Yeterlilik düzeyine göre sözcüksel yoğunluk, çeşitlilik ve sıklık: A1 ve C2 derlemlerinin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Bu çalışma, A1 ve C2 düzeyindeki yazılı metinlerde sözcüksel yoğunluk, sözcüksel çeşitlilik ve sözcük sıklığı dağılımlarını karşılaştırarak sözcük zenginliğinde gelişimsel farklılıkları incelenmiştir. Nicel bir derlem-dilbilimsel tasarım kullanılmış, sıklık bandı kapsama oranı, sözcük ailesi artışı, tür–örnek oranı, sözcüksel yoğunluk ve okunurluk puanlarını yeterlilik düzeyleri arasında değerlendirmek için RANGE ve Textalyser uygulanmıştır. Bulgular, sözcüksel yoğunluk, sözcüksel çeşitlilik ve sözcük sıklığı yönünden belirgin niteliksel farklılıkları ortaya koymaktadır: A1 düzeyindeki metinler büyük ölçüde en sık kullanılan 1.000 sözcüğe dayanırken, C2 derlemi Liste 2 ve Liste 3 sözcüklerinin önemli ölçüde daha geniş kullanımını, ayrıca akademik ve düşük sıklıklı sözcük ailelerinden belirgin biçimde daha fazla sözcük içerdiğini göstermiştir. Sözcüksel yoğunluk A1 metinlerinde daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Bu durum daha kısa ve yapısal açıdan daha basit metinleri yansıtırken; C2 metinlerinde artan sözdizimsel ayrıntılanma ve işlev sözcüklerinin daha fazla kullanımı nedeniyle daha düşük yoğunluk gözlenmiştir. Tür–örnek oranı A1’den C2’ye yalnızca sınırlı bir artış göstermiş, bu sonuç sözcük çeşitliliğinin metin uzunluğuna duyarlı bir ölçüt olmasına ilişkin bilinen sınırlamalarla uyumlu bulunmuştur. Okunabilirlik indeksleri yönünden iki derlem arasında önemli bir farklılaşma olduğu tespit edilmiştir. C2 metinlerinin anlamlı ölçüde daha karmaşık olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. Çalışma, sıklık bandı dağılımı ve sözcük ailesi genişlemesini sözcük gelişiminin en duyarlı göstergeleri olarak vurgulamaktadır. Ayrıca, ikinci dil yazımında sözcüksel zenginliğin çok boyutlu niteliğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Sözcüksel yoğunluk
• Sözcüksel çeşitlilik
• Sözcük sıklığı
• Sözcüksel zenginlik
• Tür-örnek oranı
• Sözcük ailesi genişlemesi
• Okunabilirlik

Lexical density, diversity, and frequency across proficiency: a corpus-based comparison of A1 and C2 corpora

Abstract

This study investigates developmental differences in lexical richness by comparing lexical density, lexical diversity, and vocabulary frequency distributions in A1 and C2 English texts by beginner and advanced level university students. Using a quantitative corpus-linguistic design, RANGE and Textalyser were employed to examine frequency-band coverage, word-family growth, type–token ratio, lexical density, and readability scores across proficiency levels. The findings reveal clear contrasts in vocabulary sophistication: A1 texts relied overwhelmingly on the most frequent 1,000 words, whereas the C2 corpus demonstrated substantially greater use of List 2 and List 3 vocabulary, including markedly larger inventories of academic and low-frequency word families. Lexical density was higher in A1 texts, reflecting shorter and structurally simpler compositions, while C2 texts exhibited lower density due to increased syntactic elaboration and greater use of function words. Although lexical diversity showed only a modest increase from A1 to C2, this result aligns with known limitations of TTR as a length-sensitive metric. Readability indices further distinguished the two groups, with C2 texts displaying significantly higher complexity. The study highlights frequency-band distribution and word-family expansion as the most sensitive indicators of lexical development and underscores the multidimensional nature of lexical richness in second-language writing.

Keywords

• Lexical density
• Lexical diversity
• Vocabulary frequency
• Lexical richness
• Type-token ratio
• Word-family growth
• Readability

References

1. Coxhead, A. (1998). An academic word list (ELI Occasional Publication No. 18). School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.
2. Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951
3. Coxhead, A. (2011). The Academic Word List ten years on: Research and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.254528
4. Crossley, S., Heintz, A., Choi, J. S. et al. (2023). A large-scaled corpus for assessing text readability. Behav Res, 55, 491–507. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01802-x
5. Daller, H., van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.197
6. deBoer, F. (2014). Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System, 47, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.10.008
7. Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7
8. González, M. C. (2013). The intricate relationship between measures of vocabulary size and lexical diversity as evidenced in non-native and native speaker academic compositions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida).

9. Goodfellow, R., Lamy, M.-N., & Jones, G. (2002). Assessing learners’ writing using lexical frequency. ReCALL, 14(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344002001118
10. Gregori-Signes, C., & Clavel-Arroitia, B. (2015). Analysing lexical density and lexical diversity in university students’ written discourse. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 198, 546–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.477
11. Gui, L. (2015). Predictability of vocabulary size on learners’ EFL proficiency: Taking VST, CET4 and CET6 as instruments. Studies in Literature and Language, 10(3), 18–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/6679
12. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Deakin University Press.
13. Hawkins, J. A., & Filipović, L. (2012). Criterial features in L2 English: Specifying the reference levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge University Press.
14. Jarvis, S. (2002). Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt220oa
15. Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Lund University Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, 53, 61–79.
16. Johnston, M. C. (2024). A comparison of text analysis tools: Levels of agreement and disagreement. SHIKEN, 28(1), 38-55.
17. Koizumi, R. (2012). Relationships between text length and lexical diversity measures: Can we use short texts of less than 100 tokens? Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 1(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.7820/vli.v01.1.koizumi
18. Laufer, B. (2005). Lexical frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to the real world: A response to Meara (2005). Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 582–588. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami029
19. Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307
20. Lavallée, M., & McDonough, K. (2015). Comparing the lexical features of EAP students’ essays by prompt and rating. TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1206
21. Lemmouh, Z. (2008). The relationship between grades and the lexical richness of student essays. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 7(3), 163–180.
22. Ling, G. U. I. (2015). Predictability of vocabulary size on learners’ EFL proficiency: Taking VST, CET4 and CET6 as instruments. Studies in Literature and Language, 10(3), 18-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/6679
23. Liu, Z., & Dou, J. (2023). Lexical density, lexical diversity, and lexical sophistication in simultaneously interpreted texts: A cognitive perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1276705. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1276705
24. Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2012). Measures of lexical richness. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
25. Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Palgrave Macmillan.
26. 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).
27. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
28. McKee, G., Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2000). Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 15(3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/15.3.323
29. Nation, I. S. P., & Heatley, A. (1994). Range: A program for the analysis of vocabulary in texts [Computer software]. Victoria University of Wellington. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/nation.aspx
30. Sharpe, M. A. (2023). Study on the inter-method reliability of digital text analysis tools. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Sharpe/publication/314181188_A_cross-comparative_study_of_text_statistics_and_readability_estimates_generated_by_digital_analysis_tools/links/61d4c872b6b5667157c96b0c/A-cross-comparative-study-of-text-statistics-and-readability-estimates-generated-by-digital-analysis-tools.pdf
31. Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation. In J. E. Perren & J. L. M. Trim (Eds.), Applications of linguistics (pp. 443–452). Cambridge University Press.
32. Utku, R. (2014). Meta-analysis of the lexical frequency profile [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The University of Queensland.
33. Vermeer, A. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700103
34. Wang, X. (2014). The relationship between lexical diversity and EFL writing proficiency. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 9, 65-88.
35. Webb, S., & Paribakht, T. S. (2015). What is the relationship between the lexical profile of test items and performance on a standardized English proficiency test? English for Specific Purposes, 38, 34–43.