VOCABULARY · LEXICON · LEXEME · LEXICAL ITEM · LEMMA · WORD FORM · WORD FAMILY · MENTAL LEXICON
Vocabulary usually refers to the words and expressions known, used or associated with a person, language, subject or text. A lexicon is the inventory or system of lexical items in a language, speaker or domain. A lexeme is a more technical linguistic unit of lexical meaning, and Cambridge defines it broadly as a unit of meaning consisting of a word or group of words. A lexical item is a useful cover term for a word or multiword expression treated as one vocabulary unit.
These terms overlap, but they answer different questions. Vocabulary asks what words or expressions are available to a learner or domain. Lexicon emphasises the organised inventory. Lexeme helps linguists separate an abstract lexical unit from the grammatical word forms that realise it. Lemma is commonly the dictionary headword used to represent related inflected forms—for example, Cambridge gives build as a lemma representing builds, building and built.
This guide explains vocabulary vs lexicon, lexeme vs lemma, lexical item vs word, word form, headword, inflection, derivation, word family, multiword expression, idiom, phrasal verb and mental lexicon. It also explains why “How many words do you know?” has no single answer until the counting unit is defined.
Before counting words, decide what kind of unit you are counting.
This is a new umbrella article. The existing eduKateSG article on word forms, lemmas and word families remains untouched and keeps its specialist counting job.
Vocabulary
Vocabulary is the most user-facing term. We talk about a child’s vocabulary, academic vocabulary, travel vocabulary, receptive vocabulary or the vocabulary of a text.
The boundary can include single words and multiword expressions depending on the purpose.
Lexicon
Cambridge defines lexicon as all the words used in a particular language or subject, or a dictionary. Linguistics also uses lexicon for the structured inventory of lexical knowledge.
A mental lexicon is not imagined as a literal alphabetical list; it is a theoretical/cognitive system of stored lexical knowledge.
Lexeme
Cambridge defines a lexeme as a unit of meaning in a language consisting of a word or group of words.
Many linguistic frameworks use lexeme for an abstract lexical unit that can be realised by several grammatical word forms.
Lemma
Cambridge defines a lemma as the dictionary form used to represent the other possible forms of a word.
The lemma is a practical headword representation. It is related to, but not always identical with, the theoretical concept of a lexeme.
Word form
A word form is an actual surface form such as builds, built or building.
Counting forms gives different vocabulary totals from counting lemmas or lexemes.
Inflection
Inflection changes grammatical form without normally creating a new core lexeme, as in walk/walks/walked/walking in a simple analysis.
The exact analysis can vary by grammatical theory, but the counting contrast remains useful.
Derivation
Derivation creates a new lexical item or lexeme through morphology, such as happy → happiness or decide → decision.
A word family may group those relatives for teaching even when a lexeme-based dictionary treats them as separate entries.
Word family
A word family is a pedagogical or analytical grouping of a base with selected inflected and derived forms.
Different researchers use different family rules, so family counts must state their criteria.
Multiword lexical items
Vocabulary contains units larger than one orthographic word: phrasal verbs, idioms, compounds, formulaic phrases and fixed expressions.
If give up is treated as one lexical item, token counts and vocabulary counts change.
Idioms
An idiom can function as a lexical unit because its conventional meaning is not simply the sum of its separate words.
This is one reason the idea ‘one space-separated string equals one vocabulary word’ is too simple.
Phrasal verbs
Expressions such as take off or give up can have lexicalised meanings and patterns.
They may be counted as multiword lexical items in learning even though they contain more than one written word.
Polysemy and lexemes
One lexeme can have several related senses, depending on theoretical analysis.
Counting senses is therefore different again from counting forms or lemmas.
Homonymy
Identical word forms can correspond to unrelated lexical units, as with bank in financial and river senses under analyses that treat them as homonyms.
One spelling can therefore represent more than one lexical entry.
Proper names
Names can function as lexical items in communication, but vocabulary studies often treat them separately from general vocabulary.
Counting decisions should match the purpose of the study or teaching task.
Technical terms
A domain lexicon includes specialist lexical items whose ordinary-language forms may have technical senses.
Vocabulary size in a profession is therefore partly domain-specific.
Mental lexicon
The mental lexicon is a model of stored lexical knowledge and access in the mind.
It includes more than spellings and definitions: pronunciation, grammar, senses, associations and retrieval patterns can all matter.
Dictionaries choose headwords
Lexicographers choose lemmas/headwords to organise entries and then separate senses, phrases and subentries.
A dictionary’s layout is a practical representation, not a perfect photograph of the mental lexicon.
Corpus counting
Corpus tools may count tokens, types, lemmas or multiword units depending on the research question.
A frequency claim without the counting unit can therefore be misleading.
Vocabulary tests
Vocabulary-size tests typically choose a counting unit and sampling method before estimating how much is known.
Two tests can produce different numbers while both being internally valid for their own definitions.
Teaching implication
Learners do not need technical terminology for every lesson, but teachers should know what their word lists actually count.
Clear units prevent duplicated teaching and false claims about vocabulary size.
AI and lexical units
AI can generate counts quickly but may silently change between tokens, types, lemmas and phrases.
Ask the tool to state the unit before trusting any vocabulary total.
Lexical-unit casebook
1. build
Observed forms/unit: build, builds, building, built. Main issue: one lemma can represent several inflected forms. The counting problem here is best described as lexeme/lemma distinction.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—lexeme/lemma distinction—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
2. go
Observed forms/unit: go, goes, going, went, gone. Main issue: irregular forms can belong to one lemma despite large surface differences. The counting problem here is best described as inflection.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—inflection—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
3. be
Observed forms/unit: be, am, is, are, was, were, being, been. Main issue: extreme irregularity shows why form counts and lemma counts diverge sharply. The counting problem here is best described as inflection.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—inflection—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
4. child
Observed forms/unit: child, children. Main issue: plural change does not normally create a new lexical item. The counting problem here is best described as inflection.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—inflection—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
5. mouse
Observed forms/unit: mouse, mice. Main issue: irregular plural belongs to the same noun lemma in ordinary lexicography. The counting problem here is best described as inflection.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—inflection—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
6. analysis
Observed forms/unit: analysis, analyses. Main issue: orthographic and phonological alternation still represents one noun lemma. The counting problem here is best described as inflection.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—inflection—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
7. good
Observed forms/unit: good, better, best. Main issue: suppletive comparison complicates simple form-family intuition. The counting problem here is best described as inflection/suppletion.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—inflection/suppletion—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
8. run
Observed forms/unit: run, runs, running, ran. Main issue: verb forms group under one lemma, while noun run may require a separate lexical analysis. The counting problem here is best described as category distinction.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—category distinction—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
9. work
Observed forms/unit: work noun / work verb. Main issue: same form can participate in related but grammatically distinct lexical entries depending on theory. The counting problem here is best described as conversion/polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—conversion/polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
10. text
Observed forms/unit: text noun / text verb. Main issue: a familiar noun became a verb through conversion. The counting problem here is best described as word formation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—word formation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
11. email
Observed forms/unit: email noun / email verb. Main issue: modern lexical expansion shows category change without affixation. The counting problem here is best described as conversion.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—conversion—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
12. download
Observed forms/unit: download noun / download verb. Main issue: stress and category can vary while spelling remains identical. The counting problem here is best described as conversion.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—conversion—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
13. decision
Observed forms/unit: decide / decision / decisive. Main issue: related derivatives belong to one teaching family but are not one lemma. The counting problem here is best described as derivation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—derivation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
14. happy
Observed forms/unit: happy / unhappy / happiness / happily. Main issue: word-family grouping is broader than lemma grouping. The counting problem here is best described as derivation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—derivation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
15. nation
Observed forms/unit: nation / national / nationalise / nationality. Main issue: morphological family can contain several lexemes and word classes. The counting problem here is best described as word family.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—word family—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
16. act
Observed forms/unit: act / action / active / activate / actor. Main issue: shared root supports learning but does not collapse separate lexical items. The counting problem here is best described as word family.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—word family—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
17. give up
Observed forms/unit: give up / gives up / gave up / giving up. Main issue: multiword phrasal verb has its own inflectional pattern. The counting problem here is best described as multiword lexical item.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword lexical item—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
18. take off
Observed forms/unit: take off. Main issue: can mean remove, depart, become successful and more. The counting problem here is best described as multiword polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
19. look after
Observed forms/unit: look after. Main issue: conventional meaning is not just spatial looking plus after. The counting problem here is best described as phrasal/prepositional verb.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—phrasal/prepositional verb—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
20. put up with
Observed forms/unit: put up with. Main issue: three written words can function as one conventional lexical unit. The counting problem here is best described as multiword lexical item.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword lexical item—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
21. in spite of
Observed forms/unit: in spite of. Main issue: fixed multiword preposition behaves as a unit in many analyses. The counting problem here is best described as multiword grammatical item.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword grammatical item—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
22. by the way
Observed forms/unit: by the way. Main issue: formulaic discourse expression functions as a reusable unit. The counting problem here is best described as formulaic language.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—formulaic language—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
23. of course
Observed forms/unit: of course. Main issue: frequent phrase can be stored/processed as a familiar unit despite transparent words. The counting problem here is best described as formulaic language.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—formulaic language—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
24. ice cream
Observed forms/unit: ice cream. Main issue: compound written with a space can function as one lexical concept. The counting problem here is best described as compound.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—compound—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
25. traffic light
Observed forms/unit: traffic light. Main issue: two orthographic words package one conventional object category. The counting problem here is best described as compound.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—compound—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
26. high school
Observed forms/unit: high school. Main issue: compound-like institutional label may be counted as one lexical item for learning. The counting problem here is best described as multiword noun.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword noun—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
27. credit card
Observed forms/unit: credit card. Main issue: domain compound becomes one conventional concept. The counting problem here is best described as compound.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—compound—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
28. climate change
Observed forms/unit: climate change. Main issue: multiword term names a coherent scientific/public concept. The counting problem here is best described as terminology.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—terminology—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
29. artificial intelligence
Observed forms/unit: artificial intelligence. Main issue: multiword technical term is often learned as one conceptual unit. The counting problem here is best described as terminology.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—terminology—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
30. machine learning
Observed forms/unit: machine learning. Main issue: two words form one established field label. The counting problem here is best described as terminology.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—terminology—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
31. New York
Observed forms/unit: New York. Main issue: proper name is multiword but referentially unified. The counting problem here is best described as proper name.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—proper name—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
32. United Nations
Observed forms/unit: United Nations. Main issue: multiword institutional name functions as one named entity. The counting problem here is best described as proper name.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—proper name—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
33. BBC
Observed forms/unit: BBC. Main issue: initialism can function as a lexical item despite not behaving like an ordinary alphabetic word. The counting problem here is best described as abbreviation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—abbreviation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
34. NASA
Observed forms/unit: NASA. Main issue: acronym functions as a pronounceable lexical item. The counting problem here is best described as acronym.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—acronym—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
35. laser
Observed forms/unit: laser. Main issue: acronym origin became an ordinary lexeme and base for derivatives. The counting problem here is best described as lexicalisation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—lexicalisation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
36. radar
Observed forms/unit: radar. Main issue: acronym lexicalised into ordinary vocabulary. The counting problem here is best described as lexicalisation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—lexicalisation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
37. blog
Observed forms/unit: blog / blogs / blogged / blogging. Main issue: recent coinage quickly developed an inflectional paradigm. The counting problem here is best described as lexeme growth.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—lexeme growth—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
38. selfie
Observed forms/unit: selfie / selfies. Main issue: new lexical item behaves like an ordinary noun once conventionalised. The counting problem here is best described as neologism.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—neologism—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
39. emoji
Observed forms/unit: emoji / emojis or emoji in some usage. Main issue: borrowed noun reveals variation in plural conventions. The counting problem here is best described as borrowing.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—borrowing—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
40. data
Observed forms/unit: data. Main issue: usage can treat the form as plural or mass/singular depending on domain and style. The counting problem here is best described as grammatical variation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—grammatical variation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
41. media
Observed forms/unit: media. Main issue: historical plural form often behaves as collective/mass-like in modern usage. The counting problem here is best described as grammatical change.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—grammatical change—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
42. news
Observed forms/unit: news. Main issue: ends in -s but behaves as a singular mass noun in standard usage. The counting problem here is best described as form vs grammar.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—form vs grammar—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
43. scissors
Observed forms/unit: scissors. Main issue: plural-form noun typically refers to one tool and interacts with pair constructions. The counting problem here is best described as lexical grammar.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—lexical grammar—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
44. pants
Observed forms/unit: pants. Main issue: plural-form clothing noun shows why orthographic form is not enough to infer lexical number. The counting problem here is best described as lexical grammar.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—lexical grammar—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
45. information
Observed forms/unit: information. Main issue: mass noun normally lacks a regular plural in standard general use. The counting problem here is best described as countability.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—countability—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
46. advice
Observed forms/unit: advice. Main issue: mass noun differs from countable related expressions such as piece of advice. The counting problem here is best described as countability.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—countability—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
47. make a decision
Observed forms/unit: make a decision. Main issue: collocation is predictable enough to learn as a phrase while decision remains its own lexeme. The counting problem here is best described as collocation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—collocation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
48. strong tea
Observed forms/unit: strong tea. Main issue: collocation knowledge belongs to lexical competence without necessarily creating a separate lexeme. The counting problem here is best described as collocation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—collocation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
49. kick the bucket
Observed forms/unit: kick the bucket. Main issue: idiomatic meaning requires treating the phrase as a conventional unit. The counting problem here is best described as idiom.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—idiom—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
50. spill the beans
Observed forms/unit: spill the beans. Main issue: multiword idiom demonstrates lexical meaning beyond component definitions. The counting problem here is best described as idiom.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—idiom—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
51. once in a blue moon
Observed forms/unit: once in a blue moon. Main issue: fixed expression has phrase-level conventional meaning. The counting problem here is best described as idiom.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—idiom—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
52. as a result
Observed forms/unit: as a result. Main issue: academic phrase functions as a reusable discourse unit. The counting problem here is best described as formulaic language.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—formulaic language—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
53. on the other hand
Observed forms/unit: on the other hand. Main issue: multiword connector behaves as a conventional discourse frame. The counting problem here is best described as formulaic language.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—formulaic language—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
54. according to
Observed forms/unit: according to. Main issue: high-frequency multiword preposition-like expression. The counting problem here is best described as formulaic language.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—formulaic language—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
55. take place
Observed forms/unit: take place. Main issue: light/delexical verb construction forms a conventional meaning unit. The counting problem here is best described as multiword expression.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword expression—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
56. make sense
Observed forms/unit: make sense. Main issue: phrase meaning and collocation make it more than independent word knowledge. The counting problem here is best described as multiword expression.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword expression—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
57. have a look
Observed forms/unit: have a look. Main issue: light-verb construction common in several English varieties. The counting problem here is best described as multiword expression.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—multiword expression—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
58. heavy rain
Observed forms/unit: heavy rain. Main issue: collocation shows lexical partnership without phrase idiomaticity. The counting problem here is best described as collocation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—collocation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
59. deep sleep
Observed forms/unit: deep sleep. Main issue: collocational preference belongs to lexical depth. The counting problem here is best described as collocation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—collocation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
60. fast asleep
Observed forms/unit: fast asleep. Main issue: adverbial use of fast is lexically conventional and phrase-sensitive. The counting problem here is best described as collocation.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—collocation—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
61. river bank / bank account
Observed forms/unit: bank. Main issue: same form participates in unrelated senses often treated as homonymous lexical entries. The counting problem here is best described as homonymy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—homonymy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
62. bat animal / bat tool
Observed forms/unit: bat. Main issue: same form points to unrelated lexical concepts. The counting problem here is best described as homonymy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—homonymy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
63. head body / head leader
Observed forms/unit: head. Main issue: related metaphorical senses may be treated as polysemy. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
64. mouth person / river mouth
Observed forms/unit: mouth. Main issue: body-part sense extends metaphorically to geographical opening. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
65. branch tree / company branch
Observed forms/unit: branch. Main issue: physical structure extends to organisational structure. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
66. cell biology / prison cell / spreadsheet cell
Observed forms/unit: cell. Main issue: one form has several historically/semantically linked and specialised senses. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
67. field farm / field of study
Observed forms/unit: field. Main issue: concrete spatial sense extends to domain/area sense. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
68. root plant / word root
Observed forms/unit: root. Main issue: biological sense extends metaphorically into linguistics and mathematics. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
69. table furniture / data table
Observed forms/unit: table. Main issue: object sense extends to arranged information. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
70. window building / software window
Observed forms/unit: window. Main issue: architectural noun developed computing sense. The counting problem here is best described as polysemy.
Vocabulary count: a learner-facing vocabulary list might treat this item according to practical teaching need rather than a theoretical linguistic inventory. That is legitimate if the unit is stated clearly.
Lexicon view: ask how the language or domain stores the lexical information needed for meaning, grammar and usage. The lexicon view is structural rather than simply numerical.
Lexeme view: ask whether the different forms belong to one abstract meaning-bearing unit or to separate lexical units. Different linguistic frameworks can draw the boundary differently in difficult cases.
Lemma view: ask which dictionary headword would represent the forms. Cambridge’s definition of lemma makes this a practical representational question rather than a complete theory of lexical identity.
Word-form view: count each surface form exactly as it appears. This is useful for corpus tokens/types but will normally produce a larger inventory than lemma counting.
Word-family view: decide whether derivational relatives should be grouped for teaching. A family is often broader than a lemma and can include several distinct lexemes.
Multiword check: decide whether spaces separate one vocabulary item into several, or whether the phrase has enough conventional unity to be learned as a lexical item. Orthographic spacing cannot settle the issue alone.
Assessment check: state the unit before claiming that a learner ‘knows one word’ here. Recognition of one form does not guarantee productive control of the entire paradigm or phrase.
Transfer task: find another item with the same problem—polysemy—and explain how token, type, lemma, lexeme, lexical item and word-family counts would differ. This turns terminology into a usable analytical tool.
Frequently asked questions
What is vocabulary?
The words and expressions known, used or associated with a person, language, text or domain.
What is a lexicon?
An inventory or system of words/lexical items in a language or subject; the term can also mean a dictionary.
What is a lexeme?
Cambridge defines it as a unit of meaning consisting of a word or group of words; linguistic theories may formalise it more specifically.
What is a lexical item?
A useful cover term for a word or multiword expression treated as one lexical unit.
What is a lemma?
A dictionary headword form used to represent the other possible forms of a word.
Is lemma the same as lexeme?
Not always. Lemma is a practical headword representation; lexeme is a theoretical lexical unit.
What is a word form?
A surface grammatical form such as build, builds, built or building.
What is a word family?
A grouping of a base with selected inflected and derived relatives.
Can a phrase be one lexical item?
Yes. Idioms, phrasal verbs, compounds and formulaic expressions can function as lexical units.
Why does vocabulary size vary by study?
Different studies count tokens, types, lemmas, word families or other units.
What is the main rule?
Define the counting unit before counting vocabulary.
Research grounding
Cambridge defines lexicon as all the words used in a particular language or subject, or a dictionary. It defines a lexeme as a unit of meaning consisting of a word or group of words, and a lemma as the dictionary form used to represent other possible forms, giving build for builds, building and built. These definitions support the practical distinctions made throughout this article while leaving room for more technical theoretical frameworks.
eduKateSG routes
- What Is Vocabulary?
- Word Forms, Lemmas and Word Families
- Mental Lexicon
- Vocabulary Size
- Vocabulary Master Router
Final model
Vocabulary, lexicon, lexeme, lexical item and lemma overlap because all describe pieces of the word system, but they operate at different levels. Vocabulary is the broad learner-facing repertoire; lexicon is the inventory/system; lexeme is an abstract meaning-bearing unit; lemma is a headword representation; lexical item is a flexible cover term.
Do not ask “How many words?” until you have decided what one word counts as.
Continue with the vocabulary concepts collection, or return to the Vocabulary Learning Hub to choose your next learning route.