4.3 Article

Lexical density and diversity in dissertation abstracts: Revisiting English L1 vs. L2 text differences

期刊

ASSESSING WRITING
卷 47, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100511

关键词

Writing assessment; Academic writing; Lexical proficiency; Lexical density; Lexical diversity; Dissertation abstracts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared lexical density and diversity in academic writing of EFL, ESL, and English L1 postgraduate students, revealing differences between students with different language backgrounds. The findings have important implications for writing assessment, materials development, and ESL academic programs.
This study investigated lexical density and diversity differences in English as L1 vs L2 academic writing of EFL, ESL, and English L1 postgraduate students to compare their lexical proficiency in EFL vs. English L1 academic settings. A corpus of 210 dissertation abstracts was analysed using three natural language processing tools [LCA, TAALED, and Coh-Metrix] where the effects of text length and topic were controlled. In doing so, we examined the relationship between 15 lexical indices and the construct-distinctiveness of lexical density and diversity. The measure-testing process also assesses the effectiveness of each measure in a pair/group of closely-related measures (in terms of the quantification methods) in capturing lexical diversity differences of these texts. This is to obtain a small number of unique measures that capture lexical diversity as an indicator of lexical proficiency and to assist future writing researchers in the measure-selection process in the face of a multitude of available measures. The findings have important implications for writing assessment and research on lexical indicators of writing proficiency, materials development in EFL academic settings especially for thesis/dissertation writing modules, and a possible contribution of ESL academic immersion programmes in approximating English L1 and L2 proficiency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据