, the usefulness is clear. In other words, focusing on the relatively high frequency AWL, after having got a solid grasp of the two-thousand (GSL) list, will provide appropriate vocabulary resources and reduce the learning burden. A necessary preliminary question, however, is to find out whether students are ready to target the AWL as their next phase of vocabulary learning, or whether there is a need to more fully learn vocabulary from the earlier word lists. It is likely in a large programme, where vocabulary is not specifically tested at entrance level, that a number of students have still to master sufficient lexis from earlier levels. Literature review Producing adequate responses in an IELTS writing and speaking test is of course more than stringing appropriate vocabulary and lexical chunks together – semantic coherence, rhetorical organization, syntactic complexity, background knowledge as well as the motivations and interests of the candidate all play their role - but it is equally clear that having an adequate vocabulary is the basis for understanding the grammar and lexical meanings (Laufer and Sim, 1985a; in Nation 2001) and also the major predictor of reading comprehension (Beck et.al. 1987:147) and in writing production (Laufer, 1994; Read, 2002). What levels of vocabulary are needed to manage the IELTS examination? In terms of number of word families to know to attain adequate reading comprehension and coverage, the research of Laufer (1992), Nurweni and Read (1999) and Nation (2001), has demonstrated that the minimum word family level is the 3,000 word level for the reading of an unsimplified text, depending on the genre. Academic texts have a distinct profile with, on average, 78 % of words from the 2K list, 8.5% - 10% from the AWL and 13 % outside of these lists. For coverage of academic texts, such as in IELTS readings, a larger vocabulary size of 4,000 word families would be needed, composed of 2,000 GSL, around 570 general academic words as from the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 1998) and 1,000 or so technical words, low frequency words and proper nouns (Nation, 2001:147). Such lexical diversity is also needed in the IELTS speaking test as has been demonstrated in Read’s (2005) study of 88 recorded interviews. As expected, more proficient candidates produced more vocabulary than the less proficient ones, but because of the wide variation within each band it is clear that lexical output per se has limited value as a measure of quality of the candidate’s speaking performance. Read found that the speaking lexical resource ratings were higher when lexis showed diversity and some sophistication. The vocabulary profile for band 4 candidates was 68.5% from the first thousand GSL list (henceforth1K), 13.3% from second thousand GSL list (2K) 5.9% from AWL and 12.3% low frequency words from off-list. The was a corresponding ‘lifting’ of the lexis as the bands went up. Thus a band 5 drew 62% from 1K,14% from 2K, 7% from AWL and 15% off-list and so on through bands 6, 7, and 8. Notably, a band 6 uses around 10% of AWL words in speaking (similar to the expected rate in writing) nearly twice that of the band 4. Use of off-list words (suggesting sophistication) marks out all the bands but particularly a 7 from a 6. While no studies have been found regarding vocabulary use in IELTS writing exams it is likely that the lag between receptive knowledge and productive use in examinations and portfolios (as noted in Alderson, 2000, Weigle, 2002; Papadakis, 2006) is also evident here. Further, it is likely that a group with a similar vocabulary size does not have a large variation

2

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

in vocabulary use (Laufer, 2005) and if there is variation in productive tests from the same class that does not seem to translate to writing; in other words simply producing some advanced words in an elicitation test is obviously different to having the confidence to produce them in free writing. What does the research suggest about vocabulary lists and production? The relationship of the direct learning of vocabulary, say from lists of words with or without context, and their productive use is not established, and criticisms of ‘decontextualised’ learning abound (Oxford and Crookall, 1990). However, there is enough suggestive research spanning over decades (from Thorndike in 1908 to Beaton, Grunederg and Ellis in 1995 – in Nation, 2001) that simple word-form meaning learning, direct learning from cards and lists is both efficient and effective even in productive use, particularly for adult ESL students. How wide a vocabulary, then, is expected in an IELTS writing response? One could expect IELTS candidates at an intermediate level, especially in task one, to draw on words from the 1- 2K lists and from the rubric itself and those at a higher level to be accurately using words from the AWL and VTL’s; is this the case? Research Questions (1) Are tested in L3 students ready for the AWL? That is, have students mastered sufficiently the first 2,000 words in high school to be ready for focusing on AWL? (2) What is the productive vocabulary level of these students on entering L3? (3) To what extent are AWL / VTL words produced in IELTS writing scripts? Research Method (1) Analyse L3 Vocabulary To Learn lists (VTL’s) to determine how many are from the AWL and how many from other word levels (2) Administer and analyse Vocabulary Levels Test (receptive) to a direct from high school L3 class to establish current receptive knowledge and determine point of readiness for AWL (3) Administer and analyse Vocabulary Levels Test (productive) to establish current vocabulary size and likely lexis band level in IELTS (both VLT’s available in Nation, 2001, pp 412-428). (4) Examine 15 IELTS scripts and record VTL/AWL lexis on an observation sheet. (To get a full profile I used the Lexical Frequency Profiler (LFP – available on http://132.208.224.131) which gives a basic measure of lexical use in writing, but here I only report on the AWL use. Results and discussion Table 1: Vocabulary Levels Test: CEPA tested in Level 3 class.

1 1K

2 2K

3 3K

Student /39 #

/30

/30

4 5 AWL 2K Prod /36 /18

6 IELTS Writing Task 1 No. of AW words

3

7 IELTS Writing Task 2 No. of AW words

8 IELTS Results Writing

9 IELTS Results Speaking

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

1 2 3 4 5

36 35 36 34 38

24 22 25 27 21

13 21 15 25 15

23 22 15 21 3

12 8 3 13 7

0 0 0 2 1

1 9 0 5 4

6 5 4 4 5

7 5 5 5 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

33 35 35 35 37 26 34 36 35 34

23 22 25 26 27 20 19 24 28 24

19 10 19 19 23 12 13 15 18 11

25 24 26 27 13 11 14 15 26 12

4 7 14 13 7 9 6 8 10 10

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0

5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 3

6 5 4 5 5 6 5 4 5 4

Discussion on Columns 1-5 (receptive and productive vocabulary) For an L3 student, it is likely that the Vocabulary Levels Test (note, VLT not VTL) measures almost all their total vocabulary size (breadth, not depth, of 3,000 and AWL words). From the results of Table 1 across the 5 measured categories (columns 1-5) the following comments can be made about the vocabulary size and implications for students vocabulary learning: (1) This tested-in class all have an adequate but far from comprehensive grasp of the first thousand list (the 33 words out of 39 signals they know around 725 words from 1000) - most of the class thus have over 200 words yet to learn. It is clear they would benefit from both attention to the 1K and 2K lists and in following a programme of graded reading to see these high frequency words in context. (2) The results of the second thousand list show that around two-thirds of the class need to know at least another 110 words. Students #5, #14 and #16 in particular need to learn the remaining 330 unknown words. It is suggested that for reading fluency and general language proficiency near mastery of these words is needed. (3) All the class need to have further work on the 3K list with around two-thirds knowing less than 500 from this list. The negative impact this has on reading speed and comprehension (let alone holding concepts in short-term memory during an exam) can only be guessed at. (4) It is noteworthy that over half of the students have a better AWL score than 3K score, perhaps reflecting the emphasis of the classroom syllabus. The extremely low score of students # 5 and #7 suggests severe problems in coping with IELTS readings and task 2 writing. Overall though, the class average of knowing (recognizing) around 280 of the 570 AWL word families is encouraging. Equally, knowing these words for writing is probably wasted if 1 and 2K words can’t also be produced freely in writing. (5) While the receptive knowledge of the AWL ranges from limited to quite good the production of these words is very limited, with only 4 of the students using them in IELTS task 1 and 10 students using them in task 2. Because task 1 requires a limited descriptive

4

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

(‘summarize’) response to given data it seems to elicit a very narrow band of predictable language (‘rising rapidly’, ‘is great than’) and only 5 types of AWL words (predict, contradict, fluctuated, conclude, overall) emerged. Task 2 elicited 30 AWL tokens and 27 types (see Table 2 below). Two of these were in the phrase ‘no-one can deny…’. It is notable that the students who have the highest AWL knowledge (#1, #8, #9, #10, #11,and #17) didn’t retrieve any of the words in writing - but all received a 5 in the IELTS Lexical Resource, (LR) category. Curiously the student who used most AWL words in task 2 (n=9) was awarded a 4 in the LR criteria. This candidate used the words as a type of scaffolding for an only partly relevant answer. So it seems in this instance that the LR band 6 given to the 3 students (see Table 2 below) was based on a wide and apt use of vocabulary drawn from the 2K GSL and not from the AWL; for intermediate learners the later is emphasized mostly for developing recognition skills and automaticity in reading. (6) An inference, therefore, is that candidates can score, for LR, a 5 and even a 6 based on accurate usage of 1-2K words. It is unlikely that candidates can gain higher than a 4 in lexis unless they are able to appropriately draw from the 2K GSL. The vocabulary of the candidates awarded 4 for LR was nearly all from the 1K, was used repetitively and with wrong spelling. No higher score than a 6 was awarded because there was no evidence of more sophisticated vocabulary with some precise collocation and ‘flair’. And, as noted from student #2 (table one), simply hurling AWL words at a page does not constitute controlled use. (7) The productive test shows two things: (a) Sentence completion is obviously the most difficult part of the VLT - more than half the students can’t retrieve 50% of the correct words from the 2K list to fit the gap - let alone retrieve them in exam conditions; (b) That even the students who can retrieve them do not translate this to timed writing conditions. That there is no automatic relationship between high scores in productive tests of vocabulary and actual usage in exam conditions is seen in students #4. #10 and #11 who got the same scores as their classmates in the IELTS writing exam even though they had twice the scores on the productive vocabulary test. Notably also, student #1 who got a 6 in writing and #18 who got a 3, both got a similar score in the productive test. (8) Overall, the VLT shows that many need to continue working seriously on the 2nd 1000 list. For intermediate students this would normally be the only immediate vocabulary goal but given the demands and urgency of the IELTS exam there is a parallel need to also directly learn AWL and 3K words for most. As a rule of thumb it would take at least another 3 months in an intensive writing / IELTS preparation course to gain 1 band, say from a 4 to a 5 (Green, 2005). In all cases, supplementing this direct learning by reading widely and using graded readers will help with their incidental learning and in gathering a range of unknown words in context. Clearly regular practice in using this range of lexis will help develop writing fluency. Table 2: AWL words in IELTS Writing Tasks 1 and 2 IELTS Writing 2K Student Prod Task 1 # uctive /18 1

12

(AWL = 0)

IELTS Writing Task 2 (AWL words & VTL words)

IELTS Results Writing LR, (T1,T2) * Benefit (AWL = 1) Amount of goods? Dis/advantag 6 / solve / solution / product / companies (6,5)

5

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

2

8

(AW = 0)

5 (5,4) 4 (5,5) 4 (5,5)

(no one can) deny, benefit, unethical, retain (AWL = 4) companies Significant, conclude (AWL = 2), Persuading, solved (VTL) product Benefits, feature (AWL = 2) effective, development

5 (5,5) 5

7

Predict / Contradictly (AWL = 2) Fluctuated (AWL = 1) Conclude (AWL = 1) Overall (AWL = 1)

Theories /released / export / media / period / priorities / motivat / attribution / ranged (AWL = 9 (AWL = 0), depend on / products / companies / trademark (no one can) deny / aware of / consumption / impacts on (AWL = 4))

3

3

(AWL = 0)

4

13

5

7

6

4

7 8

14

(AWL = 0)

Method (AWL = 1) product, companies,

9

13

10

7

11

9

(AWL = 0), Commodity, challenge (AWL = 2) damage General, moderately (AWL = 0) spasfic [specific] promotion (AWL = 2) launch, engorge [encourage] (VTL) Products/production / companies / manufacture / complain / (AWL = 0) Partnership, computer (AWL = 2) argument

12

6

(AWL = 0)

13

8

(AWL = 0)

14

10

Stressful (AWL = 1) effect on (VTL) complicated, Encourages (rubric) (AWL = 0), moderate (AWL = 0), product, company

15

10

(AWL = 0), moderate (AWL = 0)

(AWL = 0), Encourage, reduce (VTL)

5 (5,5) 5 (5,6) 5 (5,6) 5 (5,5) 4 (5,4) 5 (5,4) 4 (4,4) 5 (5,5) 3 (4,3)

* The top number is the IELTS writing score overall; the first of the two numbers in brackets is the Lexical Resource (LR) score for Task 1, and the second number for Task 2. Summary of Table 2 Task # Number of AWL word Tokens Task 1 5 5 Task 2 30 (av. 2 per student) 30

Types 5 27

Discussion on Columns 6-8 (Table 1) and Table 2 (1) It was notable, but perhaps not surprising given the lack of mastery of the 1-2K word lists, that out of the 6,000 or so words written in the productive parts of the IELTS examination by the 15 students, very few - only 35 - AWL words were used. Some explanation may be found in the effects and constraints of the exam itself – the pressure of addressing 2 new prompts in a tight time frame does not seem to facilitate our students demonstrating their lexical best. Some explanation also is probably found in the disjuncture between the nature of the prompts of the 2 tasks and the nature of AWL lexis. That is to say Task 1 requires descriptive language that can be drawn from 1-2K lists and the opinion response of Task 2 by-and-large doesn’t require the academic language of scientific enquiry and reporting that underpins AWL words. To reach a higher rating in lexis one has to

6

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

deliberately and flexibly use an academic register. However, bluntly put, intermediate ESL students simply do not have the repertoire of lexis yet to move interchangeably between registers. (2) At the same time, a review of scripts reveals band 5’s are (appropriately) awarded when the candidate uses a vocabulary drawn not from the AWL but from 1-2K; this constitutes a ‘minimally adequate resource’ of the band 5 LR. Using AWL lexis would generally be more appropriate to the ‘tenor’ of the writing task, and allow for greater clarity and precision (band 6) and the flexibility and precision required for a band 7, particularly if there was some awareness of styles and collocation. One of the writing candidates used ‘convinced in’, and 'impacts in' indicating understanding of the words but lacking the precise collocation needed for a 7 and above. That said even if candidates – perhaps learning the word from a list or vocabulary card - don’t get the collocation exactly right in IELTS writing it’s not fatal - after all collocation is only one kind of lexical meaning and they may have gotten the general concept if not the usages and range of referents underlying it. Implications for classroom practice (1) Given the gap between receptive and productive knowledge of vocabulary, any techniques that activate this receptive vocabulary into usage in speaking and writing need to be persisted with. The VTL’s are a necessary data base for learners to help in their planning, noticing, retrieving and generating language process, and the class/text based listening and reading materials and activities enable learners to encounter the vocabulary again in various contexts. (2) A possible factor in the low AWL usage is that over 80% of these words (and attendant affixes) are from a Greco – Latin base, thus posing an extra challenge for nonEuropean cognate students. To compensate, the emphasis on word parts in the UGRU programme is thus appropriate. (3) Common ways to activate academic vocabulary and push fluency through meaning focused activities include conducting presentations and semi - formal talks, reviewing literature on a subject, writing summaries and critical evaluation of articles, regular maintenance of issue logs, weekly discussions / oral reports based on texts, the 4/3/2 technique, rehearsed talks, continuous writing, semantic mapping and so on. Useful techniques for retrieving, memorization and production of vocabulary I have used the last year include running dictations, sharing words with peers, exchanging word cards, and students indicating recycling of vocabulary in writing by noting a VTL word with an asterisk. (See also suggestions from Picard, 2006) (4) More awareness of vocabulary learning can come through making transcriptions of mock interviews and self –analyses via questionnaires about their vocabulary learning techniques. Part of learner training should also entail an explanation that the VTL/AWL list has been chosen on a frequency basis and ultimately reduces their learning burden. Relating this vocabulary learning to their personal / examination needs usually underpins students taking responsibility for both the receptive and productive aspects of preparing for IELTS. (Interestingly, of relevance to the UGRU context, it is suggested in a couple of studies that what is gained in efficiency by having pre-selected vocabulary may be lost in reduced motivation of students not selecting their own vocabulary from a range of sources of interest to them (Sanaoui 1995; Moir,1996; in Nation. 2001).

7

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

Conclusions (1) From this small case study, it seems that by drawing on mostly the 1-2K list in speaking and writing, candidates can get a band 5 - sufficient perhaps for jumping the faculty entrance hoop, but quite insufficient for relatively fluent and accurate expression needed in university tutorials and written projects. Knowing the 2,000 high-frequency words and the AWL will give not only close to 90% coverage of the running words in most academic texts but also a solid base for speaking and writing at faculty level and for benchmark exams. (2) The study indicates that the AWL / VTL does provide a justifiable target group of words for IELTS preparation purposes. However because the Vocabulary Levels Test indicates that nearly all the students tested have big gaps in their grasp of the 2K and 3K and even 1K GSL vocabulary I propose that vocabulary teaching be also a focus of the writing course more than it is now (perhaps requiring extra hours) – some inroads have been made into the AWL but students are not yet at the stage of freely using such words in writing. (3) Finally, the scripts analysed for this study did not support the expected outcome – the richer the lexis the higher the rating. Simply not enough AWL or beyond 2,000 words were used to make any judgment. Because of the finding that even our most able students don’t produce their best lexis in exam conditions, some ways to push productive output in practice conditions are given.

REFERENCES

Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., and Omanson, R.C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. McKeown and Curtis, M.E. (eds.) (1987).The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 147 – 163. Coxhead, A. (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34, 2: 213-238. [10.3] Coxhead, A.(1998). An Academic Word List. Occasional Publication Number 18, LALS, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Green, A. (2005). EAP Study recommendations and score gains on the IELTS Academic Writing Test. Assessing Writing, Vol 10, Issue 1, pp 44-60. Laufer, B. (2005). Lexical Frequency Profiles: From Monte Carlo to the Real World. Applied Linguistics 24/6, 382-388. Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for comprehension? In P. Arnaud and H. Bejoint (eds.) Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. Macmillan; London. Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning a vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: CUP.

8

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

Nurweni, A. & Read, J. (1999). The English Vocabulary Knowledge of Indonesian University Students. English For Specific Purposes, 18, 2, 161-175. Oxford, R. and Crookall, D. (1990). Vocabulary learning: a critical analysis of techniques. TESL Canada Journal, 7, pp 9-30. Papadakis, A. (2006). Vocabulary in Academic Writing: Myth vs Reality. Presentation at 12th International TESOL Arabia Conference, March 30, 2006. Picard, M. (2006). Are the “Chunks” Properly Digested?. UGRU Journal, Volume 2. Spring 2006. Read, J. (1990). Providing relevant content in an EAP writing test. English for Specific Purposes. 9. 109-121. Read, J. (2002). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read, J. (2005). Applying lexical statistics to the IELTS speaking test. Research Notes, May, 2005. Sutarsyah, C., Nation, P. and Kennedy, G. (1994) How useful is EAP vocabulary for ESP? A corpus based study. RELC Journal 25, 2: 34-50. Weigle, S.C.(2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

Appendix Table1: Academic Word List words in L3 VTL’s (WF = Word Families) AWL sublist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Total

AWL sublist 1 Analyse Approach Area Benefit Concept Create Data Economy Environment Evident Factor Identify Individual Interpret Involve Issue Labour Legal Major Method Percent Period Policy Process Require Research Role Section Significant Similar Specific Theory 32

# WF 16 6 2 7 10 15 1 9 6 5 4 9 9 20 6 4 7 6 3 6 3 6 2 4 6 6 2 4 9 5 6 6 154

AWL sublist 2 administrate affect aspect assist category community compute conclude consequent construct consume culture design element evaluate feature final maintain participate potential previous range secure site strategy text

# WF 8 7 2 8 11 2 10 10 4 12 7 6 6 2 12 4 12 5 8 2 2 4 10 2 6 3

26

165 20

10

AWL sublist 3 alternative considerable constant correspond demonstrate document emphasis ensure illustrate initial link negate partner physical proportion publish rely scheme task technology

# WF 3 2 6 6 12 5 10 4 7 2 6 7 4 2 9 7 10 6 2 3

AWL # sublist 4 WF access 7 adequate 7 attitude 2 attribute 6 commit 6 communica 10 confer 6 contrast 5 error 4 implicate 6 overall 1 prior 1 professiona 4 project 6 retain 8 statistic 6 status 1 stress 6 summary 14

113 19

AWL # sublist 5 WF academy 6 adjust 12 capacity 4 contact 5 decline 4 enable 4 Evolve 8 Expand 7 expose 6 image 3 medical 2 psychology 5 reject 6 stable 14 sustain 8 symbol 13 trend 2 version 2

109 18

113

UGRU Journal

Volume 3, 2006

AWL Sublist 1 2

AWL Sublist 6 abstract attach

# WF 5 7

AWL sublist 7 adapt decade

# WF 9 2

AWL sublist 8 appreciate chart

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total words

author diverse Instruct intelligence lecture reveal subsidy transport

5 8 9 4 6 6 11 7

68

5 4 5 1 12 7 4 3 3 6 61

commodity contradict eventual guideline manipulate revise vehicle

10

eliminate File globe media priority prohibit release topic unique voluntary 12

AWL AWL # # # WF Sublist 9 WF sublist 10 WF 8 device 2 convince 6 5 ethic 5 (straight 1 forward) 2 minimal 15 7 3 2 7 6 2

9

42

11

3

22

2

7