EVALUATING L2 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT FEATURES USING LEXICAL DENSITY AND LEXICAL DIVERSITY MEASURES

Eihab Abu-Rabiah
{"title":"EVALUATING L2 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT FEATURES USING LEXICAL DENSITY AND LEXICAL DIVERSITY MEASURES","authors":"Eihab Abu-Rabiah","doi":"10.24071/llt.v26i1.5841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most of the research on lexical measures was conducted in English and conducted similarly in other languages without accurate adaptations to the language being tested. The first objective of this study is to identify differences between applications of lexical density and lexical diversity when tested as in English and when adapted to the language being tested. The second objective is to inspect the effect of acquisition time on intermediate-level second-language learners' lexical density and diversity. In a test-retest study over one year, Arabic Hebrew bilinguals (n=23) wrote argumentative essays, in which lexical density and diversity were analyzed according to two approaches; a conventional approach as in English and an adapted approach more aligned with Hebrew linguistic features. In both approaches, lexical density was calculated as the number of lexical words in proportion to the total number of words and lexical diversity using the type-token ratio (TTR) and Corrected TTR (CTTR). Findings reveal statistically significant differences between the two approaches and the adapted approach allowed for cross-language and interlanguage comparisons. Although no significant increase in lexical density and diversity over the year was found, various patterns for lexical development were observed; at the second time point, students with the lowest level of lexical diversity substantially improved and more essays fell within the lexical density range of a typically written language.","PeriodicalId":31957,"journal":{"name":"LLT Journal A Journal on Language and Language Teaching","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LLT Journal A Journal on Language and Language Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v26i1.5841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Most of the research on lexical measures was conducted in English and conducted similarly in other languages without accurate adaptations to the language being tested. The first objective of this study is to identify differences between applications of lexical density and lexical diversity when tested as in English and when adapted to the language being tested. The second objective is to inspect the effect of acquisition time on intermediate-level second-language learners' lexical density and diversity. In a test-retest study over one year, Arabic Hebrew bilinguals (n=23) wrote argumentative essays, in which lexical density and diversity were analyzed according to two approaches; a conventional approach as in English and an adapted approach more aligned with Hebrew linguistic features. In both approaches, lexical density was calculated as the number of lexical words in proportion to the total number of words and lexical diversity using the type-token ratio (TTR) and Corrected TTR (CTTR). Findings reveal statistically significant differences between the two approaches and the adapted approach allowed for cross-language and interlanguage comparisons. Although no significant increase in lexical density and diversity over the year was found, various patterns for lexical development were observed; at the second time point, students with the lowest level of lexical diversity substantially improved and more essays fell within the lexical density range of a typically written language.
用词汇密度和词汇多样性评价二语词汇发展特征
大多数关于词汇测量的研究都是在英语中进行的,在其他语言中也进行了类似的研究,没有准确地适应被测语言。本研究的第一个目的是确定在英语测试和适应被测试语言时词汇密度和词汇多样性的应用之间的差异。第二个目的是考察习得时间对中等水平第二语言学习者词汇密度和多样性的影响。在一项为期一年的复试研究中,阿拉伯语希伯来语双语者(n=23)写了议论文,根据两种方法分析了词汇密度和多样性;一种是英语中的传统方法,另一种是更符合希伯来语特点的改编方法。在这两种方法中,使用类型-标记比(TTR)和校正后的TTR (CTTR)来计算词汇密度,即词汇数量与词汇总数和词汇多样性的比例。研究结果显示,两种方法之间存在统计学上的显著差异,适应方法允许跨语言和语际比较。虽然词汇密度和多样性在一年中没有显著增加,但词汇发展的各种模式被观察到;在第二个时间点,词汇多样性水平最低的学生显著提高,更多的文章落在典型书面语言的词汇密度范围内。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信