1887
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00029.tow
2019-10-01
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beers, Scott F. & William E. Nagy
    2009 Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre?Reading and Writing22 (2): 185–200. 10.1007/s11145‑007‑9107‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9107-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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 Research39 (2): 141–163. 10.1007/s10936‑009‑9130‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bulté, Bram & Alex Housen
    2014 Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing26: 42–65. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Connor, Ulla
    1990 Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English: 67–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Connor-Linton, Jeff & Charlene Polio
    2014 Comparing perspectives on L2 writing: Multiple analyses of a common corpus. Journal of Second Language Writing26: 1–9. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Crowhurst, Marion
    1983 Syntactic complexity and writing quality: A review. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de L’education: 1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Crossley, Scott A. & Danielle S. McNamara
    2010 Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. InProceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stellan Ohlsson & Richard Catrambone (eds). Cognitive Science Society, 984–989.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 Learning21 (2): 170–191. 10.1504/IJCEELL.2011.040197
    https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2011.040197 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crossley, Scott A. & Danielle S. McNamara
    2012 Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading35 (2): 115–135. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2010.01449.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x [Google Scholar]
  10. 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 Communication28: 282–311. 10.1177/0741088311410188
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088311410188 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cruse, Alan
    2011Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford UK: Oxford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Culpeper, Jonathan
    2002 Computers, language and characterisation: An Analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet. InConversation 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]
  13. Engber, Cheryl A.
    1995 The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing4 (2): 139–155. 10.1016/1060‑3743(95)90004‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferris, Dana R.
    1994 Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly28 (2): 414–420. 10.2307/3587446
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587446 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischer-Starcke, Bettina
    2010Corpus linguistics in literary analysis: Jane Austen and her contemporaries. London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 Computers36: 193–202. 10.3758/BF03195564
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564 [Google Scholar]
  17. Grant, Leslie & April Ginther
    2000 Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing9 (2): 123–145. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00019‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hoey, Michael
    2005Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hornaday, Ann
    2012 Adolescent love among eccentrics [Web blog post]. www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/moonrise-kingdom.1221101.html (Last accessed on17 November 2013).
  20. Jin, Wenjun
    2001 A quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students’ writing: Variations across genres and proficiency levels. Paper presented at theSymposium on Second Language Writing, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 15–16 September, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]
  22. 2013a A corpus of science journalism for analyzing writing quality. Dialogue and Discourse4 (2): 87–117. 10.5087/dad.2013.205
    https://doi.org/10.5087/dad.2013.205 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2013b What makes writing great? First experiments on article quality prediction in the science journalism domain. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics1: 341–352. 10.1162/tacl_a_00232
    https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00232 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lu, Xiaofei
    2010 Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15: 474–496. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu [Google Scholar]
  25. 2012 The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal96 (2): 190–208. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01232_1.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Luke
    Luke (2012) Moonrise Kingdom [Web blog post]. canetoadwarrior.blogspot.com/2012/10/moonrise-kingdom.html (Last accessed on29 September 2013).
  27. Mahlberg, Michaela
    2007 Corpus stylistics: Bridging the gap between linguistic and literary studies. InText, discourse and corpora: Theory and analysis, Michael Hoey, Michaela Mahlberg, Michael Stubbs & Wolfgang Teubert (eds). London UK: Continuum, 219–246.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. McCutchen, Deborah & Charles A. Perfetti
    1982 Coherence and connectedness in the development of discourse production. Text2 (1–3): 113–140. 10.1515/text.1.1982.2.1‑3.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1982.2.1-3.113 [Google Scholar]
  29. McGrath, R. E., & Meyer, G. J.
    2006 When effect sizes disagree: the case of r and d. Psychological Methods11(4), 386–401. 10.1037/1082‑989X.11.4.386
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.386 [Google Scholar]
  30. McNamara, Danielle. S., Scott A. Crossley & Philip M. McCarthy
    2010 Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication27 (1): 57–86. 10.1177/0741088309351547
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ortega, Lourdes
    2003 Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics24 (4): 492–518. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2015 Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing29: 82–94. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  33. Read, John
    2000Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732942
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942 [Google Scholar]
  34. Shaughnessy, M. P.
    1979Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Stubbs, Michael
    2005 Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistic methods. Language and Literature14 (1): 5–24. 10.1177/0963947005048873
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947005048873 [Google Scholar]
  36. The Pulitzer Prizes: Honoring Excellence in Journalism and the Arts
    The Pulitzer Prizes: Honoring Excellence in Journalism and the Arts. (n.d.). www.pulitzer.org (Last accessed on10 November 2013).
  37. van Peer, Willie
    (ed) 2008The quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation4. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/lal.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.4 [Google Scholar]
  38. Widdowson, Henry George
    1992Practical stylistics: An approach to poetry. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wolfe-Quintero, Kate, Shunji Inagaki & Hae-Young Kim
    1998Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00029.tow
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00029.tow
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): lexical cohesion , lexical complexity , movie reviews , syntactic complexity and writing quality
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error