1887
Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486

Abstract

Abstract

Mean-frequency scores of lexical sophistication are used to evaluate written and spoken language production. They are calculated using word frequencies extracted from a reference corpus. Using mixed-effects regression models, we analyse the strength of the relationship between L2 proficiency and mean-frequency scores in spoken and written texts using reference corpora representing different modes and registers. We control for task and topic effects. We observe that mean-frequency measures of lexical sophistication are considerably more influenced by the mode and register of the reference corpus used to calculate these scores than by language users’ proficiency level. Advanced language users produce more frequent vocabulary, typical of the target register, in both spoken monologues and written essays. These results provide evidence in favour of a conceptual and terminological shift from to (as suggested by Durrant & Brenchley, 2019) to refer to the construct captured by mean-frequency scores of vocabulary use.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.23029.bot
2024-10-21
2025-02-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ijlcr.23029.bot.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.23029.bot&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R.
    (2007) The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. 10.3758/BF03193014
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, H. M.
    (2003) Using frequency lists to assess L2 texts [PhD thesis, University of Wales]. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.636075
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berger, C., Crossley, S., & Skalicky, S.
    (2019) Using lexical features to investigate second language lexical decision performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 911–935. 10.1017/S0272263119000019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000019 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D.
    (2023) Writing and speaking. InR. Horowitz (Ed.), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Writing (2nd ed., pp.535–548). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (2021) Grammar of spoken and written English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.232 [Google Scholar]
  7. BNC Consortium
    BNC Consortium (2007) The British National Corpus (XML) [Data set]. Oxford Text Archive. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/corpus/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bottini, R.
    (2022) Lexical complexity in L2 English speech: Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus [PhD thesis]. Lancaster University.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Brezina, V., Hawtin, A., & McEnery, T.
    (2021) The written British National Corpus 2014 — design and comparability. Text & Talk, 41(5–6), 595–615. 10.1515/text‑2020‑0052
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0052 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
    (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 [Google Scholar]
  11. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (Ed.) (2020) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Crossley, S., Cobb, T., & McNamara, D.
    (2013) Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System, 41(4), 965–981. 10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Crossley, S., Kyle, K., & Römer, U.
    (2019) Examining lexical and cohesion differences in discipline-specific writing using multi-dimensional analysis. InT. B. Sardinha & M. V. Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp.189–216). Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781350023857.0019
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.0019 [Google Scholar]
  14. Crossley, S., & McNamara, D.
    (2012) Predicting second language writing proficiency: the roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115–135. 10.1111/j.1467‑9817.2010.01449.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x [Google Scholar]
  15. (2013) Applications of text analysis tools for spoken response grading. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 171–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D.
    (2010) The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers: Polysemy and frequency use in English L2 speakers. Language Learning, 60(3), 573–605. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00568.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00568.x [Google Scholar]
  17. (2012) Predicting the proficiency level of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29(2), 243–263. 10.1177/0265532211419331
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211419331 [Google Scholar]
  18. Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D., & Jarvis, S.
    (2011) What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 182–193. 10.5054/tq.2010.244019
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.244019 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dawson, N., Hsiao, Y., Tan, A., Banerji, N., & Nation, K.
    (2021) Features of lexical richness in children’s books: Comparisons with child-directed speech. 10.34842/5WE1‑YK94
    https://doi.org/10.34842/5WE1-YK94 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dombi, J., Sydorenko, T., & Timpe-Laughlin, V.
    (2022) Common ground, cooperation, and recipient design in human-computer interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 1931, 4–20. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Durrant, P.
    (2014) Corpus frequency and second language learners’ knowledge of collocations: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(4), 443–477. 10.1075/ijcl.19.4.01dur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.4.01dur [Google Scholar]
  22. Durrant, P., & Brenchley, M.
    (2019) Development of vocabulary sophistication across genres in English children’s writing. Reading and Writing, 32(8), 1927–1953. 10.1007/s11145‑018‑9932‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9932-8 [Google Scholar]
  23. Durrant, P., & Durrant, A.
    (2022) Appropriateness as an aspect of lexical richness: What do quantitative measures tell us about children’s writing?Assessing Writing, 511, 100596. 10.1016/j.asw.2021.100596
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100596 [Google Scholar]
  24. Durrant, P., Moxley, J., & McCallum, L.
    (2019) Vocabulary sophistication in First-Year Composition assignments. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(1), 33–66. 10.1075/ijcl.17052.dur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17052.dur [Google Scholar]
  25. Egbert, J.
    (2017) Corpus linguistics and language testing: Navigating uncharted waters. Language Testing, 34(4), 555–564. 10.1177/0265532217713045
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217713045 [Google Scholar]
  26. Eguchi, M., & Kyle, K.
    (2020) Continuing to explore the multidimensional nature of lexical sophistication: The case of oral proficiency interviews. The Modern Language Journal, 104(2), 381–400. 10.1111/modl.12637
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12637 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ellis, N. C.
    (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C.
    (2008) Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375–396. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00137.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00137.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Fergadiotis, G., Wright, H. H., & West, T. M.
    (2013) Measuring lexical diversity in narrative discourse of people with aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology / American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 22(2). 10.1044/1058‑0360(2013/12‑0083)
    https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2013/12-0083) [Google Scholar]
  30. Gablasova, D., & Bottini, R.
    (2022) Spoken learner corpora for language teaching. InR. Jablonkai & E. Csomay (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpora and English language teaching and learning (pp.296–310). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003002901‑24
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003002901-24 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gablasova, D., Harding, L., Brezina, V., & Dunlea, J.
    (2023, July). Talking to an imagined interlocutor: Interactional and interpersonal features of discourse in computer — mediated semi-direct speaking assessment. Corpus Linguistics 2023 Conference, Lancaster University (UK).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S. Th.
    (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  33. Horst, M., & Collins, L.
    (2006) From faible to strong: How does their vocabulary grow?The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 83–106. 10.3138/cmlr.63.1.83
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.83 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ishikawa, S.
    (2023) The ICNALE guide: An introduction to a learner corpus study on Asian learners’ L2 English. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003252528
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003252528 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim, M., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K.
    (2018) Lexical sophistication as a multidimensional phenomenon: Relations to second language lexical proficiency, development, and writing quality. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 120–141. 10.1111/modl.12447
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12447 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kormos, J.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. 10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S.
    (2015) Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. 10.1002/tesq.194
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2016) The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 341, 12–24. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C.
    (2018) The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 501, 1030–1046. 10.3758/s13428‑017‑0924‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4 [Google Scholar]
  40. Le Foll, E.
    (2021) Register variation in school EFL textbooks. Register Studies, 3(2), 207–246. 10.1075/rs.20009.lef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20009.lef [Google Scholar]
  41. (2022a) Making tea and mistakes: The functions of make in spoken English and textbook dialogues. InZ. Yin & E. Vine (Eds.), Multifunctionality in English: Corpora, language and academic literacy pedagogy (pp.157–178). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003155072‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003155072-12 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2022b) Textbook English: A corpus-based analysis of the language of EFL textbooks used in secondary schools in France, Germany and Spain [PhD thesis, Osnabrück University]. 10.48693/278
    https://doi.org/10.48693/278 [Google Scholar]
  43. Leńko-Szymańska, A.
    (2019) Defining and assessing lexical proficiency. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429321993
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429321993 [Google Scholar]
  44. Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
    (2017) The spoken BNC2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319–344. 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov [Google Scholar]
  45. Lu, X.
    (2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96(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]
  46. McNamara, D., Crossley, S., & McCarthy, P.
    (2010) Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86. 10.1177/0741088309351547
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309351547 [Google Scholar]
  47. Monteiro, K., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K.
    (2020) In search of new benchmarks: Using L2 lexical frequency and contextual diversity indices to assess second language writing. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 280–300. 10.1093/applin/amy056
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy056 [Google Scholar]
  48. Nakatsuhara, F., Khabbazbashi, N., & Inoue, C.
    (2021) Assessing speaking. InG. Fulcher & L. Harding (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp.209–222). Routledge. 10.4324/9781003220756‑17
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003220756-17 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nation, I. S. P.
    (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524759
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759 [Google Scholar]
  50. Nesi, H.
    (2001) A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. InJ. Cotterill & A. Ife (Eds.), Language across boundaries (pp.201–218). British Association for Applied Linguistics in association with Continuum Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009030199
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030199 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ockey, G. J., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E.
    (2021) Human versus computer partner in the paired oral discussion test. Applied Linguistics, 42(5), 924–944. 10.1093/applin/amaa067
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa067 [Google Scholar]
  53. OED
    OED (2023) sophistication, n. | sophisticated, adj. InOxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press; Oxford English Dictionary. 10.1093/OED/7299729576
    https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/7299729576 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ong, J., & Zhang, L. J.
    (2010) Effects of task complexity on the fluency and lexical complexity in EFL students’ argumentative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 218–233. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pallotti, G.
    (2020) Measuring complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). InP. Winke & T. Brunfaut (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of Second Language Acquisition and language testing (pp.201–210). Routledge. 10.4324/9781351034784‑23
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351034784-23 [Google Scholar]
  56. Paquot, M.
    (2019) The phraseological dimension in interlanguage complexity research. Second Language Research, 35(1), 121–145. 10.1177/0267658317694221
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317694221 [Google Scholar]
  57. Paquot, M., Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., & Naets, H.
    (2022) Phraseological complexity in EFL learners’ spoken production across proficiency levels. InS. Götz & A. Leńko-Szymańska (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in learner corpus research (pp.115–136). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.104.05paq
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.104.05paq [Google Scholar]
  58. Read, J.
    (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732942
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942 [Google Scholar]
  59. Saito, K., Suzuki, S., Oyama, T., & Akiyama, Y.
    (2021) How does longitudinal interaction promote second language speech learning? Roles of learner experience and proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 37(4), 547–571. 10.1177/0267658319884981
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319884981 [Google Scholar]
  60. Salsbury, T., Crossley, S., & McNamara, D.
    (2011) Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research, 27(3), 343–360. 10.1177/0267658310395851
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658310395851 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tidball, F., & Treffers-Daller, J.
    (2008) Analysing lexical richness in French learner language: What frequency lists and teacher judgements can tell us about basic and advanced words. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(3), 299–313. 10.1017/S0959269508003463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269508003463 [Google Scholar]
  62. Van Halteren, H.
    (2020) Domain bias in distinguishing Flemish and Dutch subtitles. Natural Language Engineering, 26(5), 493–510. 10.1017/S1351324919000445
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324919000445 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.23029.bot
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijlcr.23029.bot
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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