Lexical development in FL writing

1
Lexical development in FL writing Pieter de
Haan Department of English, Radboud University
Nijmegen, The Netherlands URL http//www.let.ru.n
l/p.dehaan/ Email P.deHaan_at_let.ru.nl
Background Attempts have been made in the past
to relate FL writing development to students
proficiency level (cf. de Haan van Esch, 2005
2008). Writing development was measured on the
basis of linguistic features in essays written by
a single cohort of students in three consecutive
years. Students proficiency levels were
established on the basis of general proficiency
exam results, and related to linguistic features
found in their essays in the three consecutive
years.
Cohort
Proficiency level groups
Two individual students
Method From a single cohort of Dutch-speaking
students of English, I selected fifteen who had
written three essays each in three consecutive
years on the same topic (stating their preferred
news source, and giving reasons for their
preference), under equal conditions. Proficiency
levels were established on the basis of
proficiency exam results. These included
practical grammar, oral communication skills,
writing, and translation Dutch-English. For the
current study I looked at four features which are
potentially indicative of development 1. mean
length of T-Units (syntactic complexity) 2.
mean percentage of lexical words (lexical
density) 3. mean frequency rank (lexical
sophistication) 4. use of personal pronouns.
These were examined for the entire cohort, for
proficiency level groups, and for two individual
students.
A significant difference in MLTU is found between
years 1 and 3 (ANOVA F 3.69 P 0.033 df
2, 42).
The most proficient students write the longest
T-units in year 1 and 3, but the least proficient
students perform consistently better than the
average students.
The least proficient student is capable even of
writing slightly longer T-units in year 3 than
the most proficient student.
Result Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), find mean
T-unit length to be a clear indicator of
proficiency as it consistently increases in a
linear relationship to proficiency level school
level, program level and holistic ratings in
the studies they discuss, regardless of task,
target language or how proficiency is defined.
However, the current study only shows a
consistent increase over time results do not
reflect proficiency levels within years. Lexical
density appears to increase over the years, but
there are great individual differences in the
proficiency level groups, and in individual
students. When students increase their knowledge
of the lexicon, they should be able to produce
more sophisticated language and should make use
of less frequently occurring words (cf. Muncie,
2002). However, the students in this study use
increasingly more frequent words. Previous
research (Shaw Liu, 1998) shows that more
proficient students tend to use less personal
experience in their argumentation and that they
use less subjective reasoning as a means of
persuasion in their writing. This appears to be
confirmed in my data by a decrease in the number
of personal pronouns.
Proportion of lexical words increases slightly
over the three years (ANOVA F 0.41 P 0.665
df 2, 42).
A steady increase in lexical density is witnessed
specifically in the average group.
There are great differences between two
individual students.
Conclusion Only two of the four features studied
yielded results comparable to those reported in
previous research. Particularly T-unit length and
the notion of lexical sophistication should be
treated with care. Lexical development leads to
an increase is the use of low-frequency words
syntactic development leads to an increase is the
use of high-frequency words.
There is a striking increase in the mean
frequencies of all tokens in the essays on the
Celex database, with significant differences
between year 1 and 3 (ANOVA F 5.26 P 0.009
df 2, 42).
Two tendencies 1. use of high-frequency words
increases over years 2. most proficient students
consistently use less frequent words.
Two individual students display deviant patterns
of development.
Acknowledgement I am much indebted to Jet
Sueters, who carried out the analyses as part of
her MA thesis research.
References de Haan, P. K. van Esch (2005). The
development of writing in English and Spanish as
foreign languages. Assessing Writing, 10,
100116. de Haan, P. K. van Esch (2008).
Measuring the development of foreign language
writing competence. Porta Linguarum, 9, 721.
Muncie, J. (2002). Process writing and
vocabulary development comparing lexical
frequency profiles across drafts. System, 30,
225-235. Shaw, P., Liu, E. (1998) What develops
in the development of second-language writing?
Applied Linguistics, 19, 225-254. Wolfe-Quintero,
K., Inagaki, S., Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second
language development in writing Measures of
fluency, accuracy, and complexity (technical
Report No. 17). Honolulu, HI University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.
There is a steady decline in the use of personal
pronouns, reflecting a more detached style of
writing (ANOVA F 2.91 P 0.066 df 2, 42).
The least proficient group make the most striking
progress.
Two individual students display deviant patterns
of development.