Lexical Indicators of L2 Writing Performance

Year 2019, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 23 - 36, 25.06.2019

Kutay Uzun

Abstract

Performance in L2 writing is a complex phenomenon which encompasses complexity, accuracy and fluency. However, relevant literature indicates that lexical performance also plays a role in L2 writing performance as a whole. In this respect, the present study aims to find out which lexical indicators are related to L2 writing performance. Due to the correlational nature of the study, a quantitative research design was preferred. Analyses were performed on a corpus of 160 literary analysis essays written during a compulsorily taken English Literature course by 40 second year students of English Language Teaching at a public university in Turkey. Lexical Complexity Analyzer, which is a reliable software that produces numerical values for lexical performance indicators, was used for the analyses. L2 writing performance scores were assigned to each essay using a 6-point holistic rubric and the essays were re-scored 6 weeks after the first scoring for intrarater reliability. Following the reliability analysis, all variables were tested for the normality of distribution and essay scores were found to be non-normally distributed. Since this variable were to be present in all correlation analyses, Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation Coefficient was calculated to see if there was a relationship between essay scores and each of the variables. After the tests of normality, relationships were sought between essay scores and lexical density, lexical sophistication, verb sophistication, number of different words, type/token ratio, lexical variation, verb variation, noun variation, adjective variation, adverb variation and modifier variation. The results showed that L2 writing performance was significantly correlated with lexical sophistication, adjective variation, adverb variation and modifier variation, however, the effect sizes of the significant correlations were too small, so the identified relationships were negligible. On the other hand, significant correlations with small effects were found between L2 writing performance and the number of different words, type / token ratio and verb variation.  

Keywords

Lexical Performance, L2 Writing Performance, Literary Analysis Essay, Lexical Analysis

References

• Ai, H., & Lu, X. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. In A. Diaz-Negrillo, N. Ballier, & Paul Thompson (Eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data (pp. 249-264). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Alagözlü, N. (2012). English as a foreign language cul-de-sac in Turkey. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47(2012), 1757-1761.
• Banerjee, J., Franceschina, F., & Smith, A. M. (2007). Documenting features of written language production typical at different IELTS band score levels (IELTS Research Reports Volume 7). Australia & UK: IELTS Australia and British Council.
• Bozdağ, F. Ü. (2014). Lexical verbs in academic writings of Turkish learners of English as a second language: A corpus-based study. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
• Burdick, H., Swartz, C., Stenner, J., Fitzgerald, J., Burdick, D., & Hanlon, S. (2013). Measuring students’ writing ability on a computer-analytic developmental scale: An exploratory validity study. Literacy Research & Instruction, 52, 255280. doi: 10.1080/19388071.2013.812162
• Casanave, C. P. (1994). Language development in students’ journals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 179–201.
• Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid! What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England. Available at https://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm
• Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage.
• Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445-476.
• Harley, B., & King, M. L. (1989). Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 415–440.
• Kim, Y., Otaiba, S. A., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., and Puranik, S. (2014). Evaluating the dimensionality of first-grade written composition. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 57, 199–211. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2013/12-0152)
• Klee, T. (1992). Developmental and diagnostic characteristics of quantitative measures of children’s language production. Topics in Language Disorders,12, 28–41.
• Köksal, O. (2013). The impact of the keyword method on vocabulary learning and retention in preparatory French classes in higher education. International Journal of Academic Research, 5(5), 393-400. doi: 10.7813/2075-4124.2013/55/B.61
• Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.
• Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232.x
• McClure, E. (1991). A comparison of lexical strategies in L1 and L2 written English narratives. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 2, 141–154.
• Miller, J. F. (1991). Quantifying productive language disorders. In J. F. Miller (Ed.), Research in child language disorders: A decade of progress (pp. 211–220). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
• Minnen, G., Carroll, J., & Pearce, D. (2001). Applied morphological processing of English. Natural Language Engineering, 7, 207-223.
• Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing: The case of textbased studies. T. Silva and P. Matsuda. (Eds.) On second language writing. (p. 91-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skalicky, S., Crossley, S. A., McNamara, D. S., & Muldner, K. (2017). Automatically identifying humorous and persuasive language produced during a creative problem-solving task. In FLAIRS 2017 - Proceedings of the 30th International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (pp. 282-287). AAAI Press.
• Şanal, F. (2007). A learner corpus-based study on second language lexicology of Turkish students of English. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
• Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C., & Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-rich part-ofspeech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In Proceedings of the 2003 Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 252-259). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: The Association for Computational Linguistics.
• Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density: A computational technique and some findings. In M. Coultard (Ed.), Talking about text (pp. 27–48). Birmingham, England: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.
• Wilkinson, A. (1989). Assessing language development: The creditor project. In A. Freedman, I. Pringle, & Yalden (eds.), Learning to write, First language/second language (pp. 67-70). New York: Longman, Inc.
• Wilson, J., Olinghouse, N. G., McCoach, B., Santangelo, T., & Andrada, G. N. (2016). Comparing the accuracy of different scoring methods for identifying sixth graders at risk of failing a state writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 27, 11– 23. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2015.06.003
• Xue, G., & Nation, P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication, 3, 215–229.