Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 3:1 (2020) ► pp.82–110

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

Lexical features in argumentative writing across English writers from different language backgrounds

 | Middle East Technical University
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19024.yu
Abstract
This corpus-based research analysed three lexical features (lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, and cohesion) in English argumentative writing and examined the potential differences in lexical performance (1) between native and nonnative English writers and (2) across all writers from various language backgrounds. The findings revealed that nonnative English writers demonstrated significantly lower performance in lexical sophistication than did native English writers. Significant differences in all three lexical aspects exist between writers from different language backgrounds. Pedagogical implications for vocabulary instruction in academic writing for nonnative writers include emphasizing the mastery of academic, low-frequency, and discipline-specific vocabulary. Additionally, improving nonnative writers’ vocabulary size and lexical diversity is essential for building deeper level cohesion in writing. The results suggest unique writing characteristics of different nonnative writers and their varied learner needs should be acknowledged. Thus, targeted instruction is essential to provide effective enhancement to nonnative English writers’ lexical performance in academic writing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, and cohesion
    • 2.2Research gap and the present study
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Measurements of three lexical features
    • 3.2Selected corpora and sample size
    • 3.3Research design
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Research question one
    • 4.2Research question two
    • 4.3Post hoc analyses
      • 4.3.1Lexical diversity
      • 4.3.2Coverage of the first 1,000 words
      • 4.3.3Coverage of the second 1,000 words
      • 4.3.4Coverage of the high-frequency words
      • 4.3.5Coverage of the AWL
      • 4.3.6Coverage of the AVL
      • 4.3.7Coverage of off-list words
      • 4.3.8Coverage of the low-frequency words
      • 4.3.9Referential cohesion
      • 4.3.10LSA
      • 4.3.11Connectives
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Implications of the findings
    • 5.2Pedagogical implications for each language group
      • 5.2.1Chinese writers
      • 5.2.2German writers
      • 5.2.3Japanese writers
      • 5.2.4Russian writers
      • 5.2.5Spanish writers
      • 5.2.6Turkish writers
      • 5.2.7Summary
    • 5.3Limitation of the study
    • 5.4Recommendations for further research
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
References (59)
References
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT ® test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (Research Report No. TOEFL iBT-19). Retrieved from Educational Testing Service (ETS) website: <[URL]> (13 December, 2019).
Brewer, E. W., & Kubn, J. (2012). Causal-comparative design. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 125–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castro, C. D. (2004). Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, J. (2008). An investigation of EFL students’ use of cohesive devices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215–225.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (n.d.). Compleat lexical tutor. Retrieved from <[URL]> (13 December, 2019).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Academic vocabulary, writing and English for academic purposes: Perspectives from second language learners. RELC Journal, 43(1), 137–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 119–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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(2–3), 170–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 182–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Durán, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N. (2004). Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckstein, G., & Ferris, D. (2018). Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in first-year composition. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 137–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engber, C. 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, D. 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
(2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 191, 6–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., Jensen, L., & Wald, M. (2015). Writing instructors’ perceptions of international student writers: What teachers want and need to know. CATESOL Journal, 27(2), 55–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, Y., & Oi, Y. L. M. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (1998). Integrating ‘expert’ and ‘interlanguage’ computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 329–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C. (2014). Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 231, 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2013). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, 36(2), 193–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (2009). International corpus of learner English (Version 2, Handbook + CD-ROM). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Green, C. (2012). A computational investigation of cohesion and lexical network density in L2 writing. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 57–69. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harman, R. (2013). Literary intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 125–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 57–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757-786. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B. (1994). The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time?. RELC Journal, 25(2), 21–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Lexical frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to the real world: A response to Meara (2005). Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 582–588. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. System, 31(4), 537–561. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, M., & Braine, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623–636. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. (2004). A concise model of cohesion in text and coherence in comprehension. Revista Signos, 37(56), 41–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K., Saenkhum, T., & Accardi, S. (2013). Writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of second language writers: An institutional case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 68–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2007). Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meara, P. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 32–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J. (1990). Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muncie, J. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System, 30(2), 225–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, J. A. (2016). A corpus-based comparison of the Academic Word List and the Academic Vocabulary List. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Brigham Young University. Retrieved from <[URL]> (13 December, 2019).
Norment Jr., N. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative analyses of textual cohesion in African American students’ writing in narrative, argumentative, and expository modes. CLA Journal, 46(1), 98–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olsson, E. (2015). Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Språk, 109(2), 51–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reid, J. (1992). A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillian. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. The Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2016). Global flow of tertiary-level students. Retrieved from <[URL]> (13 December, 2019).
. (2018). International mobility in tertiary education. Retrieved from <[URL]> (13 December, 2019).
Valcourt, G., & Wells, L. (1999). Mastery: A university word list reader. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Young-Davy, B. (2014). Explicit vocabulary instruction. ORTESOL Journal, 311, 26–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, G. (2009). Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhou, A. A. (2009). What adult ESL learners say about improving grammar and vocabulary in their writing for academic purposes. Language Awareness, 18(1), 31–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Abdi Tabari, Mahmoud & Yizhou Wang
2022. The effects of prompt types on L2 learners’ textual emotionality and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 34 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Jing, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Judy M. Parr
2022. Improving EFL students’ text revision with the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model. Metacognition and Learning 17:1 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Qiyu, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Susan Carter
2021. Investigating Students' Metacognitive Experiences: Insights From the English as a Foreign Language Learners' Writing Metacognitive Experiences Questionnaire (EFLLWMEQ). Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Xiaolong Cheng
2021. Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 54 ► pp. 101043 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Tingting & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2021. Taking Stock of a Genre-Based Pedagogy: Sustaining the Development of EFL Students’ Knowledge of the Elements in Argumentation and Writing Improvement. Sustainability 13:21 ► pp. 11616 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue