Vocabulary size

14.6k, non-native. Too many obscure loanwords and just plain old words rarely used.

if any of you is interested in word families, intensive vs extensive reading and so on, you should check the video I posted above. It starts at 5:55. It's interesting for us as I guess most anons here actually learn languages for reading.

It seems we're all in the same range though. I find that interesting considering the numbers Arguelles presented based on his own students.

16k

Non native, did make a few mistakes by clicking too quickly.

16k. Native. I have a sizeable vocabulary, speak two languages, and have a working understanding of Latin.

This test is bullshit.

why? Because there are words you don't know? It isn't a competition. I speak three languages. A native from USA got 17k (friend of mine) and a brit on /int/ got 16k too. Disregard the supposed number a native should have or whatever the fuck it says at the end. I took it twice to see how different it gets and it's basically the same, so you and everyone got tested the same way.
Don't be mad you're not special my boy.

Nah, the test really is a bit dumb and basic.

You can see the methodology at the end: it's literally just "you know 200 word families per word, wow!" So, to put it another way, someone like just got 83% right.

It's clearly not well thought-out, nor were the word choices nearly broad enough.

16 400 native

I know pretty much every word in English, no test would be able to determine my vocabulary

I got 23400 so I think the math works differently

still middle of the pack according to their statistics. One day.

You're the only one crying about it and it doesn't says just that user. You should read a bit more before saying it's just basic and not well thought out.

"There are many approaches to estimating vocabulary size, but many are flawed in their approach. Despite Thorndike pointing out some of the most common flaws as early as 1924 in The Vocabularies of School Pupils, they still persist to this day. The most common, yet flawed, technique is to simply open a dictionary, browse through a number of words and make note of what percentage of the words are known or not. This percentage is then multiplied by the total number of entries in the dictionary to arrive at an estimate of how many words are known.

The problem is that words are not randomly distributed throughout the dictionary nor are they equally difficult or likely to be known. The VST avoids this problem by first arranging words into word families which means that words such as nation, national, nationalise, and international are all considered to be members of the same family. Word families are used to avoid the over-counting that can occur when different forms of a word are given their own entry in a dictionary (Bauer & Nation, 1993). They are also more appropriate to use as a unit of counting when dealing with receptive word knowledge. Then the word families are arranged in order of frequency based on the fairly strong relationship between frequency and difficulty. Higher frequency words also tend to have more members in their word family than lower frequency words. Then representative words are sampled from this list at a rate of 1:100. Therefore, each item on the VST represents itself, the members of its word family, and 99 other word families which are roughly equivalent in terms of difficulty and word family size.

So by testing just 140 words, we can roughly estimate how many unique word families are known, up to a maximum of 14,000 word families. A more expansive test is currently under development to test up to 30,000 word families. The original test development and description can be found in Nation & Beglar (2007) A Vocabulary Size Test. A recent validation of the VST by Beglar (2010), A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test, also suggests that representative words can be sampled at a rate of up to 1:200 without any sacrifice of precision. In future, we hope to refine the test further to estimate vocabulary sizes of up to 30,000 word families by testing knowledge of approximately 50 items through a computer-adaptive test format."

>Attempting to measure my incredible extraordinary mind
NO

Proof or gtfo

So basically the test isn't accurate enough for native speakers.

16k

non native

if that's what it says to you, then be my guest

this commenter makes a fine point
>With all due respect for Prof. Arguelles, reading is not the "best" tool for learning a foreign language. Linguists still can't define what "knowing a language" really means. Sure, you can learn, for example, 10,000 words from books. But will you recognize them when you hear them fluently spoken by a native speaker is a different question. Listening or speaking skills are just as important. And reading books is not an efficient way of training your listening comprehension or speaking ability.
>If I heard Prof. Arguelles speak Russian on the street, for example, just as he did in this video, I would never think he's the guy who reads Dostoyevsky. His Russian sounds way off base. If he watched more Russian movies, on the other hand, he might have developed a better feeling for the Russian accent. No offence to Prof. Arguelles intended.
>You can't impress anyone with your 20,000+ vocabulary if you have a terrible accent, for example. No one is going to take you seriously. I'm just saying that growing your vocabulary doesn't necessarily make you a good speaker or listener in a foreign language. Speaking, listening and reading are all quite different skills. You have to decide for yourself what's more important to you in language learning.
Though he clings to "accent" too much, there is a lot more to knowing and using a language than simply discerning and emulating the usage of some words that you read in a book.

27,800

Native speaker

I'm OP and I agree with the commenter. I didn't finish the video so I don't know what Arguelles said, but I don't think anyone here is saying vocabulary is all there is to learning a language. In fact that would be just plain stupid.
I can say though that Arguelles has said time and time again that his focus is in reading and writing more than speaking the language.

Non-native checking in
Apparently 20k upwards is native level
Kek at the brainlet natives scoring 16k

wow is that designed for retards

Italian here

21,600

>but muh understanding of latin
plenty of natives getting high scores. Seems like you're retarded

Wtf a shitload of these words were from other languages, are there really so few English words that you have to look at words from other languages that have only been introduced into the English language relatively recently

My man

>implying "awe" isn't equally respect and wonder

Retarded.

You can feel a sense of wonder without any sense of respect. If I see OP sucking 20 dicks simultaneously, his hands a blur, I'd definitely be in awe at his skill. I wouldn't respect him though

'Awe' has nothing to do with 'respect'.

They are Anglicised words. No language is free of loans.

Nah

Barely anglicised, it used ones which seemed to be verbatim as they were in their original languages. Like "corderilla"

19,600, 20,800 on a second try after i remembered some words
18 yr

native
feel like a brainlet
surprised i didnt do better, i did pretty well on my verbal SATs, but then again that's not solely vocabulary

Any basic classical education will tell you that 'corderilla' is something like 'a small cord of something'.

You're very young. Try it again in 20 years.

Lmao a corderilla is a mountain range chain

I'm 18 too, I don't think it makes that much if a difference

*of a

> Lmao a corderilla is a mountain range chain
> a small cord of something
How are these two imcompatible? You do know what a 'cord' is, don't you?

>Alexander Arguelles
How is that we admire the same obscure Internet-famous people

15200 native. I didn't try to intuit or process of elimination anything I didn't immediately recognize though.

My point wasn't that they're incompatible, the point is your prediction isnt helpful at all since it's so non-specific

Well, it allowed me to get the right answer.

Same

It's full of retarded regional words and expressions. It's not my fault I'm a southerner and not a brit

None of those words are 'regional'.

18400 native brainlet reporting in

16400 non native, but I did fuck up at least 2 words because >mobileposting.

Native 17600 and I consider myself a pleb who couldnt read Moby Dick without a dictionary

16k, non-native

native, 21600. seems a common score. i'm fairly satisfied. a couple i should have known.

Non-native, 18,400 word families. Think I flubbed 1 or 2.

Native.

>You know at least 27,800 English word families!
Old native speaker.