English L1 VS. L2 Differences in Dissertation Abstracts: Lexical Density, Lexical Diversity and Academic Vocabulary Use
Keywords:
Academic Vocabulary Use, Dissertation Abstracts, Language Processing Tools,Lexical Density, Lexical DiversityAbstract
This study examines lexical density, lexical diversity and academic vocabulary use in the dissertation abstracts written by EFL (English as a foreign language), ESL (English as a second language) and English L1 (Native Speakers) post graduate students to find out whether these lexical features differ across different English language backgrounds of writers. The data for this study came from a total of 75 dissertation abstracts (n=25 per group) which were about English Language Teaching and related areas. The abstracts were analyzed whereby automated text processing tools and the mean differences were compared between groups with ANOVA and post hoc analysis. A correlation analysis was also computed between the investigated variables. According to the findings, lexical diversity index produced statistically significant differences between EFL and NS groups, however, the subtle mean differences of lexical density and academic vocabulary use were not found significant. On the other hand, the correlations co-efficient scores offered insights into the nature of relationships of the variables in question. The findings are discussed within the framework of idiosyncratic context of ‘abstract genre’.
Downloads
References
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2-20.
Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42-65. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
Bunton, D. R. (1998). Linguistic and Textual Problems in Ph. D and M. Phil Theses: an analysis of genre moves and metatext. HKU Theses Online (HKUTO).
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL QUARTERLY, 34 (2), 213-238. doi.org/10.2307/3587951
Coxhead, A., & Byrd, P. (2007). Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose. Journal of second language writing, 16(3), 129-147. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.002
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computationally assessing lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119-135. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2009). Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59(2), 307-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00508.x
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.
Daller, H., R. Van Hout, and J. Treffers-Daller. (2003). ‘Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals,’ Applied Linguistics 24: 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.2.197
deBoer, F. (2014). Evaluating the comparability of two measures of lexical diversity. System, 47, 139-145. doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.10.008
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2), 139-155. doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7
Gillaerts, P., & Van de Velde, F. (2010). Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic purposes, 9(2), 128-139. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-Metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 223–234. doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of language, 12(1), 39-63. doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.03hyl
IELTS. 2007. International English Language Testing System Handbook 2007.
Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working papers/Lund University, Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, 53, 61-79.
Kalantari, R., & Gholami, J. (2017). Lexical Complexity Development from Dynamic Systems Theory Perspective: Lexical Density, Diversity, and Sophistication. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 1-18. doi.org/10.12973/iji.2017.1041a
Kim, J. Y. (2014). Predicting L2 Writing Proficiency Using Linguistic Complexity Measures: A Corpus-Based Study. English Teaching, 69(4). doi: 10.15858/engtea.69.4.201412.27
Laufer, B. and P. Nation. (1995). ‘Vocabulary size and use – lexical richness in L2 written production,’ Applied Linguistics 16: 307–22. doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307
Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 567-587. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.4.567
Lei, S., & Yang, R. (2020). Lexical richness in research articles: Corpus-based comparative study among advanced Chinese learners of English, English native beginner students and experts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 47, 100894. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100894
Li, Y. & Qian, D. D. (2010). Profiling the Academic Word List (AWL) in a financial corpus. System. Vol. 38. pp.402-411 doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.015
Lu, X. (2012). The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 190-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x
Maamuujav, U. (2021). Examining lexical features and academic vocabulary use in adolescent L2 students’ text-based analytical essays. Assessing Writing, 49, 100540. doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100540
Maamuujav, U., Olson, C. B., & Chung, H. (2021). Syntactic and lexical features of adolescent L2 students’ academic writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, 100822. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100822
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
Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development. Houndmills, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marti, L., Yilmaz, S., & Bayyurt, Y. (2019). Reporting research in applied linguistics: The role of nativeness and expertise. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 98-114. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.05.005
Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3-15. doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.004
Nasseri, M., & Thompson, P. (2021). Lexical density and diversity in dissertation abstracts: Revisiting English L1 vs. L2 text differences. Assessing Writing, 47, 100511. doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100511
Olinghouse, N. G., & Leaird, J. T. (2009). The relationship between measures of vocabulary and narrative writing quality in second-and fourth-grade students. Reading and Writing, 22(5), 545-565.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45-65.
O'Loughlin, K. (1995). Lexical density in candidate output on direct and semi-direct versions of an oral proficiency test. Language testing, 12(2), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532295012002
Pho, P. D. (2008). Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance. Discourse studies, 10(2), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607087010
Ranney, S. (2012). Defining and teaching academic language: Developments in K‐12 ESL. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(9), 560-574. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.354
Tsubaki, M. (2004). Vocabulary in English for academic purposes: A corpus study of journal article. Bunkyo Gakuin Junior College Bulletin, 4, 159-168.
University of Michigan. 2003. Michigan English Language Assessment Battery Technical Manual 2003.
Yoneoka, D., & Ota, E. (2017). Evaluating association between linguistic characteristics of abstracts and risk of bias: Case of Japanese randomized controlled trials. PloS one, 12(3), e0173526. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173526
