Cover not available

Article published In: English Text Construction
Vol. 12:2 (2019) ► pp.265–289

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Beyond proficiency

Linguistic features of exceptional writing

 | King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
 | King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
Published online: 1 October 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00029.tow
Abstract
Many studies have investigated the correlations between linguistic features and human judgements of writing quality. These studies usually investigate either proficient student writing or exceptional literary writing. The current study attempts to bridge these two perspectives by comparing proficient writing to award-winning exceptional writing using movie reviews written by bloggers and Pulitzer Prize winners. A range of linguistic features representing syntactic complexity, lexical complexity, and lexical cohesion were analyzed using both automated and interpretive methods. It is found that some, but not all, of the trends seen in writing development studies continue on to exceptional writing, with lexical sophistication and lexical cohesion through conceptual associations making the largest contributions to the differences between proficient and exceptional writers.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Quantitative analyses of linguistic features
    • 1.2Interpretive analyses of linguistic features
    • 1.3Comparing quantitative and interpretive approaches
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Data collection
    • 2.2Data analysis
      • 2.2.1Syntactic complexity
      • 2.2.2Lexical complexity
      • 2.2.3Lexical cohesion
    • 2.3Automation and correlations
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Syntactic complexity
    • 3.2Lexical complexity
    • 3.3Lexical cohesion
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1Interpretative analysis of linguistic features
  • References
References (39)
References
Beers, Scott F. & William E. Nagy. 2009. Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading and Writing 22 (2): 185–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berninger, Virginia W., Robert D. Abbott, William Nagy & Joanne Carlisle. 2010. Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 39 (2): 141–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen. 2014. Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing 261: 42–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, Ulla. 1990. Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English: 67–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor-Linton, Jeff & Charlene Polio. 2014. Comparing perspectives on L2 writing: Multiple analyses of a common corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing 261: 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crowhurst, Marion. 1983. Syntactic complexity and writing quality: A review. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de L’education: 1–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A. & Danielle S. McNamara. 2010. Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stellan Ohlsson & Richard Catrambone (eds). Cognitive Science Society, 984–989.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott. A. & Danielle S. McNamara. 2011. Understanding expert ratings of essay quality: Coh-Metrix analyses of first and second language writing. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning 21 (2): 170–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A. & Danielle S. McNamara. 2012. Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading 35 (2): 115–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., Jennifer L. Weston, Susan T. McLain & Danielle S. McNamara. 2011. The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication 281: 282–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 2011. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford UK: Oxford University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2002. Computers, language and characterisation: An Analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet. In Conversation in Life and in Literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium, Association Suedoise de Linguistique Appliquee (ASLA) 15, Ulla Melander-Marttala, Carin Ostman & Merja Kyto (eds). Uppsala, Sweden: Universitetstryckeriet, 11–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engber, Cheryl A. 1995. The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (2): 139–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, Dana R. 1994. Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 28 (2): 414–420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer-Starcke, Bettina. 2010. Corpus linguistics in literary analysis: Jane Austen and her contemporaries. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Danielle S. McNamara, Max M. Louwerse & Zhiqiang Cai. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 361: 193–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grant, Leslie & April Ginther. 2000. Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing 9 (2): 123–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornaday, Ann. 2012. Adolescent love among eccentrics [Web blog post]. <[URL]> (Last accessed on 17 November 2013).
Jin, Wenjun. 2001. A quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students’ writing: Variations across genres and proficiency levels. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 15–16 September, 2000.
Louis, Annie & Ani Nenkova. 2011. Automatic identification of general and specific sentences by leveraging discourse annotations. Proceedings of 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing. Thailand: Asian Foundation of Natural Language Processing, 605–613.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013a. A corpus of science journalism for analyzing writing quality. Dialogue and Discourse 4 (2): 87–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013b. What makes writing great? First experiments on article quality prediction in the science journalism domain. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 11: 341–352. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 151: 474–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal 96 (2): 190–208. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luke. (2012). Moonrise Kingdom [Web blog post]. <[URL]> (Last accessed on 29 September 2013).
Mahlberg, Michaela. 2007. Corpus stylistics: Bridging the gap between linguistic and literary studies. In Text, discourse and corpora: Theory and analysis, Michael Hoey, Michaela Mahlberg, Michael Stubbs & Wolfgang Teubert (eds). London UK: Continuum, 219–246.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCutchen, Deborah & Charles A. Perfetti. 1982. Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text 2 (1–3): 113–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGrath, R. E., & Meyer, G. J. 2006. When effect sizes disagree: the case of r and d. Psychological Methods 11(4), 386–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle. S., Scott A. Crossley & Philip M. McCarthy. 2010. Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication 27 (1): 57–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, Lourdes. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24 (4): 492–518. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing 291: 82–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Read, John. 2000. Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaughnessy, M. P. 1979. Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2005. Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistic methods. Language and Literature 14 (1): 5–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
The Pulitzer Prizes: Honoring Excellence in Journalism and the Arts. (n.d.). <[URL]> (Last accessed on 10 November 2013).
van Peer, Willie (ed). 2008. The quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation 41. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Widdowson, Henry George. 1992. Practical stylistics: An approach to poetry. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim. 1998. Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue