Using Computer-Tagged Linguistic Features to Describe L2 Writing Differences

Abstract This study examined the extent to which a computerized tagging program was able to capture proficiency level differences of second language (L2) learners' essays. A sample of 90 Test of Written English ( TWE ) essays, written at three levels of proficiency as defined by TWE ratings, were tagged for features of essay length, lexical specificity (type/token ratio and average word length), lexical features (e.g., conjuncts, hedges), grammatical structures (e.g., nouns, nominalizations, modals), and clause level features (e.g., subordination, passives). The results indicate that computerized tagging can be used to reveal detailed differences among proficiency levels, but that additional coding into the program or tagging by hand is necessary to gain a more complete picture of differences in L2 students' writing.

[1]  Thomas M. Duffy,et al.  Designing usable texts , 1985, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[2]  Lawrence T. Frase,et al.  Intuitions, Algorithms, and a Science of Text Design , 1985 .

[3]  Zhang Shuqiang.  Cognitive Complexity and Written Production in English as a Second Language , 1987 .

[4]  Dana R. Ferris.  The design of an automatic analysis program for L2 text research: Necessity and feasibility , 1993 .

[5]  Cheryl A. Engber.  The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions , 1995 .

[6]  Eric T. Liu,et al.  What Develops in the Development of Second-Language Writing?. , 1998 .

[7]  María Rosario Montaño-Harmon.  Discourse Features of Written Mexican Spanish: Current Research in Contrastive Rhetoric and Its Implications. , 1991 .

[8]  D. Biber.  Spoken and Written Textual Dimensions in English: Resolving the Contradictory Findings , 1986 .

[9]  T. Santos.  Professors' Reactions to the Academic Writing of Nonnative-Speaking Students. , 1988 .

[10]  Carol O. Sweedler-Brown.  ESL Essay Evaluation: The Influence of Sentence-Level and Rhetorical Features. , 1993 .

[11]  Susan Conrad,et al.  Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use , 1998 .

[12]  Ulla Connor,et al.  Linguistic/Rhetorical Measures for International Persuasive Student Writing , 1990 .

[13]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  Lexical and Syntactic Features of ESL Writing by Students at Different Levels of L2 Proficiency , 1994 .

[14]  Barbara Kroll.  Second Language Writing. Research Insights for the Classroom. , 1990 .

[15]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation across speech and writing: Methodology , 1988 .

[16]  Joy Reid,et al.  Second Language Writing: Responding to different topic types: a quantitative analysis from a contrastive rhetoric perspective , 1990 .

[17]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison , 1995 .

[18]  Robert W. Bley-Vroman.  THE COMPARATIVE FALLACY IN INTERLANGUAGE STUDIES: THE CASE OF SYSTEMATICITY1 , 1983 .

[19]  Randi Reppen.  Spanish transfer effects in the English writing of elementary school students , 1993 .

[20]  Charlene Polio,et al.  Measures of Linguistic Accuracy in Second Language Writing Research , 1997 .

[21]  Melvin R. Andrade.  Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Ulla Connor and Robert B. Kaplan (Eds.) , 1990 .

[22]  Joy Reid,et al.  A computer text analysis of four cohesion devices in english discourse by native and nonnative writers , 1992 .

[23]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .