Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This corpus-based research analysed three lexical features (lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, and cohesion) in English argumentative writing and examined the potential differences in lexical performance (1) between native and nonnative English writers and (2) across all writers from various language backgrounds. The findings revealed that nonnative English writers demonstrated significantly lower performance in lexical sophistication than did native English writers. Significant differences in all three lexical aspects exist between writers from different language backgrounds. Pedagogical implications for vocabulary instruction in academic writing for nonnative writers include emphasizing the mastery of academic, low-frequency, and discipline-specific vocabulary. Additionally, improving nonnative writers’ vocabulary size and lexical diversity is essential for building deeper level cohesion in writing. The results suggest unique writing characteristics of different nonnative writers and their varied learner needs should be acknowledged. Thus, targeted instruction is essential to provide effective enhancement to nonnative English writers’ lexical performance in academic writing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
    (1993) The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2013) Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT ® test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (Research Report No. TOEFL iBT-19). Retrieved from Educational Testing Service (ETS) website: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-13-04.pdf (13December 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brewer, E. W., & Kubn, J.
    (2012) Causal-comparative design. InN. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp.125–131). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Castro, C. D.
    (2004) Cohesion and the social construction of meaning in the essays of Filipino college students writing in L2 English. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215–225. doi:  10.1007/BF03024959
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03024959 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, J.
    (2008) An investigation of EFL students’ use of cohesive devices. Asia Pacific Education Review, 5(2), 215–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cobb, T.
    (n.d.). Compleat lexical tutor. Retrieved from www.lextutor.ca/ (13December 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coltheart, M.
    (1981) The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505. doi:  10.1080/14640748108400805
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. doi:  10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2012) Academic vocabulary, writing and English for academic purposes: Perspectives from second language learners. RELC Journal, 43(1), 137–145. doi:  10.1177/0033688212439323
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688212439323 [Google Scholar]
  11. Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S.
    (2009) Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 119–135. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. (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 Learning, 21(2–3), 170–191. doi:  10.1504/IJCEELL.2011.040197
    https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCEELL.2011.040197 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. doi:  10.5054/tq.2010.244019
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.244019 [Google Scholar]
  14. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Retrieved from corpus.byu.edu/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Durán, P., Malvern, D., Richards, B., & Chipere, N.
    (2004) Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 220–242. doi:  10.1093/applin/25.2.220
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.220 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eckstein, G., & Ferris, D.
    (2018) Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in first-year composition. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 137–162. doi:  10.1002/tesq.376
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.376 [Google Scholar]
  17. 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:  10.1016/1060‑3743(95)90004‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90004-7 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferris, D. R.
    (1994) Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 414–420. doi:  10.2307/3587446
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587446 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2014) Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23. 10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferris, D., Jensen, L., & Wald, M.
    (2015) Writing instructors’ perceptions of international student writers: What teachers want and need to know. CATESOL Journal, 27(2), 55–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Field, Y., & Oi, Y. L. M.
    (1992) A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15–28. doi:  10.1177/003368829202300102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300102 [Google Scholar]
  22. Flowerdew, L.
    (1998) Integrating ‘expert’ and ‘interlanguage’ computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 329–345. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(97)00014‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00014-8 [Google Scholar]
  23. Folse, K. S.
    (2004) Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.23925
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.23925 [Google Scholar]
  24. Friginal, E., Li, M., & Weigle, S. C.
    (2014) Revisiting multiple profiles of learner compositions: A comparison of highly rated NS and NNS essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 1–16. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gardner, D., & Davies, M.
    (2013) A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. doi:  10.1093/applin/amt015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015 [Google Scholar]
  26. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z.
    (2004) Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, 36(2), 193–202. doi:  10.3758/BF03195564
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564 [Google Scholar]
  27. Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M.
    (2009) International corpus of learner English (Version 2, Handbook + CD-ROM). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Green, C.
    (2012) A computational investigation of cohesion and lexical network density in L2 writing. English Language Teaching, 5(8), 57–69. 10.5539/elt.v5n8p57
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n8p57 [Google Scholar]
  29. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Harman, R.
    (2013) Literary intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(2), 125–140. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.006 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jarvis, S.
    (2002) Short texts, best-fitting curves and new measures of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 57–84. doi:  10.1191/0265532202lt220oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt220oa [Google Scholar]
  32. Kormos, J.
    (2011) Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 148–161. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A.
    (2015) Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757-786. doi:  10.1002/tesq.194
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194 [Google Scholar]
  34. Laufer, B.
    (1994) The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time?. RELC Journal, 25(2), 21–33. doi:  10.1177/003368829402500202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500202 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2005) Lexical frequency profiles: From Monte Carlo to the real world: A response to Meara (2005). Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 582–588. doi:  10.1093/applin/ami029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami029 [Google Scholar]
  36. Laufer, B., & Nation, P.
    (1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. doi:  10.1093/applin/16.3.307
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, S. H.
    (2003) ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. System, 31(4), 537–561. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2003.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu, M., & Braine, G.
    (2005) Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System, 33(4), 623–636. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Louwerse, M. M.
    (2004) A concise model of cohesion in text and coherence in comprehension. Revista Signos, 37(56), 41–58. doi:  10.4067/S0718‑09342004005600004
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342004005600004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Matsuda, P. K., Saenkhum, T., & Accardi, S.
    (2013) Writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of second language writers: An institutional case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(1), 68–86. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. McCarthy, P. M., & Jarvis, S.
    (2007) Vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24(4), 459–488. doi:  10.1177/0265532207080767
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207080767 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2010) MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392. doi:  10.3758/BRM.42.2.381
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.381 [Google Scholar]
  43. Meara, P.
    (2005) Lexical frequency profiles: A Monte Carlo analysis. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 32–47. doi:  10.1093/applin/amh037
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh037 [Google Scholar]
  44. Miller, G. A., Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. J.
    (1990) Introduction to WordNet: An on-line lexical database. International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4), 235–244. doi:  10.1093/ijl/3.4.235
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/3.4.235 [Google Scholar]
  45. Muncie, J.
    (2002) Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing lexical frequency profiles across drafts. System, 30(2), 225–235. doi:  10.1016/S0346‑251X(02)00006‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00006-4 [Google Scholar]
  46. Nation, P., & Waring, R.
    (1997) Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. InN. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.6–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Newman, J. A.
    (2016) A corpus-based comparison of the Academic Word List and the Academic Vocabulary List. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Brigham Young University. Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/6080/ (13December 2019).
  48. Norment Jr., N.
    (2002) Quantitative and qualitative analyses of textual cohesion in African American students’ writing in narrative, argumentative, and expository modes. CLA Journal, 46(1), 98–132.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Olsson, E.
    (2015) Progress in English academic vocabulary use in writing among CLIL and non-CLIL students in Sweden. Moderna Språk, 109(2), 51–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Read, J.
    (2000) Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511732942
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732942 [Google Scholar]
  51. Reid, J.
    (1992) A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in English discourse by native and nonnative writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(2), 79–107. doi:  10.1016/1060‑3743(92)90010‑M
    https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90010-M [Google Scholar]
  52. Schmitt, N.
    (2010) Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillian. 10.1057/9780230293977
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230293977 [Google Scholar]
  53. Stæhr, L. S.
    (2008) Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. The Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152. doi:  10.1080/09571730802389975
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389975 [Google Scholar]
  54. UNESCO Institute for Statistics
    UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2016) Global flow of tertiary-level students. Retrieved from uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow (13December 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  55. UNESCO Institute for Statistics
    UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2018) International mobility in tertiary education. Retrieved from data.uis.unesco.org/ (13December 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Valcourt, G., & Wells, L.
    (1999) Mastery: A university word list reader. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Young-Davy, B.
    (2014) Explicit vocabulary instruction. ORTESOL Journal, 31, 26–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Yu, G.
    (2009) Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 236–259. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp024
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp024 [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhou, A. A.
    (2009) What adult ESL learners say about improving grammar and vocabulary in their writing for academic purposes. Language Awareness, 18(1), 31–46. doi:  10.1080/09658410802307923
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802307923 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): academic writing; lexical features; nonnative writers; vocabulary
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