A Comparative Study in Lexical Richness between High and Low Score L2 Impromptu Compositions

doi:10.12002/j.bisu.156

Abstract

Abstract:

L2 writing quality is greatly influenced by lexical richness. Due to the rarity of relevant studies, it is hard to learn about differences in productive lexical richness among compositions of different qualities. This research aimes at revealing lexical differences between compositions of higher scores and those with lower scores. Sophomores majoring in English in a foreign language university are asked to write an argumentative composition impromptu in class. 60 compositions are taken as the samples with higher score ones and lower score ones selected. Lexical richness is assessed and compared from four aspects, i.e., lexical variation, lexical sophistication, lexical density and lexical errors. The results shows that the higher score compositions are better than the lower score ones in lexical variation and lexical sophistication, and the difference in lexical sophistication are significant. High score ones have fewer lexical errors than lower score ones. The difference in lexical density is not significant. This study has some implications for L2 teaching in writing. Students should be encouraged to enlarge their vocabulary, which is the basis of lexical richness. Teachers can help students to turn the passive vocabulary into productive vocabulary through sentence making so as to retrieve and process words in an automatic way.

Keywords: L2 writing; lexical richness; lexical diversity; lexical sophistication

摘要：

产出性词汇的丰富性对二语写作质量有着重要的影响。由于当前对比研究相对较少,因此无法深入了解不同质量写作文本之间产出性词汇的特征差异。鉴于此,本文以英语专业本科二年级学生即时写作的议论文为研究样本,从词汇多样性、词汇复杂性、词汇密度和词汇错误四个方面对高分组和低分组作文词汇丰富性的差异进行了对比分析。研究结果显示,高分作文在词汇多样性、词汇复杂性方面均高于低分组,其中词汇复杂性差异显著;在词汇错误方面,高分作文低于低分作文;两组在词汇密度方面差异不大。研究结论对二语教学具有一定的启示意义。

关键词: 二语写作, 词汇丰富性, 词汇多样性, 词汇复杂性

Xiaodong ZHANG,Jiaojiao REN. A Comparative Study in Lexical Richness between High and Low Score L2 Impromptu Compositions[J]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 2018, 40(4): 41-52.

张晓东,任娇娇. 二语即时作文高低分组词汇丰富性对比研究[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2018, 40(4): 41-52.

Figures/Tables 4

References

[1]	Acevedo M&Daniel O. An Analysis of Gains in Lexical Richness in the Writing of Instructed Intermediate EFL Learners[D]. Reading:University of Reading, 2014.
[2]	Daller H van Hout R&Treffers-Daller J. Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2003,24(2):197~ 222.
[3]	Dewaele J M . Extraversion and lexical richness in two styles of French interlanguage[J]. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1993,100:87~ 105.
[4]	Engber C A . The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1995,4(2):139~ 155.
[5]	Halliday M A K . Spoken and Written Language [M]. Burwood, Australia:Deakin University Press, 1985.
[6]	Hyltenstam K . Lexical charateristics of near-native second-language learners of Swedish[J]. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1988,9(1-2):67~ 84.
[7]	James C . Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis[M]. London:Routledge, 1998.
[8]	Jarvis S . Short texts, best-fitting curves, and new measures of lexical diversity[J]. Language Testing, 2002,19(1):57~ 84.
[9]	Johansson S . Problems in studying the communicative effect of learners’ errors[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1978,1(1):41~ 52.
[10]	Kojima M&Yamashita J. Reliability of lexical richness measures based on word lists in short second language productions[J]. System, 2014,42:23~ 33.
[11]	Laufer B . The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time?[J]. RELC Journal, 1994,25(2):21~ 23.
[12]	Laufer B . The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1998,19(2):255~ 271.
[13]	Laufer B&Nation P. Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production[J]. Applied Linguisitics, 1995,16(3):307~ 322.
[14]	Lemmouh Z . The Relationship among Vocabulary Knowledge, Academic Achievement and the Lexical Richness in Writing in Swedish University Students of English[D]. Stockholm:Stockholm University, 2010.
[15]	Linnarud M . Lexis in Composition: A Performance Analysis of Swedish Learners’ Written English[M]. Malmo: Liber Forlag Malmo, 1986.
[16]	Mahardika R . Comparing Lexical Richness and Lexical Cohesion on Descriptive Essays Written by Students with Different Exposures to English[D]. Malang:State University of Malang, 2015.
[17]	Malvern D, Richards B Chipere N&Durán P..Lexical Diversity and Language Development: Quantification and Assessment[M]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
[18]	McNamara D S, Louwerse M M ,McCarthy P M&Graesser A C. Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion[J]. Discourse Process, 2010,47(4):292~ 330.
[19]	Nation P . Teaching and Learning Vocabulary[M]. New York: Newbury House Publishers, 1990.
[20]	Nazli A ,Fatemeh K & Vaezi R . Measuring the lexical richness of productive vocabulary in iranian EFL university students’ writing performance[J]. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2014,4(9):1837~ 1849.
[21]	Read J. Assessing Vocabulary [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[22]	Turlik J . A Longitudinal Study of Vocabulary in L2 Academic English Writing of Arabic First-language Students: Development and Measurement[D]. Bristol:University of the West of England, 2008.
[23]	Tweedie F J&Baayen R H. How variable may a constant be? Measures of lexical richness in perspective[J]. Computers and the Humanities, 1998,32(5):323~ 352.
[24]	Ure J N. Lexical density and register differentiation[C]// Perren G E E & Trim J L M. Applications of Linguistics: Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of Applied Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1971: 443~ 452.
[25]	Xie Y J, Shen Y. A study of the relationships between lexical richness and writing quality: Taking the English majors at Guangxi University as an example[C]// Proceedings of 2015 International Conference on Social Science, Education Management and Sports Education. Paris:Atlantis Press, 2015: 1643~ 1646.
[26]	Yu Guoxing . Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performances[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2010,31(2):236~ 259.
[27]	Zareva A Schwanenflugel P&Nikolova Y..Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2005,27(4):567~ 595.
[28]	鲍贵 . 二语学习者作文词汇丰富性发展多纬度研究[J]. 外语电化教学, 2008(5):38~ 34.
[29]	高彦梅 . 运用LD评估语篇能力[J]. 外语教学, 2003(5):65~ 68.
[30]	何华清 . 非英语专业学生写作中的词汇错误分析——一项基于语料库的研究[J]. 外语界, 2009(3):2~ 9.
[31]	秦晓晴, 文秋芳 . 中国大学生英语写作能力发展规律与特点研究 [M]. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2007.
[32]	谭晓晨 . 中国英语学习者产出性词汇发展研究[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2006,38(3):202~ 207.
[33]	万丽芳 . 中国英语专业大学生二语写作中的词汇丰富性研究[J]. 外语界, 2010(1):40~ 46.
[34]	王海华, 周祥 . 非英语专业大学生写作中词汇丰富性变化的历时研究[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2012 ( 2):40~ 44.
[35]	朱慧敏, 王俊菊 . 英语写作的词汇丰富性发展特征——一项基于自建语料库的纵贯研究[J]. 外语界, 2013(6):77~ 86.

统计数据组别	最小值	最大值	均数	标准差	t	p
低分组	15.25	31.22	21.19	3.68	—1.51	0.136
高分组	16.81	33.51	22.55	3.15	—1.51	0.136

统计数据组别	最小值	最大值	均数	标准差	t	p
低分组	15.25	31.22	21.19	3.68	—1.51	0.136
高分组	16.81	33.51	22.55	3.15	—1.51	0.136

组别词类别	高分组	低分组	t
最常用1 000词	78.94%	83.58%	—4.93***
次常用1 000词	7.95%	6.06%	3.02**
学术词汇	5.13%	3.88%	2.63*
表外词	7.98%	6.48%	2.58*

组别词类别	高分组	低分组	t
最常用1 000词	78.94%	83.58%	—4.93***
次常用1 000词	7.95%	6.06%	3.02**
学术词汇	5.13%	3.88%	2.63*
表外词	7.98%	6.48%	2.58*

统计数据组别	最小值	最大值	平均值	标准差	t	p
低分组	5.41	9.83	7.27	1.11	0.12	0.91
高分组	5.45	13.92	7.23	1.66	0.12	0.91