The authors present a model of lexical proficiency based on lexical indices related to vocabulary size, depth of lexical knowledge, and accessibility to core lexical items. The lexical indices used in this study come from the computational tool Coh-Metrix and include word length scores, lexical diversity values, word frequency counts, hypernymy values, polysemy values, semantic co-referentiality, word meaningfulness, word concreteness, word imagability, and word familiarity. Human raters evaluated a corpus of 240 written texts using a standardized rubric of lexical proficiency. To ensure a variety of text levels, the corpus comprised 60 texts each from beginning, intermediate, and advanced second language (L2) adult English learners. The L2 texts were collected longitudinally from 10 English learners. In addition, 60 texts from native English speakers were collected. The holistic scores from the trained human raters were then correlated to a variety of lexical indices. The researchers found that lexical diversity, word hypernymy values and content word frequency explain 44% of the variance of the human evaluations of lexical proficiency in the examined writing samples. The findings represent an important step in the development of a model of lexical proficiency that incorporates both vocabulary size and depth of lexical knowledge features.
AnglinJ. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58 (10), 1–166.
2.
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.GulikersL. (1995). CELEX. Philadelphia, Linguistic Data Consortium
3.
BalotaD. A.ChumbleyJ. L. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 340–357.
4.
BarcikowskiR.StevensJ. P. (1975). A Monte Carlo study of the stability of canonical correlations, canonical weights, and canonical variate-variable correlations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 10: 353–364.
5.
BellH. (2003). Using Frequency Lists to Assess L2 Texts. University of Wales Swansea: Unpublished Thesis.
6.
BoldtR. F.Larsen-FreemanD.ReedM. S.CourtneyR. G. (1992). Distributions of ACTFL ratings by TOEFL score ranges. TOEFL Research Reports, 41.
7.
CarrolJ. B. (1964). Language and Thought. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
8.
CarterR. (1987). Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives. London: Allen & Unwin.
9.
ChaffinR.GlassA. (1990). A comparison of hyponym and synonym decisions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19 (4), 265–280.
10.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112, 155–159.
11.
CrossleyS. A.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Computationally assessing lexical differences in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 119–135.
12.
CrossleyS. A.SalsburyT. (2010). Using lexical indices to predict produced and not produced words in second language learners. The Mental Lexicon, 5 (1), 115–147.
13.
CrossleyS. A.SalsburyT. (in press). The development of collocational accuracy and production in English second language speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Teaching, 49 (1).
14.
CrossleyS. A.SalsburyT.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Measuring L2 lexical growth using hypernymic relationships. Language Learning, 59 (2).
15.
CrossleyS. A.SalsburyT.McNamaraD. S. (2010a). The development of semantic relations in second language speakers: A case for Latent Semantic Analysis. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7, 55–74.
16.
CrossleyS. A.SalsburyT.McNamaraD. S. (2010b). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60 (3).
17.
DallerH.van HoutR.Treffers-DallerJ. (2003). Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 197–222.
18.
EllisN. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 143–188.
19.
EllisN. C.BeatonA. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 43 (4), 559–617.
20.
EllisR. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied Linguistics, 16, 409-435.
21.
FellbaumC. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
FieldA. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.
23.
ForsterK. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In WalesR. J.WalkerE. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North Holland
24.
GeeN. R.NelsonD. L.KrawczykD. (1999). Is the concreteness effect a result of underlying network interconnectivity?Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 479–497.
25.
GlanzerM.EhrenreichS. L. (1979). Structure and search of the internal lexicon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 381–398.
26.
GraesserA.C.McNamaraD.S.LouwerseM.M.CaiZ. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 36: 193–202.
27.
HaastrupK.HenriksenB. (2000). Vocabulary acquisition: Acquiring depth of knowledge through network building. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10 (2), 221–240.
28.
HatchE.LazaratonA. (1991). The research manual: Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Boston, MA: Newbury House.
IjazI. H. (1986). Linguistic and cognitive determinants of lexical acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 36 (4), 401–451.
31.
JurafskyD.MartinJ. H. (2008). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32.
KirsnerK. (1994). Implicit processes in second language learning. In EllisN. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 283–312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
33.
LandauerT. K.McNamaraD. SDennisS.KintschW. (Eds.). (2007). LSA: A road to meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
LauferB.NationP. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16 (3), 307–322.
35.
LevenstonE.BlumS. (1977). Aspects of lexical simplification in the speech and writing of advanced adult learners. In CorderP. S.RouletE. (Eds.), The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy (pp. 51–72). Librairie Droz.
36.
MalvernD. D.RichardsB. J.ChipereN.DuránP. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
37.
McCarthyP. M.JarvisS. (in press). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods.
38.
MearaP. (1997). Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In SchmittN.McCarthyM. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 109–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
MearaP. (2002). The rediscovery of vocabulary. Second Language Research, 18 (4): 393–407.
40.
MearaP. (2005). Designing vocabulary tests for English, Spanish and other languages. In ButlerC.ChristopherS.Gómez GonzálezM. Á.Doval-SuárezS. M. (Eds.) The dynamics of language use (pp. 271–285). Amsterdam, John Benjamins Press.
41.
MearaP.BellH. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16 (3), 5–19.
42.
MearaP.WolterB. (2004). V_Links: Beyond vocabulary depth. Angles on the English-Speaking World, 4, 85–96.
43.
MurphyG. L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
NationI. S. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 581–595). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
45.
NationI. S. P.HeatleyA. (1996). VocabProfile, Word and Range: Programs for processing text. Wellington, New Zealand: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.
46.
NewmanM. L.GroomC. J.HandelmanL. D.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). Gender difference in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes, 45, 211–236.
47.
PearsonP. D.HiebertE. H.KamilM. L. (2007). Theory and research into practice: Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42 (2), 282–296.
48.
PolioC. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case text-based studies. In SilvaT.MatsudaP. K. (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 91–115).Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
49.
ReadJ. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 10, 355–371.
50.
SalsburyT.CrossleyS. A.McNamaraD. S. (in press). Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research.
51.
SchmittN. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of a second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study, Language Learning, 48 (2), 281–317.
52.
SchmittN.MearaP. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 17–36.
53.
SchwanenflugelP. (1991). Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In SchwanenflugelP. (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223–250). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
54.
SnowC. E. (1990). The development of definitional skill. Journal of Child Language, 17, 697–710.
55.
TogliaM. P.BattigW. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
56.
VermeerA. (2000). Coming to grips with lexical richness in spontaneous speech data. Language Testing, 17 (1), 65–83.
57.
VerspoorM.LowieW. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53 (3), 547–586.
58.
WescheM.ParibakhtT. M. (1996). Assessing vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40.
59.
WhittenI. A.FrankE. (2005). Data Mining. San Francisco: Elsevier.
60.
WilsonM.D. (1988) The MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machine Readable Dictionary, Version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20 (1), 6–11.
61.
WolterB. (2001). Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicons: A depth of individual word knowledge model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 41–70.
62.
ZarevaA. (2007). Structure of the second language mental lexicon: How does it compare to native speakers’ lexical organization?Second Language Research, 23 (2), 123–153.
