63
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning ＊
KAWAUCHI, Chieko
Abstract
This study attempted to examine how word length and word familiarity related
to learners’ vocabulary knowledge and how they affected L2 vocabulary learning.
Twenty long words comprising 9 ~ 11 letters and 30 short words with 3 ~ 4 letters
were selected from the 3,000-word level and examined for learners’ receptive/
productive knowledge and word familiarity. Results indicated that before learning,
productive vocabulary knowledge for long words was significantly higher than
their receptive vocabulary knowledge, while short words did not show any
significant differences. Long words were also produced significantly more often
than short words. Moreover, long words were perceived to be significantly more
familiar than short words. After learning, however, no significant difference was
found between long and short words in either productive or receptive knowledge,
indicating greater gains for short words. The post-test also showed that productive
knowledge was significantly higher than receptive knowledge for both long and
short words, which disconfirmed Laufer and Goldstein (2004). Word familiarity
also increased, with long words again being perceived as more familiar than short
words. Word familiarity with long words became correlated with both receptive
and productive knowledge, suggesting that a strong connection may be created
where long words are concerned.
Keywords: word length, word familiarity, receptive vocabulary,
productive vocabulary, learning effect
1. Introduction
Japanese learners of English are supposed to learn about 3,000 words before
entering college: 1,200 words in junior high school and 1,800 words in senior high
school. However, it is not well known how many of these words were actually
learned and how well they were learned as receptive or productive knowledge.
Vocabulary learning involves several factors, such as word frequency (Nation,
64
Chieko KAWAUCHI
2001), word familiarity (Richards, 1970; Yokokawa, 2006), word transparency
(Kamimoto & Sakata, 2007, Laufer, 1997), number of exposures to a word (Saragi,
Nation, & Meister, 1978; Webb, 2007), and word length (Kadota, 1998; Yokokawa,
2006). The present study focuses on word familiarity and word length and their
effects on L2 vocabulary learning.
Laufer (1997) discusses various aspects of extra-lexical factors that affect
the learning of words. Regarding the inf luence of word length, she states
that it is inconclusive although various studies indicate that long words are a
significant variable on learning (p. 144). She argues that a long word, such as
interdisciplinary, can consist of several familiar morphemes, so this morphological
transparency could be leveled against length effect, compared to a short word like
bun (p. 145). Morphological transparency and word length were also supported by
Kamimoto and Sakata (2007). Investigating blacklisted words shown in a CALL
vocabulary program PowerWords, they revealed that the transparency of word
parts and word length were the most significant predictors for learning difficult
words. However, morphological knowledge, such as affixes, for Japanese EFL
learners is found to correlate with learners’ vocabulary size (Mochizuki & Aizawa,
2000).
Kadota (1998) investigated the effects of word frequency and word length on
word recognition measured by reaction time. One hundred forty-four words were
chosen from the JACET 4000 word list, and they were divided into four frequency
levels and also into four differing word lengths. The results indicated that neither
the ratio of correct responses nor the reaction time for these correct responses
showed any significant differences among the four differing word lengths, although
word frequency indicated a significant difference in reaction time.
Another factor, word familiarity, is an attempt to measure the degree of
importance people attribute to words (Richards, 1970, p.93). Richards (1970)
found that some words like blackboard were reported “sometimes heard” in word
familiarity, and yet occurs only infrequently in a corpus, indicating that the rating
of word familiarity might be independent of word frequency.
Yokokawa (2006) carried out a large survey on English word familiarity among
810 Japanese students, using the most frequent 3,000 words from the British
National Corpus. Regarding the relationship between word familiarity (1: never
heard or seen ~ 7: very often heard or seen) and word length (1 letter to 14 letters),
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning
65
the results were simply put as: The longer the words, the lower the familiarity. For
example, the longest words comprising 14 letters like implementation scored
lowest, while the shortest word like no scored highest for word familiarity.
Moreover, longer words tended to appear in lower frequency words (p. 86).
Although both word frequency and word familiarity affected word recognition
and reaction time for it, he concluded that word familiarity appeared to be a rather
stronger factor than word frequency for correct access to receptive knowledge of
words (p. 117).
Regarding word knowledge, it is reported that learners’ receptive knowledge
of words, such as passive recall (translation from L2 to L1), is higher than their
productive knowledge, such as active recall (translation from L1 to L2) (Laufer &
Goldstein, 2004; Sasao, 2008). Moreover, receptive vocabulary knowledge can
be greatly increased through any learning practice methods, while productive
vocabulary knowledge is rather difficult to develop (Kawauchi, 2010, 2012).
Many of the previous studies focused on receptive knowledge of words by
asking learners to choose correct L1 meanings in multiple choice questions. Few
studies have ever investigated how productive aspects of word knowledge are
related to word length and word familiarity. Also, longer words examined in
previous studies are rather limited in number compared to shorter words: only
12 words with 7 or more letters and 112 words with 4 to 5 letters (Kadota, p. 32).
Finally, little is known about how word familiarity and word length affect L2
vocabulary learning.
The present study concentrates on word length and word familiarity,
particularly focusing on the 3,000-word level, and addresses the following three
research questions (RQs):
1. How does word length relate to learners’ receptive and productive knowledge of words?
2. How does word familiarity relate to word length?
3. How do word length and word familiarity affect vocabulary learning at the 3,000-word level?
2. Method
2.1 Participants
A total of 45 students from two intact classes participated. They were non-
66
Chieko KAWAUCHI
English majors and placed in the advanced level course as a result of our placement
test. Prior to the investigation, their vocabulary size was measured by the
Vocabulary Size Test (Mochizuki, Aizawa & Tono, 2003), using test 1 to test 4 (1000
~ 4000 words). The results were 3128.87 (SD = 274.0; Min= 2533; Max= 3667).
In the course of the 15 week study, 11 students failed to complete all the necessary
tasks, so the remaining 34 students were focused on here.
2.2 Target words
Fifty target words were chosen from the 3,000-word level in the Standard
Vocabulary List (ALC), since the participants were supposed to have learned
2,700 words as per the old curriculum before entering college (Yokokawa, 2006),
and thus this level seemed to be appropriate for examining word knowledge and
familiarity as well as the effect of learning. These words were categorized into
long or short words based on two criteria. The first criterion was to exclude those
loanwords that could be easily guessed. The second one was to choose the words
which also appear in Yokokawa (2006), for comparison. This resulted in 20 long
words comprising 9 ~ 11 letters (e.g., throughout) and 30 short words with 3 ~ 4
letters (e.g., trap). All the target words are listed in Appendix A. These words
appear in the first 500 words at the 3,000-word level.
2.3 Pre-tests, Post-tests, and Scoring
Two types of vocabulary test were prepared to investigate the research
questions. The first type was to examine productive vocabulary, using a similar
format to the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (Nation, 2001) attached with
Japanese translations. This test asked learners to complete a sentence by filling in
a blank with a target word. The other type of test was a combined form of the word
familiarity test (Yokokawa, 2006) and the passive recall test (Laufer & Goldstein,
2004), the latter of which examined receptive vocabulary. Participants were first
asked to judge their familiarity of each target word, using the Likert scale (1: never
heard or seen ~ 7: very often heard or seen), and then told to write a Japanese
definition for it, if they know it. Sample questions for the combined test for word
familiarity and receptive tests are shown in Appendix B.
For scoring the productive vocabulary test, one point was given for a correctly
spelled target word. Morphological omissions, such as past tense –ed and plural
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning
67
–s, were ignored. A half point was given for answers with minor spelling
mistakes such as “essencial” for “essential,” in which the spelling was close
enough as to show that the learners understood the correct pronunciation of the
words. For scoring the receptive vocabulary test, one point was given for any
correct L1 definitions if they appeared in the dictionary Genius by Taishukan
and English Reader’s Dictionary by Kenkyusha. A half point was allotted for
answers with part of speech errors such as “democracy” instead of “democratic.”
For the word familiarity test, learners’ choice in the Likert scale was summed up
separately for long and short words, and the average was calculated.
2.4 Procedure
To avoid carryover effect, the productive vocabulary test was conducted in the
first week, and the word familiarity and receptive vocabulary tests the following
week. After these pre-tests, learners were told to learn the first 500 words at the
3,000-word level, using a CALL program, PowerWords (ALC), for self-study
during the semester. This program contains various types of vocabulary exercises,
such as spelling and choosing L1 meanings.
The post-tests were the same as the pre-tests and administered at two separate
stages, according to the schedule for vocabulary learning. The first post-test was
given in the middle of the semester when the students had finished 250 words,
including a half of the target words, and the second post-test when they finished
the remaining 250 words, including the rest of the target words. These post-tests
were combined later for analysis. To confirm that learners did finish studying the
necessary words, their study records were checked before the time of testing.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 How does word length relate to learners’ receptive and productive knowledge of words?
The first research question was examined by the results of the pre-tests for long
and short words. Internal reliability for the tests was satisfactory (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.87). Table 1 shows the results of receptive and productive vocabulary
knowledge of long and short words in the pre-tests. Since the number of long
and short words was different, average percentages for correct answers were used
hereafter.
68
Chieko KAWAUCHI
Table 1
Pre-Tests for Word Length and Word Knowledge
Long words
Short words
Productive vocabulary (SD)
52.87% (18.72)
36.18% (17.74)
Receptive vocabulary (SD)
38.13% (19.68)
33.77% (13.97)
The highest scores, approximately 53% correct, were found in the productive
test for long words. The results for the remaining tests were roughly between
34% and 38% correct. In order to examine whether there were any statistical
differences, a repeated two-way ANOVA was carried out, using word length (long
vs. short) and word knowledge (productive vs. receptive) as independent variables.
The results indicated main effects for both word knowledge, F(1,33) = 22.04,
p < .01, and word length, F(1,33) = 23.99, p < .01, but there was a significant
interaction between them, F(1, 33) = 10.77, p < .01. The analysis of interaction
shows that there was a main effect of word knowledge on long words (F(1, 33) = 28.46,
p < .01) but not on short words (F(1, 33) = 2.06, p > .05). This indicates that for
long words, productive vocabulary significantly differed from receptive vocabulary
(productive > receptive for long words), but not for short words (productive =
receptive for short words). There was also a main effect of word length on the
productive test (F(1, 33) = 27.1, p < .01), but not on the receptive test (F(1, 33) =
1.09, p > .05), showing that the productive test for long words was significantly
higher than that for short words (long > short for productive vocabulary), but the
receptive test did not show any significant difference between them (long = short
for receptive vocabulary).
To sum up, it can be said that when words were long, learners’ productive
vocabulary was higher than their receptive vocabulary, while when words were
short, their productive and receptive vocabulary did not differ. It is highly likely
that word length will be a factor for L2 vocabulary learning. Moreover, as for
productive vocabulary, long words were produced more often than short words,
although no difference was found for receptive vocabulary. This finding was not
in agreement with Yokokawa (2006), who indicated that longer words were more
difficult than shorter words in the receptive vocabulary test, although the present
study focused only on the 3,000-word level.
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning
69
3.2 How does word familiarity relate to word length?
Word familiarity was examined by comparing average points in the Likert scale
(1: never heard or seen ~ 7: very often heard or seen) for long and short words.
Table 2 shows the results along with minimum and maximum scores, and the result
for the paired t-test between long and short words.
Table 2
Pre-Tests for Word Familiarity on Long and Short Words
Long words
Short words
Mean (SD)
4.59 (0.98)
3.84 (0.93)
Min / Max
3 / 6.85
2.23 / 6.43
t
7.41** (p < .01)
Long words were perceived as being more familiar than short words, and this was
supported by a significant difference between them (t = 7.41, p < .01, d = 0.81). This
finding partly supports the better results of long words shown in the productive
vocabulary test. However, it is worth noting that the receptive vocabulary test did
not provide any significant difference between long and short words.
In order to see how word familiarity relates to the pre-test scores, Pearson
correlations were examined as displayed in Table 3.
Table 3
Correlations Between Word Familiarity and Word Knowledge for Pre-Tests
Familiarity (L)
Productive (L)
Receptive (L)
Productive (S)
Receptive (S)
Familiarity (L)
1
0.29
0.44*
-0.03
0.26
Familiarity (S)
0.81**
0.29
0.43*
0.10
0.37*
Note. (L) = Long words; (S) = Short words. *p < .05. **p < .01.
There was a strong correlation of word familiarity between long and short
words (r = 0.81), suggesting that learners’ perceptions for word familiarity were
consistent, regardless of word length. Word familiarity moderately correlates with
70
Chieko KAWAUCHI
receptive vocabulary scores for both long words (r = 0.44) and short words (r = 0.43).
Interestingly, no correlations were found between word familiarity and
productive vocabulary for either long or short words. Considering that word
familiarity was based on how often learners see or hear the target words, their
responses may correspond to receptive vocabulary knowledge, rather than
productive vocabulary knowledge.
The results of the present study were compared with those of Yokokawa (2007).
When focusing on the 50 target words alone, word familiarity in Yokokawa’s study
showed a similar result as this study: 4.42 for long words and 3.86 for short words.
However, from the results of investigating a total of 3,000 words, Yokokawa
(2006) concluded that longer words tended to be less familiar to learners, possibly
because they do not appear frequently (p. 87). The present study did not coincide
with his conclusion. This may be partly because the present study focused on
the 3,000-word level alone, and partly because as learners’ vocabulary increases,
their knowledge of so called “extralinguistic factors” (Laufer, 1997), such as
orthography and morphology, may grow and help them feel more familiar with
long words. The next section will examine how word length and word familiarity
might affect the learning of these words in the post-test.
3.3 How do word length and word familiarity affect vocabulary learning at
the 3,000-word level?
After the pre-test, students were required to perform CALL-based vocabulary
learning on 500 words, including the 50 target words, during the semester. Table
4 presents the average percentages of correct responses in the post-test. Figure 1
illustrates results for both the pre-and post-tests for comparison.
Table 4
Post-Tests for Word Length and Word Knowledge
Long words
Short words
Productive vocabulary (SD)
69.45% (18.80)
73.22% (17.67)
Receptive vocabulary (SD)
56.10% (18.21)
56.68% (13.37)
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning
71
Figure 1. Effects of learning on vocabulary based on word length.
A glance at Figure 1 reveals a distinctive change for short words, showing a
sharp increase in productive vocabulary from 36.18% in the pre-test to 73.22% in
the post-test. Like the pre-test, a two-way ANOVA was conducted. There was a
main effect on word knowledge, F(1,33) = 41.08, p < .01, but not on word length,
F(1,33) = 1.13, p > .05, and no interaction was found between them, F(1, 33) = 0.97,
p > .05. These results indicate that productive test scores were significantly higher
than receptive test scores for both long and short words (productive > receptive),
but no significant difference was found between long and short words (long =
short). The latter finding is worthy of note, as this was due to the marked increase
in the scores for short words, which caught up to the scores for long words.
Finally, the study looks at how word familiarity changed. Table 5 shows the
results for the post-test, and Figure 2 illustrates a comparison between the pre- and
post-tests.
Table 5
Post-Tests for Word Familiarity on Long and Short Words
Long words
Short words
Mean (SD)
5.25 (1.08)
4.80 (0.98)
Min/Max
3.10 / 7.0
2.73 / 6.90
t
4.33** (p < .01)
72
Chieko KAWAUCHI
Figure 2. Pre- & post-tests for word familiarity based on word length.
Word familiarity for long words was significantly higher than that for short
words (t = 4.33, p < .01, d = 0.45), although the effect size was small. When the
post-test was compared with the pre-test, word familiarity significantly increased
in both long words (t = 4.81, p < .01, d = 0.64) and short words (t = 6.86, p < .01,
d = 1.01), showing a learning effect. In particular, the average score for short
words in the post-test was 4.80, which is an increase of almost 1 point from 3.84
in the pre-test. It seems likely that the familiarity of short words tended to be
enhanced easily as they were learned, although long words still received a higher
familiarity score than short words. Like the pre-tests, correlations between word
familiarity and post-test scores were examined as displayed in Table 6.
Table 6
Correlations Between Word Familiarity and Word Knowledge for Post-Tests
Familiarity (L) Productive (L) Receptive (L) Productive (S) Receptive (S)
Familiarity (L)
1
0.46*
0.50**
0.21
0.19
Familiarity (S)
0.83**
0.29
0.36*
0.13
0.17
Note. (L) = Long words; (S) = Short words. *p < .05. **p < .01.
As in the pre-test, there was a strong correlation between long and short words
(r = 0.83). Word familiarity with long words shows moderate correlations with not
only the receptive test (r = 0.50) but also the productive test (r = 0.46). It must be
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning
73
noted that in the pre-test word familiarity did not correlate with any productive
tests (see Table 4). From this result, one point becomes clear: As far as long words
are concerned, a connection between word familiarity and word knowledge, both
productive and receptive, seems to be created. In contrast, short words did not
yield any significant correlations (r = 0.13 for productive and r = 0.17 for receptive
tests) even after learning. This lack of correlations may suggest that unlike
long words, short words may not easily produce a perceptual connection, which
may affect longer retention. In fact, as shown in the pre-test, short words were
produced significantly less than long words.
The finding that productive vocabulary, whether long or short, outperformed
receptive vocabulary is not consistent with Laufer and Goldstein (2004) and
Sasao (2008). As far as the 3,000-word level alone is concerned, the present study
suggests that producing words may be easier than stating L1 definitions. However,
it should be noted that the test formats in the above studies were not exactly the
same as the present study.
Regarding the test format, the present study followed Nation’s Productive
Levels Test for the productive test, in which the first half of each target word was
presented, and the passive recall test for the receptive test, which was the same
as those studies above, asking learners to translate L2 into L1. Therefore, one
may argue that a longer word like “throu______” for throughout might facilitate
guessing, in contrast with the above-mentioned format, called active recall, in
which only an initial letter was provided. Another problem may arise: the longer a
word is, the more information it may have, such as morphological information, as
Laufer states (1997). For example, “throu______” for throughout might be easier
to complete than “tr___” for trap in the production test.
To clarify this problem, a follow-up test was carried out using 25 long words
(10~12 letters) and 25 short words (3~4 letters) chosen from the latter 500 words at
the same level for 23 learners from the same population. This time only an initial
letter was provided for both long and short words like the studies above. The
results are presented in Table 7.
Long words showed significantly higher productive vocabulary than short words
even when only an initial letter was provided (t = 5.8, p < .01, d = 0.53). It can be
said that there is no distinctive difference whether only an initial letter or the first
half of the word is provided, at least prior to learning at this level of vocabulary.
74
Chieko KAWAUCHI
Table 7
Productive Vocabulary Test with the First Letter Given
Long words
Short words
Mean (% correct)
4.78 (19.12%)
2.28 (9.12%)
SD
6.17
3.66
t
5.80** (p < .01)
4. Conclusion
Although there are some limitations in terms of the number of participants
and target words that were examined, the present study can be broadly concluded
as follows. Before learning, learners showed significantly higher productive
vocabulary than receptive vocabulary when words are long. Learners also
produced long words significantly more often than short words, suggesting that
long words are easier to produce than short words. Word familiarity also supported
the better results for long words. Learners found long words to be more familiar
than short words.
After a semester-long CALL-based vocabulary learning, productive vocabulary
knowledge for both long and short words was significantly higher than receptive
knowledge. However, no significant difference was found between long and short
words, resulting from a large increase in the knowledge of short words. That is to
say, short words quickly caught up with long words after learning. The follow-up
test, which examined the validity of test format for productive vocabulary used in
this study, confirmed that even the initial letter alone yielded the advantage of long
words over short words.
Word familiarity also increased after learning, with a distinctive increase in
short words, but long words still scored significantly higher for familiarity than
short words did. The strong correlations between long and short words in both preand post-tests imply that learners’ perceptions of word familiarity are rather stable,
whether words are long or short. Finally, it must be noted that after vocabulary
learning, word familiarity for long words came to be correlated with both receptive
and productive word knowledge, while that for short words did not. The lack of
perceptual connections may affect the longer retention of short words.
As for pedagogical implications, more focus may be needed on the learning of
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning
75
short words since they were not produced as well as long words were. However,
the good news is that knowledge of short words is likely to increase dramatically
after learning. It seems reasonable to suppose that shorter words can be easily
learned but may be easily forgotten compared to longer words. Therefore, the
point is how to maintain the knowledge of shorter words for a longer period of
time. Various activities need to be employed to consolidate the meaning and use
of shorter words, such as frequent confirmation through vocabulary tests and
dictionary use and repeated production of these words in various tasks.
As for future studies, it will be necessary to examine more learners and more
words at different vocabulary levels. Learners with different vocabulary sizes
should also be taken into account. It will be of interest to investigate how long
these words can be retained so as to confirm whether or not they have actually
been acquired. Lastly, a qualitative study will be needed to examine exactly how
learners try to learn long and short words. Thus, future research should include
both quantitative and qualitative studies to clarify L2 vocabulary learning.
Note
* This paper is a revised and enhanced version of the author’s presentation at the
51st JACET International Convention held in Aichi Prefecture in 2012.
References
Kadota, S. (1998). Eitango no imirikai ni oyobosu go no shutsugen hindo to nagasa no
eikyou [The effects of word frequency and word length on English word recognition].
Kotoba to Communication [Words and Communication], 2, 27-40.
Kamimoto, T., Sakata, N. (2007). Oboenikui eitango no tokucho: PowerWords no blacklist
go no bunseki. [Predicators for learning difficult words: Analysis of blacklisted words
in PowerWords]. Kumamoto Gakuen Daigaku Bungaku Gengogaku Ronso, 14, 1-47.
Kawauchi, C. (2010). The effects of CALL-alone and CALL-plus: Developing receptive
and productive vocabulary. Language Education and Technology, 47, 75-92.
Kawauchi, C. (2012). The effect of retrieval and elaboration practices on L2 vocabulary
learning. Annual Review of English Learning and Teaching, 17, 1-18.
76
Chieko KAWAUCHI
Laufer, B. (1997). What's in a word that makes it hard or easy: Some intralexical factors
that affect the learning of words. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 140-155). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and
computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399-436.
Mochizuki, M., & Aizawa, K. (2000). An affix acquisition order for EFL learners: An
exploratory study. System, 28, 292-304.
Mochizuki, M., & Aizawa, K., &Tono, Y. (2003). Eigo goi no shido manual [Manual for
teaching English vocabulary]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
PowerWords [Computer software]. Tokyo: ALC Net Academy.
Richards, J. (1970). A psycholinguistic measure of vocabulary selection. IRAL, 8, 87-102.
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P, & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading.
System, 6, 72-78.
Sasao, (2008). Estimating vocabulary size: Does test format make a difference? JACET
Journal, 46, 63-76.
Yokokawa, H. (Ed.). (2006). Nihonjin eigo gakushusha no eitango shinmitsudo [English
word familiarity for Japanese English learners]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics,
28, 46-65.
The Effects of Word Length and Word Familiarity on
Vocabulary Learning
77
Appendix A
A list of 50 target words
throughout, principle, considerable, conscious, therefore, temporary,
L o n g transport, influence, permanent, recommend, regulation, educational,
words
financial, determine, experiment, sufficient, essential, independent,
background, democratic
per, onto, odd, grip, sigh, pose, rare, trap, ease, gap, tap, sum, bare,
Short
fund, fee, aid, rely, pile, seek, rent, bet, due, keen, ruin, bind, vast,
words
sack, pace, bury, huge
Appendix B
Sample questions for word familiarity test combined with receptive vocabulary test
英単語として 見聞きする度合
い（ 意味を知っている度合い
ではありません）
1
2
例 1 glue
2
例 2 chin
6
3
4
意味は
知らな
い
意味は～だ
意味を知っている
と 思 う（ 意 （意味を書く）
味を書く）
5 6 7
○
per
throughout
principal
grip
therefore
trap
odd 〜
Note. To be continued till the end of the target words.
あご