Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 40:1 (2017) ► pp.3–18
Lexical diversity and the use of academic and lower frequency words in the academic writing of EFL students
Published online: 1 December 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.40.1.02akb
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.40.1.02akb
Abstract
This study focuses on lexical diversity and the use of academic and lower frequency words in essays written by EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students enrolled in Years 1 and 2 at the undergraduate university level. The purpose of this study is to find out the extent to which EFL students become more proficient in their use of academic and lower frequency words and make more diverse choices in their writing after one year of undergraduate university education in English. The study also compares essays written by EFL students and NS (native speaker) students to determine inter-language differences. Essays written by 62 EFL students and 198 NS students at Years 1 and 2 were analyzed for this study. The findings showed no statistically significant difference between the essays written by EFL students in Year 1 and those written in Year 2, either in terms of lexical diversity or in terms of the use of academic and lower frequency words. EFL students in both year levels had a preference for highly frequent words (words in the 1k frequency band). This is in contrast to the NS students, whose use of academic and some lower frequency words improved in Year 2. The findings also showed a statistically significant difference between the essays written by the EFL and the NS students in both year levels. The EFL students made less diverse lexical choices and used fewer words in various frequency bands than the NS students. Findings are discussed and recommendations are offered to EFL students and their educators on how to focus on these aspects of academic writing.
Article outline
- Introduction
- The present study
- Methods
- Participants
- Task, measures, and data analysis
- Findings
- Discussion
- Conclusions
- Notes
References
References (49)
British Academic Written English Corpus (BAWE). (2004–2007). Retrieved from [URL]
British National Corpus (BNC). (2007). Retrieved [URL]
Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2013). A New Academic Word List. Retrieved from [URL]
Cooley, L., & Lewkowicz, J. (1995). The writing needs of postgraduate students at the University of Hong Kong: A project report. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 181, 121–123.
(2011). What is the exactly word in English?: Investigating second language vocabulary use in writing. English Australia, 271, 3–17.
(2012). Academic vocabulary, writing and English for academic purposes: Perspectives from second language learners. RELC Journal, 431, 137–145.
Crossley, S. A., Weston, J. L., Sullivan, S. T. M., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 281, 282–311.
Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (2002). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dong, Y. R. (1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self- reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 171, 369–390.
Espinosa, S. M. (2005). Can P-Lex accurately measure lexical richness in the written production of young learners of EFL? Porta Linguarum, 41, 7–21.
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 351, 305–327.
Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 281, 403–416.
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 237–258.
Henriksen, B., & Danelund, L. (2015). Studies of Danish L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge and the lexical richness of their written production in English. In P. Pietilä, K. Doró, & R. Pipalová (Eds.), Lexical issues in L2 writing (pp. 1–27). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hirsh, D., & Coxhead, A. (2009). Ten ways of focussing on science-specific vocabulary in EAP. English Australia Journal, 251, 5–16.
Horst, M. (2005). Learning L2 vocabulary through extensive reading: a measurement study. Canadian Modern Language Review, 611, 355–382.
Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 191, 57–84.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 191, 255–271.
(2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 591, 567–587.
Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 161, 307–322.
LexTutor. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
McCarthy, P. M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD) (Doctoral dissertation), University of Memphis, United States of America.
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488.
(2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 421, 381–392.
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 271, 57–86.
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Roscoe, R., (2013). Natural language processing in an intelligent writing strategy tutoring system. Behav Res, 451, 499–515.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 631, 59–82.
(2012). The BNC/COCA word family lists. Retrieved from [URL]
(2015). Principles guiding vocabulary learning through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 271, 136–145.
Nation, I. S. P., & Anthony, L. (2013). Mid-frequency readers. Journal of Extensive Reading, 11, 5–16.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 261, 45–65.
O’Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 121, 217–37.
Paquot, M. (2010). Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London, England: Continuum.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 181, 1–28.
Ransdell, S., & Wengelin, Å. (2003). Socioeconomic and sociolinguistic predictors of children’s L2 and L1 writing quality. Arobase, 11, 22–29.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research 121, 329–363.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 471, 484–503.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In. G. Cook and B. Seidhofer (Eds.): Principles and practices in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of HG Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TextInspector. (n.d.). Retrieved from [URL]
Uccelli, P., Dobbs, C. L., & Scott, J. (2013). Mastering academic language organization and stance in the persuasive writing of high school students. Written Communication, 301, 36–62.